Category Archives: Political Correctness

DES MOINES: Three potential Republican presidential candidates collectively lambasted many Democrats views on race relations and spotlighted state-level anti-abortion successes and other bedrock GOP positions in headlining one of the states premier conservative gatherings Friday in Des Moines.

More than 1,200 people, including 200 pastors, attended the Family Leadership Summit at the Community Choice Credit Union Convention Center.

Democrats have moved so fast to move their liberal agenda, sometimes I feel the left hand doesnt know what the far-left hand is doing, former Vice President Mike Pence said.

The event overall served as a one-two punch, and something of a conservative strategy preview of the next two elections cycles: hit Democrats on national issues, notably critical race theory on which speaker after speaker made rhetorical hay, while hailing the actions of conservative governors like Iowas Kim Reynolds and South Dakotas Kristi Noem, who favored more openness during the COVID-19 pandemic than other governors and aggressively pushed their anti-abortion agendas in statehouses.

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds was one of the first speakers of the day at the Family Leadership Summit.

She gave the church the keys to the state. Holy cow! Greg Baker, vice president for church engagement with The Family Leader, said of Reynolds, who is expected to seek re-election in 2022.

Several conservative leaders, including Chuck Hurley, vice president of the Family Leader and one of its long-time lobbyists, say they view last session of the Iowa Legislature as best in history for their agenda.

There hasnt been a more exciting time to fight in decades, Reynolds said of her anti-abortion position.

We still have the winning agenda, Pence said.

For his part, Pence elicited some of the most sustained applause during the day-long summit with a rebuke of critical race theory an approach to teaching and culture many see as balanced for pointing out historical and systemic racism, but others view as political correctness, a revisionist overreach aimed at making white students feel guilty.

Under the Biden administration, patriotic education has been replaced by political indoctrination, Pence said.

He said patriotic education is essential to the survival of the nation.

Instead of teaching all our children to be proud of their country, critical race theory teaches children as young as kindergarten to be ashamed of their skin color, Pence said. Critical race theory is state-sanctioned racism, pure and simple, and it should be opposed by every American everyday.

Noem said South Dakota did one week of advertising in the wake of civil unrest in 2020 in Minneapolis to make the case South Dakota was a more hospitable place for police officers to serve. As a result, the state had inquiries from 900 police officers interested in moving there from 41 states, she said.

Gov. of South Dakota Kristi Noem attended the Family Leadership Summit and championed the states' economic bounce-back from the pandemic.

I dont recognize the country I had the opportunity to grow up in. I just dont, Noem said. When I grew up, people were proud to have a job. They werent confused on the difference between boys and girls. We prayed in schools.

Noem said the United States does not suffer from systemic racism.

We do not have hatred and racism in our DNA, she said.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the Family Leader is wise to stress family and church solutions over government involvement in Americans lives.

As we stare at the problem sets that we all are aware of today, we see in our homes, on television, that the breakdown of the American family is at the core of most it, Pompeo said. Its why the left attacks it. Its why the left wants to undermine the family unit upon which this nation was built.

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said during the Family Leadership Summit that he opposes the teaching of Critical Race Theory, referring to it as "garbage."

Pompeo, a Republican who served in the Trump administration, urged conservatives to remember the former presidents anti-abortion advocacy in policy and court appointments.

We were in fact the most pro-life administration in the history of the United States of America, Pompeo said.

Tim Ried of Newell attended the summit to further his inspiration to stand up for biblical principles.

I dont think there is any hope for our country if we dont, Ried said. We are done.

Of the speakers from the event, Ried said Pompeo is the figure he would like to see run for president in 2024.

The Family Leader has it right; they have their priorities right, and its principle over politics, Ried said. My hope is not in politics. No matter what happens in this nation, my hope is in eternal things. It is not in this country.

Hannah Shady, 37, is the executive director at a pregnancy medical clinic in Preston, Iowa, and has attended the summit for multiple years now after speaking with legislators and members of Family Leader in Des Moines. She has also attended the Family Leader pro-life collation meetings.

For potential runs in 2024, Shady said Pence is a very godly man and she had never heard Pompeo prior and was impressed but doesnt have her heart set on anyone yet.

I really dont know what this country needs other than a leader who will follow the word of God and who will be unashamed and bold to share the gospel and to stand for what they believe in, Shady said. I think thats really hard for candidates to do, especially in the public eye, but I pray for all those in authority, because I just worry about what is in their hearts and the state of their health, being under such pressure all of the time.

Jeff and Sandy Rekers, 63 and 67 respectively, from Winthrop, said this was the fifth summit they have been to for Family Leaders. Jeff said he would love to see Pence, Pompeo and former President Donald Trump run for president in 2024.

A lot of people are saying Kristi Noem and that, but she is doing such a good job in South Dakota you hate to have to lose her, the same thing with Ron DeSantis (the Republican governor of Florida), Jeff said.

Both Sandy and Jeff Rekers agreed that whoever the candidate is, they have to be opposed to abortion.

We are totally against anything that has to do with critical race theory or any of that, Sandy said. What they teach in the school should be what parents want, not what the government wants.

See the original post:

Pence: Republicans 'still have the winning agenda' | News | carrollspaper.com - Carroll Daily Times Herald

Brush up on your history, and youll find that weve been stuck on repeat for some time now.

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead

History has a funny way of circling back on itself.

The facts, figures, faces and technology may change from era to era, but the dangers remain the same.

This year is no different, whatever the politicians and talking heads may say to the contrary.

Sure, theres a new guy in charge, but for the most part, were still recycling the same news stories that have kept us with one eye warily glued to the news for the past 100-odd years: War. Corruption. Brutality. Economic instability. Partisan politics. Militarism. Disease. Hunger. Greed. Violence. Poverty. Ignorance. Hatred.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Brush up on your history, and youll find that weve been stuck on repeat for some time now.

Take the United States of America in the year 2021, which is not so far different from the United States of America during theCivil Rights era, or theCold War era, or eventhe Depression era.

Go far enough afield, and youll find aspects of our troubled history mirrored in the totalitarianism of Nazi Germany, in the fascism of Mussolinis Italy, and further back in themilitarism of the Roman Empire.

Were like TV weatherman Phil Connors in Harold Ramis classic 1993 comedyGroundhog Day, forced to live the same day over and over again.

Here in the American police state, however, we continue to wake up, hoping each new day, new president and new year will somehow be different from what has come before.

Unfortunately, no matter how we change the narrative, change the characters, change the plot lines, we seem to keep ending up in the same place that we started: enslaved, divided and repeating the mistakes of the past.

You want to know about the true State of our Nation? Listen up.

The State of the Union:The state of our nation is politically polarized, controlled by forces beyond the purview of the average American, and rapidly moving the nation away from its freedom foundation. Over the past year, due in part to the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans have found themselves repeatedly subjected to egregious civil liberties violations, invasive surveillance, martial law, lockdowns, political correctness, erosions of free speech, strip searches, police shootings of unarmed citizens, government spying, the criminalization of lawful activities, warmongering, etc.

The predators of the police state have wreaked havoc on our freedoms, our communities, and our lives. The government does not listen to the citizenry, refuses to abide by the Constitution, and treats taxpayers as a source of funding and little else. Police officers shoot unarmed citizens and their household pets. Government agentsincluding local policeremain armed to the teeth and act like soldiers on a battlefield. Bloated government agencies continue to fleece taxpayers. Government technicians spy on our emails and phone calls. And government contractors make a killing by waging endless wars abroad.

Consequently, the state of our nation remains bureaucratic, debt-ridden, violent, militarized, fascist, lawless, invasive, corrupt, untrustworthy, mired in war, and unresponsive to the wishes and needs of the electorate.

Thepolicies of the American police state continueunabated.

The Executive Branch:All of theimperial powers amassed by Donald Trump, Barack Obama and George W. Bushto kill American citizens without due process, to detain suspects indefinitely, to strip Americans of their citizenship rights, to carry out mass surveillance on Americans without probable cause, to suspend laws during wartime, to disregard laws with which he might disagree, to conduct secret wars and convene secret courts, to sanction torture, to sidestep the legislatures and courts with executive orders and signing statements, to direct the military to operate beyond the reach of the law, to act as a dictator and a tyrant, above the law and beyond any real accountabilitywere inherited by Joe Biden.

Biden has these powers because every successive occupant of the Oval Office has been allowed toexpand the reach and power of the presidencythrough the use ofexecutive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statementsthat can be activated by any sitting president. Those of us who saw this eventuality coming have beenwarning for yearsabout the growing danger of the Executive Branch with its presidential toolbox of terror that could be usedand abusedby future presidents. The groundwork, wewarned, was being laid for a new kind of government where it wont matter if youre innocent or guilty, whether youre a threat to the nation or even if youre a citizen. What will matter is what the presidentor whoever happens to be occupying the Oval Office at the timethinks. And if he or she thinks youre a threat to the nation and should be locked up, then youll be locked up with no access to the protections our Constitution provides. In effect, you will disappear.

Our warnings continue to go unheeded.

The Legislative Branch:Congress may well be the mostself-serving, semi-corrupt institutionin America. Abuses of office runs the gamut from elected representatives neglecting their constituencies to engaging in self-serving practices, including the misuse of eminent domain, earmarking hundreds of millions of dollars in federal contracting in return for personal gain and campaign contributions, having inappropriate ties to lobbyist groups and incorrectly or incompletely disclosing financial information. Pork barrel spending, hastily passed legislation, partisan bickering, a skewed work ethic, graft and moral turpitude have all contributed to the publics increasing dissatisfaction with congressional leadership. No wonder only31 percent of Americans approveof the job Congress is doing.

The Judicial Branch:The Supreme Court was intended to be an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet through their deference to police power, preference for security over freedom, and evisceration of our most basic rights for the sake of order and expediency, the justices of the United States Supreme Court have become theguardians of the American police statein which we now live. As a result, sound judgment and justice have largely taken a back seat to legalism, statism and elitism, while preserving the rights of the people has been deprioritized and made to play second fiddle to both governmental and corporate interests. The courts have empowered the government to wreak havoc on our liberties. Protections for private property continue to be undermined. And Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice.

Shadow Government: Joe Biden inherited more than a bitterly divided nation teetering on the brink of financial catastrophe when he assumed office. He also inherited ashadow government, one that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officialswho are, in essence, running the country. Referred to as the Deep State, thisshadow government is comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations, contractors, paper-pushers, and button-pushers who are actually calling the shots behind the scenes right now.

Law Enforcement:By and large the term law enforcement encompasses all agents within a militarized police state, including the military, local police, and the various agencies such as the Secret Service, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. Having been given the green light to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts, Americas law enforcement officials, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace but now extensions of the military, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens. As a result, police are becoming even more militarized and weaponized, and police shootings of unarmed individuals continue to increase.

A Suspect Surveillance Society:Every dystopian sci-fi film weve ever seen is suddenly converging into this present moment in a dangerous trifecta between science, technology and a government that wants to be all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful. By tapping into your phone lines and cell phone communications, thegovernment knows what you say. By uploading all of your emails, opening your mail, and reading your Facebook posts andtext messages, thegovernment knows what you write. By monitoring your movements with the use of license plate readers, surveillance cameras and other tracking devices, thegovernment knows where you go. By churning through all of the detritus of your lifewhat you read, where you go, what you saythegovernment can predict what you will do. By mapping the synapses in your brain, scientistsand in turn, the governmentwill soon know what you remember. And by accessing your DNA, thegovernment will soon know everything else about you that they dont already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc. Consequently, in the face ofDNA evidence that places us at the scene of a crime,behavior sensing technologythat interprets our body temperature and facial tics as suspicious, and government surveillance devices that cross-check ourbiometrics,license platesand DNA against a growing database of unsolved crimes and potential criminals, we are no longer innocent until proven guilty.

Military Empire:Americas endless global wars and burgeoning military empirefunded by taxpayer dollarshave depleted our resources, over-extended our military and increased our similarities to the Roman Empire and its eventual demise. Black budget spending has completely undermined any hope of fiscal transparency, with government contractors padding their pockets at the expense of taxpayers and the nations infrastructurerailroads, water pipelines, ports, dams, bridges, airports and roadstaking the hit. The U.S.now operates approximately 800 military bases in foreign countriesaround the globe at an annual cost of at least $156 billion. The consequences of financing a global military presence are dire. In fact, David Walker, former comptroller general of the U.S., believes there arestriking similarities between Americas current situation and the factors that contributed to the fall of Rome, including declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government.

I havent even touched on the corporate state, the military industrial complex, SWAT team raids, invasive surveillance technology, zero tolerance policies in the schools, overcriminalization, or privatized prisons, to name just a few. However, what I have touched on should be enough to show that the landscape of our freedoms has already changed dramatically from what it once was and will no doubt continue to deteriorate unless Americans can find a way to wrest back control of their government and reclaim their freedoms.

So how do we go about reclaiming our freedoms and reining in our runaway government?

Essentially, there are four camps of thought among the citizenry when it comes to holding the government accountable. Which camp you fall into says a lot about your view of governmentor, at least, your view of whichever administration happens to be in power at the time.

In thefirst campare those who trust the government to do the right thing, despite the governments repeated failures in this department.

In thesecond campare those who not only dont trust the government but think the government is out to get them.

In thethird campare those who see government neither as an angel nor a devil, but merely as an entity that needs to be controlled, or as Thomas Jefferson phrased it, bound down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.

Then theres thefourth camp, comprised of individuals who pay little to no attention to the workings of government. Easily entertained, easily distracted, easily led, these are the ones who make the governments job far easier than it should be.

It is easy to be diverted, distracted and amused by the antics of politicians, the pomp and circumstance of awards shows, athletic events, and entertainment news, and the feel-good evangelism that passes for religion today.

What is far more difficult to face up to is the reality of life in America, where unemployment, poverty, inequality, injustice and violence by government agents are increasingly norms.

The powers-that-be want us to remain divided, alienated from each other based on our politics, our bank accounts, our religion, our race and our value systems. Yet as George Orwell observed, The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.

The only distinction that matters anymore is where you stand in the American police state.

In other words, youre either part of the problem or part of the solution.

America is at a crossroads.

History may show that from this point forward, we will have left behind any semblance of constitutional government and entered into a militaristic state where all citizens are suspects and security trumps freedom.

Certainly, we have moved beyond the era of representative government and entered a new age: the age of authoritarianism. Even with its constantly shifting terrain, this topsy-turvy travesty of law and government has become Americas new normal.

As long as we continue to put our politics ahead of our principlesmoral, legal and constitutionalwe the people will lose.

And you know who will keep winning by playing on our prejudices, capitalizing on our fears, deepening our distrust of our fellow citizens, and dividing us into polarized, warring camps incapable of finding consensus on the one true menace that is an immediate threat to all of our freedoms? The government.

As I make clear in my bookBattlefield America: The War on the American Peopleand its fictional counterpartThe Erik Blair Diaries, when we lose sight of the true purpose of governmentto protect our rightsand fail to keep the government in its place as our servant, we allow the government to overstep its bounds and become a tyrant that rules by brute force.

View post:

The State of Our Nation: Still Divided, Enslaved And Locked Down OpEd - Eurasia Review

During modern times, reasonable people would agree that for many of the earths inhabitants, things are better than they were hundreds of years ago.

People are freer, healthier, wealthier and less hungry. Life spans have increased, and fewer people are being killed in wars. A combination of liberalism, conservatism and capitalism are to thank for this. But in 2020, the spectacle of cities besieged by rioters with businesses aflame and looted, black-clad anarchists declaring downtown sovereign zones, police departments besieged by angry demonstrators, and the scourge of wokeness and cancel culture running rampant, one cannot help wonder how modern civilization has degenerated to such a state.

Into the breach comes a new book to explain just how all this has happened. Authored by James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose, Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender and Identity And Why This Harms Everybody is a book that should be read by anyone with a serious interest in the origins of todays social justice movement and particularly critical race theory (CRT). Present and potential USD 383 school board members, educators and parents should read this book to gain an understanding of exactly what CRT is and what it aims to do.

CRT is an integral component of postmodernism ideology, a form of neo-Marxist thinking that emerged in the 1960s at the Frankfurt School, and particularly with the postmodern critical analysis of Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. The first post-modernists were reacting largely to the failure of Marxism, the longstanding analytic framework of the academic left. Communism had lost all its credibility by 1956 except with Stalins useful idiots in academia, who were suffering from major disillusionment as their theoretical construct was falling apart.

Cynical Theories provides a detailed overview and coherent critique of postmodern critical theory its roots and its objectives and the authors rationally explain how critical theory has become the philosophical framework that underwrites such various subjects as womens studies, queer studies, gender studies, postcolonial studies, fat studies, disability studies and critical race theory.

Lindsay and Pluckrose identify the philosophys two core principles: the postmodern knowledge principle radical skepticism about whether objective knowledge or truth is obtainable and a commitment to cultural constructivism; and the postmodern political principle a belief that society is formed of systems of power and hierarchies, which decide what can be known and how. Postmodernism is characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, relativism, a general suspicion of reason, and at its core is the belief in the oppressive nature of American society and the advocacy of identity politics, thus making it imperative for those oppressed to dismantle the entire system in the name of social justice.

The authors reveal that some of postmodernisms core beliefs include: All white people are racist, all men are sexist, sex is not biological, language can be literal violence, denial of gender identity is killing people, the wish to remedy disability and obesity is hateful, and everything needs to be decolonized. Such beliefs, they say, congealed into a sort of gospel of social justice, reified into a dogma that cannot ever be challenged without the critic instantly indicting himself as an oppressive white supremacist. Moreover, the traditional liberal critical resources of logic, reason, evidence and science are absolutely disdained by todays social critics, under the supposition that such values are themselves infected or colonized by ideas such as patriarchy and white supremacy.

Unless one is a masochist and wants to attempt to read the seminal works of critical theory, Pluckrose and Lindsay are adept at translating the linguistic mash up of critical theorys incomprehensible academic jargon, steeped in words such as unessentializable, presencing, decoloniality, dialectic enigmatic theory, and neodeconstructive rationalism, and its bewildering sentences, dense opacity, and insufferable pompousness. Consider the following sentence: In consonance with my emphasis on the performance relations of double and conflicted definition, the theorized prescription for a practical politics implicit in these readings is for a multi-pronged movement whose idealist and materialistic impulse, whose minority-model and universalist-model strategies, and for that matter whose gender-separatist and gender-integrative analyses would likewise proceed in parallel without any high premium placed on rationalization between them.

CRT then emerges from the linguistic gobbleygook of social science departments, where the thinking is fuzzy headed, the scholarship is second-rate and the writing is third-rate. Few intellectual currents are less coherent and are more divorced from reality and clarity than postmodernism. In this book, Lindsay and Pluckrose illuminate how academia fell to such a low-level of critical self-awareness, and how some of the institutions of American society and many in the public have followed it into the postmodern follies.

So what exactly is critical race theory? CRTs core tenet is that racism is ubiquitous in America; it is the every day, every waking minute experience of people who are not white. White supremacy is systemic and benefits white people. The authors maintain that CRT unambiguously asserts that racism is present everywhere and always, and persistently works against non-white people who are aware of this, and for the benefit of white people, who tend not to be aware of it, as is their privilege. No matter what goodness resides in their heart, every single white person is a racist and no matter their station in life, every single non-white person is oppressed both assumptions based merely on skin color. The authors believe that seeing racism everywhere and believing every white person is a privileged racist will do nothing more than increase hostility and a reluctance to cooperate with worthwhile initiatives to improve social harmony in America.

The authors maintain that CRT has a paranoid mindset, which assumes racism is everywhere, always just waiting to rear its ugly head. They believe it will prove to be extremely unhelpful and unhealthy to those who adopt it, especially young children. If young people are indoctrinated to read insult, hostility and prejudice into every interaction, they may increasingly see the world as hostile to them and fail to thrive in it.

The authors, both committed liberals, wrote this book as a warning and a plea. They warn that if the divisive postmodern critical theory is not challenged and exposed to the people for what it really is, the social fabric of America and other Western liberal democracies will be ripped apart by its hateful divisiveness, suffocating political correctness and destructive identity politics. The authors lament that a billions of dollars a year industry of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is thriving on college campuses, corporations and other institutions, extending postmodern theorys tentacles into the fabric of western liberal democracies. Once confined to college campuses, the authors now demonstrate how emotional activism instead of thoughtful discourse is affecting the lives of ordinary Americans by requiring them to cope with the least tolerant and most authoritarian ideology that the world has had to deal with since the fall of communism.

They plead for a return to liberal values that have proven incrementally successful in the march of human progress and in advancing the causes of social justice over time. Social justice goals are noble the improvement of mankind and the world we live in. But postmodern theory provides the absolute worst means to accomplish those goals because it trades on fear, ignorance, suspicion and stereotypes. Our community may eventually face the pressure to teach CRT because the social justice movement is relentless in its totalitarian attitudes and methods. Cynical Theories provides the general reader an excellent summation of the postmodern movement and should be read by those concerned about our community and its schools, and whether we want a united community or a divided community.

Bob Funk is a retired U.S. Marine and a retired high school principal.

See original here:

'Cynical Theories' examines the dangers of critical race theory - Manhattan Mercury

Mike Judge critiques the nonsense of the modern world in this dystopian 2006 comedy, which, today, feels more like a documentary

By Luke Buckmaster / The Guardian

Are we living in the age of stupid? The era of the idiot? The answer of course is yes, with examples of monstrous moronicism everywhere from climate deniers to the plandemic crowd who believe COVID-19 was cooked up in Bill Gates basement. On the other hand, human beings have always been illogical creatures. A better question is whether we are, as a species, becoming dumberer. If this is already the era of the idiot, what comes next?

An Idiocracy, according to film-maker Mike Judge. The Beavis and Butt-head, King of the Hill and Silicon Valley creators dystopian 2006 comedy (which he directed and co-wrote with Ethan Cohen) arrived with its own terminology to help us prepare for the upcoming reality TV special that we may call The Collapse of Reality Itself.

Suggesting that morons rather than nerds will inherit the earth, and that the results will be catastrophic, the film begins with a context-setting intro so real it hurts. Judge cuts between an intelligent adult couple discussing why they wont be having children right now (not with the market the way it is) and a ... less intelligent couple breeding like rabbits (I thought youse was on the pill or some shit?).

Observing that evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence, the narrator explains that with no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most and left the intelligent to become an endangered species.

In the current era I couldnt help but think of the BirthStrikers, taking a reasoned response to the climate crisis while hordes of the hoi polloi refuse to accept there is even a problem. Also that famous quote from Charles Bukowski: The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.

The story follows mellow everyman Joe Bauers (Luke Wilson), who is selected by the US army to participate in an experiment to test cryogenic hibernation. Hes chosen because hes average in every way: average IQ; averagely inoffensive personality; even an average heart rate. Placed inside a machine and expected to wake up one year later, the experiment goes awry and instead Joe and his fellow participant a sex worker named Rita (Maya Rudolph) emerge 500 years later. Its the year 2505 and Joe is now the smartest person on earth by a very wide margin.

The environment has crumbled and garbage is stacked in huge mounds, like the mountains of rubbish in WALL-E. A blunt-smoking doctor at the hospital (Justin Long) is shocked that Joe doesnt have a barcode on his arm, like everybody else, and asks, Why come you no have a tattoo? Hes one of the more eloquent people; most speak a butchered dialect combining groans, grunts, insults and slang words.

In a 2017 interview discussing the end of political correctness, Terry Crews who plays President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho described Idiocracy as so prophetic in so many ways it actually scares people.

When Camacho lets off rounds of an automatic rifle to get peoples attention in the House of Representatives (now called the House of Representin), its hard not to think of the carnival US politics became under Trump.

Many visual and verbal gags highlight a capitalist hellscape, in which language has basically become a function of advertising. We see a billboard, for instance, with the spiel: If you dont smoke Tarrlytons ... Fuck you! Every time customers enter Costco, an employee at the door greets them with: Welcome to Costco, I love you.

The restaurant chain Fuddruckers has changed its name to Buttfuckers. The most popular show on TV is called Ow, My Balls! and the current Oscar winner is a single unbroken shot of a naked butt. A Gatorade-like sports drink called Brawndo (the thirst mutilator) has replaced water; people even water crops with it (which of course no longer grow). Fox News is the only news source. Starbucks offers handjobs.

The films savage critique of American corporatization may be why 20th Century Fox, its distributor, got cold feet and effectively buried it, releasing Idiocracy in just enough cinemas (without so much as a theatrical trailer) to satisfy contractual requirements. The film got bigger with time and became a cult hit, roughly mirroring the trajectory of Judges previous feature Office Space (which also achieved popularity only on home release).

The jokes flow thick and fast and the premise, while a little one-note, never gets old. The underlying message of course is that humans ought to take such things as science, research and knowledge seriously, lest we create our own Idiocracy.

Will we heed the warning? In the cacophony of modern existence, with so much stupidity flying at us from so many directions, its difficult to be optimistic. One day future humans may very well ask provided they are still capable of forming a sentence why come we no listen?

Idiocracy is available to stream via Google Play, Amazon and iTunes.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

Read more:

A disturbingly prophetic look at the future of America and our era of stupidity -

I happened to mention the phrase culture war in a 1996 conversation with Irving Kristol, who was a contributor to these pages and always a penetrating observer of contemporary American life. The culture war is over, Irving said, then paused and added: We lost. Alive today, Irving would have been sadly reaffirmed in his declaration, surprised perhaps only at the extent of the loss and the cost it has entailed.

His we would include those people who believe in the rewards owed to effort and merit, the value of tradition, and the crucial significance of liberty. We would distinctly not include those who believe in the importance of spreading diversity, inclusion and equity as conceived by present-day universities. Nor would it include those whose sense of virtue derives from their putative hunger for social justice and their willingness to make severe judgments of others based on lapses from political correctness. These people are they, the woke, who have, as Kristol had it, won the culture war.

The extent of the woke victory is perhaps best demonstrated by the long list of cultural institutions they have captured and now control. Two of the countrys important newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post, are unashamedly woke. The New Yorker and the Atlantic have ceased to be general-interest magazines and are now specific-interest publicationsthat interest being the spread of woke ideas. The major television networks early fell in line without a fight.

Universities, in their humanities and social-sciences divisions, are not merely devoted to the propagation of woke ideas but initiate most of them. In turning away from the ideals of authority and objectivity in favor of clearly partisan views, these institutions have lost their former prestige yet are apparently sustained by the confidence that preaching woke doctrine is a higher calling.

Under the deep division in the country, certain prizesPulitzers, MacArthur grants, honorary degreesgo almost exclusively to people whose views are woke. (Presidential medalsin the humanities, in the arts, for freedomare dictated by whether the president in office is woke or not.) Under political correctness, one of the main planks in the woke platform, freedom in the arts is vastly curtailed owing to strictures against what is known as appropriation, which disapproves of whites writing about blacks, men about women, heterosexuals about homosexuals. Under woke culture, art is vastly inhibited; humor, because so much of comedy is politically incorrect, largely excluded.

Go here to read the rest:

The Culture War Must Go On - The Wall Street Journal

Breadcrumb Trail Links

How should the science community respond when representation of evidence and conclusions is incomplete, erroneous, self-serving, or misleading?

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

One of the most important questions raised by governmental responses to the COVID crisis is Who should speak for science in the public arena?

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Every government in the world claims that its response to this health crisis is science-based. Scientific papers and authorities are liberally quoted in describing the nature of the virus, the best ways to combat its spread, and the role of science and technology in developing vaccines as the ultimate protective solution.

But who is doing most of this quoting of science, this referencing of scientific authority, and this presentation of the science of COVID to the public? Often it is not the scientists speaking directly for themselves but politicians, civil servants and media commentators.

In the case of politicians, few have a solid background in the basic sciences and most of us would have difficulty on our own clearly explaining the operations of a flashlight battery let alone that of a virus, even with the help of Professor Google. This shaky grasp of the application of science to a public issue makes it more likely that the politicians choice as to what science to reference and how to apply it will be more strongly influenced by non-scientific factors such as political ideology and partisan positions. For example, since the Trudeau government has embraced critical race theory and identity politics, will it not be more inclined to embrace and promote the conclusions of a scientist or science team that has also embraced these theories than the findings of a scientist or science team that ignores or even rejects them?

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Civil servants may well have scientific degrees and expertise but they are lodged in public bureaucracies, hierarchically organized with multiple divisions of responsibility and a fundamentally different approach to information processing and decision making than that prescribed by the scientific method. Thus the filtering of scientific observations and hypotheses through a bureaucratic system is likely to bring yet another bias to the application of science to a public issue.

And in the case of the communication of science by public media commentators, this cannot help but be influenced, at least in part, by the media-world reality that negative is more newsworthy than positive, feelings are more newsworthy than facts, disagreement is more newsworthy than consensus and short-run is more newsworthy than long-run. Public policy guided mainly by newsworthy science is not truly science-based policy.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Calling for an expanded and direct communications role for scientists in the public square on public issues is not, however, without its own challenges. For example, the language and style in which scientists normally communicate with each other are not usually the best language and style for communicating with the public. Are scientists able and willing to make the adjustments required to be more effective public communicators and will those adjustments be supported or misunderstood by fellow scientists?

How should the science community respond when the representation of scientific evidence and conclusions by politicians, bureaucrats, and media commentators is incomplete, erroneous, self-serving, or misleading? Should scientists publicly challenge and correct such representations even if doing so might result in a possible withdrawal of government funding for the science in question?

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

And how should the science community respond when the acceptance and use of scientific findings by a government or funding body is heavily influenced by non-scientific ideologies such as those of critical race theory and identity politics? Suppose, for example, that a scientific paper published by a research team is scientifically flawed but the team itself satisfies all the criteria of political correctness possessing gender balance and racial diversity and expressing itself in appropriately nuanced language. Should the data and hypotheses of such a paper be scrutinized and challenged by other scientists via the tried and true procedures of the scientific method if doing so might generate public accusations of prejudice and intolerance? In other words, how should the science community respond if faulty science can be insulated from genuine scientific analysis and correction by clothing it in politically appealing garb?

Over the coming months, various internal meetings and external conferences will be held to evaluate the governmental and societal responses to the COVID crisis and the lessons to be learned from them. One of the largest will be the annual Canadian Science Policy Conference in November. A priority question to be addressed by such gatherings is Who should speak for science in the public square?

Preston Manning was the founder of the Reform Party of Canada, and served as leader of the official Opposition in Parliament.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

In-depth reporting on the innovation economy from The Logic, brought to you in partnership with the Financial Post.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the Financial Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Financial Post Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Read more:

Preston Manning: Who should speak for science in the public arena? - Financial Post

The three authors go on:

Animosity toward Democratic-linked groups predicts Trump support, rather remarkably, across the political spectrum. Further, given the decisive role that Independents can play in elections, these results suggest that reservoirs of animosity are not necessarily specific to a particular party, and may therefore be tapped by any political elite.

Before Trump took center stage in 2015, Republican leaders were determined to stymie Democratic policy initiatives, resist compromise, and make it clear that Republicans desire to score political victories and win back power from Democrats, Kane wrote in his email, but establishment Republicans generally did not openly demonize, much less dehumanize, Democratic politicians at the national level.

Trump, Kane continued,

wantonly disregarded this norm, and now Trumps base may come to expect future Republican elites to be willing to do the same. If this practice eventually comes to be seen as a winning strategy for Republican politicians as a whole, it could bring us into a new era of polarization wherein Republican cooperation with the Demon Rats is seen not just as undesirable, but thoroughly unconscionable.

Most significantly, in Masons view, is that

there is a faction in American politics that has moved from party to party, can be recruited from either party, and responds especially well to hatred of marginalized groups. Theyre not just Republicans or Democrats, theyre a third faction that targets parties.

Bipartisanship, Mason continued in a lengthy Twitter thread, is not the answer to the problem. We need to confront this particular faction of Americans who have been uniquely visible and anti-democratic since before the Civil War (when they were Democrats).

In their paper, Mason, Wronski and Kane conclude:

This research reveals a wellspring of animus against marginalized groups in the United States that can be harnessed and activated for political gain. Trumps unique ability to do so is not the only cause for normative concern. Instead, we should take note that these attitudes exist across both parties and among nonpartisans. Though they may remain relatively latent when leaders and parties draw attention elsewhere, the right leader can activate these attitudes and fold them into voters political judgments. Should America wish to become a fully multiracial democracy, it will need to reconcile with these hostile attitudes themselves.

Adam Enders, a political scientist at the University of Louisville, and Uscinski, in their June 2021 paper On Modeling the Social-Psychological Foundations of Support for Donald Trump describe a Trump voter profile: an amalgamation of attitudes about, for example, racial groups, immigrants and political correctness that rivals partisanship and ideology as predictors of Trump support and is negatively related to support for mainstream Republican candidates.

In an email, Enders described this profile as fitting those attracted to Trumps

relatively explicit appeal to xenophobia, racial prejudice, authoritarianism, sexism, conspiracy thinking, in combination with his outsider status that gives him credibility as the anti-establishment candidate. The Trump voter profile is a constellation of social-psychological attitudes about various racial groups, women, immigrants, and conspiracy theories that uniquely predict support for Donald Trump.

Uscinski and Enders are the lead authors of a forthcoming paper, American Politics in Two Dimensions: Partisan and Ideological Identities versus Anti-Establishment Orientations, in which they argue that

Our current conceptualization of mass opinion is missing something. Specifically, we theorize that an underappreciated, albeit ever-present, dimension of opinion explains many of the problematic attitudes and behaviors gripping contemporary politics. This dimension, which we label anti-establishment, rather than explaining ones attitudes about and behaviors toward the opposing political coalition, captures ones orientation toward the established political order irrespective of partisanship and ideology.

In the case of Trump and other anti-democratic leaders around the world, Uscinski and Enders contend that

anti-establishment sentiments are an important ingredient of support for populist leaders, conspiratorial beliefs, and political violence. And, while we contend that this dimension is orthogonal to the left-right dimension of opinion along which partisan and ideological concerns are oriented, we also theorize that it can be activated by strategic partisan politicians. As such, phenomena which are oftentimes interpreted as expressions of far-right or far-left orientations may not be borne of left-right views at all, but rather of the assimilation of anti-establishment sentiments into mainstream politics by elites.

Anti-establishment voters, Uscinski and Enders write, are more likely to believe that the one percent controls the economy for their own good, believe that a deep state is embedded within the government and believe that the mainstream media is deliberately misleading us. Such voters are more prevalent among younger people, those with lower incomes, those with less formal education, and among racial and ethnic minority groups. In other words, it is groups who have historically occupied a tenuous position in the American socio-economic structure.

The most intensely partisan voters very strong Democrats and very strong Republicans are the least anti-establishment, according to Uscinski and Enders:

Those on the extremes of partisan and ideological identity exhibit lower levels of most of these psychological predispositions. In other words, extreme partisans and ideologues are more likely to express civil attitudes and agreeable personality characteristics than less extreme partisans and ideologues; this contradicts growing concerns over the relationship between left-right extremism and antisocial attitudes and behaviors. We suspect this finding is due to strong partisans and ideologues being wedded to, and entrenched within, the established political order. Their organized, relatively constrained orientation toward the political landscape is built on the objects of establishment politics: the parties, party elites and familiar ideological objects.

That, in turn, leads Uscinski and Enders to another contrarian conclusion:

We find that an additional anti-establishment dimension of opinion can, at least partially, account for the acceptance of political violence, distrust in government, belief in conspiracy theories, and support for outsider candidates. Although it is intuitive to attribute contemporary political dysfunction to left-right extremism and partisan tribalism, we argue that many elements of this dysfunction stem from the activation of anti-establishment orientations.

One politician whose appeal was similar to Trumps, as many have noted, was George Wallace, the segregationist governor of Alabama, who ran for president four times in the 1960s and 1970s, openly using anti-Black rhetoric.

More:

Opinion | Trumps Cult of Animosity Shows No Sign of Letting Up - The New York Times

A few comments on your June 23 Edition:

1. "It's Enough" - Article by J. Goren

Just as their American counterparts, Canadian Jews are finally realizing that European and North American woke progressive liberals are a farce. Justin and his gang of liberal cowards are scared witless of the Muslim extremists. They cater to their every whim and will never stand by Israel. They prefer political correctness and virtue signaling to true justice. This cowardly attitude is destroying Western Europe and America.

2. Jewish Pride and Courage - Letter.

I agree with this letter 100% - a massive counterprotest in support of Israel should have been organized in front of Israel's consulate in Westmount as an unequivocal show of support to Israel and its people. The aggressive and hostile protestors were given free reign to aggressively protest not once, but many many times. Next time I will personally organize a rally. I am so sick of not speaking out.

Illya Kuryalin

Momtreal

Originally posted here:

Comments on the June 23rd Suburban | Letters To Editor | thesuburban.com - The Suburban Newspaper

Savage right-wingers who are also no-exceptions Trump loyalists, like Mo Brooks, are about the only candidates safe from a primary purge on ideological grounds. Photo: Shawn Thew/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

Heading toward the 2022 midterm elections, Republican-watchers are fascinated by the aggressive role Donald Trump intends to play in GOP primaries. Aside from his plans of vengeance toward those who egregiously crossed him at some point over the past half-century, he is selectively backing candidates whom he can claim as his very own. Indeed, the former president has already endorsed ten Senate candidates, two House candidates, and five candidates for state offices (one for a 2021 election). More important, his potential endorsements have Republican candidates and proto-candidates scrambling to prove their MAGA credentials so as to head off, or at least partially neutralize, the possibility that the Boss will give the magic nod to an opponent. The most obvious example of this phenomenon is in the Ohio U.S. Senate race, during which candidates had an Apprentice-style audition with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in March, with one aspirant, J.D. Vance, subsequently launching his candidacy by apologizing for criticisms of the 45th president back in 2016.

But loyalty to Trump isnt the only essential trait for Republican candidates in a party that (in this century, at least) seems haunted by fears of heresy more than it is tempted by dreams of diversity and outreach. Trumpism has simply been added to previous conservative litmus tests. Revealingly, Herschel Walker one high-profile potential candidate for the U.S. Senate whom Trump has strongly encouraged to enter the race is alarming some conservatives in Georgia because he hasnt been ideologically vetted, as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports:

Herschel Walker will need to come back to Georgia and campaign. He will need to show that he is a conservative, Doug Collins, a former Republican congressman and 2020 Senate candidate, said on his radio show.

I have never heard Herschel Walkers position on pro-life. I havent, Collins said. Ive never heard his position on gun control. Ive never heard his position on a lot of these issues that are conservative issues.

This demand was significant because Collins himself is a MAGA stalwart, having served as Trumps chief defender on the House Judiciary Committee during the former presidents first impeachment. But he wont take Trumps word for it that Walker is ideologically kosher: The current Republican front-runner for the 2022 Senate nomination needs to publicly pledge his allegiance to culture-war causes like banning abortion and outlawing any outlawing of a single gun.

Certainly, abortion and guns represent two major issues on which any sort of heterodoxy is disqualifying for nearly all Republican candidates. The once-robust pro-choice Republican caucus in Congress is now down to two veteran senators: Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. A good indication of how obligatory anti-abortion views have become was provided by recent party-switcher Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey. He had a strongly pro-choice voting record as a Democrat, but one of his first House votes as a Republican was on behalf of a failed effort to force a bill banning all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy onto the floor. Similarly, one of the vanishingly few congressional Republicans open to any kind of gun regulation, Senator Pat Toomey, is retiring next year. On both of these cultural issues, Republican opinion seems to be hardening. The ascendant conservative view on reproductive rights is now fetal personhood as a matter of federal constitutional law, rather than simply a reversal of Roe v. Wade, and a return of abortion regulation to the states. And on guns, the big conservative trend is constitutional carry, a rejection of any firearms licensing provisions, which is closely associated with the even more dangerous idea that the Second Amendment was designed to give teeth to a right to revolution against a tyrannical government.

But these are hardly the only litmus tests of true conservatism that survived or even flourished in the Trump era. Tax increases remain verboten, as evidenced by their absence from the recent bipartisan infrastructure package in the Senate. Anti-government rhetoric, an inheritance from the Goldwater-to-Reagan conservative movement that was intensified by the tea-party phenomenon of the Obama era, now has even greater power thanks to the Trumpian doctrines of a traitorous deep state and a corrupt Swamp dominating Washington. Hostility to organized labor is now universal in a party that used to more than occasionally secure union endorsements for its candidates (unless you take seriously the eccentric endorsement by Marco Rubio of an effort to organize Amazon workers or the more general revolt against woke corporations).

There are obviously some tenets of traditional conservatism that Trump has called into doubt as orthodoxy. Several are really restorations of Old Right thinking: the abandonment of free-trade principles for a return to the protectionist creed that animated Republicans from the Civil War to World War II, an America First repudiation of neoconservative commitments to alliances and interventionism, and a return to the nativism that has always been just under the surface in Republican politics. While Trumps sometimes incoherent views on these topics havent become totally obligatory for Republicans just yet, gestures in his direction probably are required. Its hard to imagine, for example, more than a smattering of Republicans vocally opposing a border wall, or calling for closer trade relations with China, or saying something nice about NATO, much less the United Nations. In international relations, Trumps determination to throw money at the Pentagon and his unremitting bellicosity have made his isolationist tendencies more acceptable to the Cold War set.

Theres one very loud new habit of Republicans that Trump has elevated from a fringe extremist preoccupation into a near-universal habit in the GOP: the attacks on political correctness, wokeness, cancel culture, and now critical race theory that present a violent antipathy to cultural changes deemed threatening to white patriarchal hegemony (or, stated more neutrally, to the Great America Trump has promised to bring back). All these phantom menaces are nicely designed to make old-school racism and sexism respectable.

All in all, its a complicated landscape that ambitious Republicans must navigate to safely rise within the Trumpified GOP. The safest are hard-core conservatives of the old school who downplay Reaganite views that are now out of fashion and who add in conspicuous personal loyalty to Trump and whatever he wants at any given moment. Examples of this formula are Ted Cruz, the members of the House Freedom Caucus, and, above all, Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Mo Brooks, who is still doing penance for endorsing Cruz in 2016, in part by personally participating in Trumps January 6 insurrectionary rally. Trump is close to the once-unlikely accomplishment of making true conservatism and Trumpism identical. The big question is whether his personal presence as a presidential candidate or a hurricane-force disrupter is necessary to seal the deal.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Read this article:

Its Tough to Prove Youre a True Conservative in the Trump Era - New York Magazine

Media should speak for moderates, tooFox News gets a large amount of attention from left wingers.On the other hand, I dont notice NPR, CNN, or Mother Jones getting much attention from the right.By focusing so much on this one right-wing source, it would appear theyre acknowledging theres less of them.The mainstream media tends to lean Democrat.Just like with the government, those who dont consider themselves liberal or conservative (the huge number of Americans who tend to decide elections) are not represented much in the media.Would it change anything if they did have influence?I cant speak for other moderates who dont consider themselves liberal or conservative, but here are some questions I could see a mainstream media which doesnt lean Democrat that could be asked:Given that Blacks suffered greatly from policies Joe Biden helped create, why would the intelligent Barack Obama pick him as vice president? Why do anti-war candidates like Tulsi Gabbard and Howard Dean never become vice president?Why does peak oil get so much more attention than other resources that are also depleting?Given the claim that organic produces higher yields in developing countries, food is wasted giving it to farm animals, and vegan food is cheap, why should we believe a mostly vegan and organic diet cant feed the world?Since Wall Street gives huge donations to both parties, maybe they should stop donating if voter suppression bothers them.Colin YunickCharlton

Black leaders should denounce vulgarityThe BET awards, which highlight Black achievement, awarded Cardi B a Grammy and a Video of The Year award for her Megan Thee Stallion-assisted No. 1 hit WAP. A celebration of deviant sexuality was also part of the evenings festivities.If youre like me, who had a hard time keeping up with the cool kids, the acronym WAP might bestir a memory from the Dark Ages, when a similar term was used by cloddish xenophobes in regard to Italian immigrants.No, that would be totally out of place in this gathering, where delicate sensibilities and political correctness charge the atmosphere.If, like me, you dont have a confidant whos not only wise to the ways of the world, but tech-savvy to boot, to provide the lyrical content of this masterpiece.Im a bit tongue-tied to even attempt to gently describe the content. Hint: Its about sex and its graphic. Most likely the easiest way to access this, what I would call trash, would be your teenagers smartphones. Caution: It could provide some mutual embarrassment.Black leaders should denounce events such as the BET Awards.They arent true allies in helping boost Black societys PR problem, if one exists. I see them as a Trojan Horse.Gordon F. SchaufelbergAmsterdam

Caroline Streets issues are not newThere have been problems on Caroline Street since Caroline Street became the late night place to party in Saratoga Springs.The commissioner of Public Safety should know this, and I am sure the assistant police chief knows this.The problems have not started with BLM or are caused by gangs from Albany.The city has been trying to solve this problem for years.One former Public Safety commissioner tried to get the bars to close earlier. The bars fought this for months and the city backed off.The city needs to address the problems on Caroline Street, but trying to blame outside influences will not solve the problem.We are in the summer season, and it is discouraging that the Public Safety commissioner and the assistant police chief seem so unprepared to handle a problem that the city faces every summer.Karen KlotzSaratoga Springs

Online lettersCommenters to online letters who fail to follow rules against name-calling, profanity, threats, libel or other inappropriate language will have their comments removed and their commenting privileges withdrawn.

To report inappropriate online comments, email Editorial Page Editor Mark Mahoney at[emailprotected]

Categories: Letters to the Editor, Opinion

Link:

Letters to the Editor Tuesday, July 6 - The Daily Gazette