Category Archives: Political Correctness

The Issue: Delays in New Yorks distribution of the COVID vaccine that caused doses to be thrown out.

Only in New York would bureaucratic red tape hamper the distribution of the badly needed COVID vaccine (Rx for Vax Disaster, Editorial, Jan. 13).

I work for a city-run agency so Im not surprised. Vaccines going to waste because not enough of the selected group can receive the shot and fining health-care providers for administering vaccines to people out of order on the priority list only illustrate how bureaucracy and unnecessary paperwork slow down badly needed services in the city.

This reminds me of when Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans and the government didnt want New Orleans residents to use their private boats to save people from the flood waters until they received approval from FEMA.

Since when has government approval been a requirement to save lives?

James Johnson

Brooklyn

At the beginning of the pandemic, people waited for Gov. Cuomos daily reports to give us updates and reassure us.

Now, despot Cuomo is holding the vaccine hostage if his protocols are not met. He would rather they be discarded than have them put into our arms if its not approved by him.

His idiotic feuding with the mayor is ridiculous. I cant believe Im saying this, but for once Mayor de Blasio has become the voice of reason.

S. Kane

Brooklyn

Doses of life-saving vaccine have been thrown away because they were about to expire, and New Yorks Democratic monolith mandates threatened the providers with dire penalties if any were used outside of the politically correct guidelines.

Grim-Reaper Andys actions resulting in thousands of nursing-home deaths havent even been fully documented, and as more people die because he values political appearance over rational performance, all you gotta vote Democratic idiots should realize you share the bloody hands Andy cant ever clean. Shame on you all.

Richard J. Ceonzo

Highland

The vaccine has been out since December 2020, and there seem to be problems getting the needle into the arms of people who so desperately want our society to be healed of COVID.

Cuomo has complicated the distribution of it so much that it has problems reaching the general public. Lets simplify the process so that we can expedite everyone to get a dose.

One possible solution: Have the centers that test for COVID also have a supply of the vaccine.

For example, here in Co-Op City, theres a place for the testing of the virus that constantly has long lines of those waiting to be tested.

If wed started giving those at this facility the vaccine since last month, we would be further down the road to getting this virus behind us. It sounds like common sense to me.

Tom Tortorella

The Bronx

New York City has lagged way behind in giving vaccines, despite a stockpile of medical equipment.

Critics charge that state rules are too restrictive. In one day, Israel immunized more people than New York City has since Dec. 14, and they have similar populations. Furthermore, New York City vaccinated 6 million against smallpox in one month in 1947.

Cuomos incompetence and stupidity is costing lives every day.

Manny Martin

Manhattan

Is it any surprise that our dynamic duo of Cuomo and de Blasio have failed us again?

Cuomo is more concerned with political correctness than with speed and efficiency, hence his micromanagement and the bottleneck of distribution.

The quicker the distribution, the quicker the herd immunity, the quicker everyone will benefit. Political correctness and the fear of offending someone or a particular group is literally killing us.

Vaccines remain unadministered, doses have to be thrown away for fear of being fined for vaccinating out of turn, and Cuomo only cares about his political career.

What sheer idiocy and foolishness.

Karl Olsen

Watervliet

Read this article:

Letters to the editor Jan. 14, 2021 - New York Post

To the Times:

Political correctness is destroying the Democratic Party. The same vision has been playing in my head over and over again for the last four years.

Michelle Obama, standing at the podium, delivering her speech at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. "When they go low, we go high!" Never before or since have I heard a respected national Democratic figure describe in one sentence the failing strategy that the Democrats continue to employ year after year, from one election to the next. Their fear of offending anyone, raising their voices, showing some backbone, is in and of itself offensive to this Democrat.They say that the best defense is a good offense. What happens when you have neither?

Donald Trump and his allies can directly attribute their unthinkably remarkable success to an (offensive) offense that the Democrats have had no defense for. Obnoxious, insulting, cruel, ignorant, criminal; these are just few of the many adjectives that can be used to describe Trump's behavior. His pathological lying and lack of integrity, dignity and above all else, empathy, defies any and all logic of the characteristics that one would expect of their President. Yet the Democrats, predictably, remained polite, their dignity and integrity on full display. When will they learn that there is only one way to beat an obnoxious, lying, low-life con man that so skillfully manipulates half of the country into pleading their loyalty to him. And that is to play his game. If you can't beat em, join em.

Daniel Corcoran, Swarthmore

Here is the original post:

Letter to the Editor: Dems have to play hardball to win - The Delaware County Daily Times

On Tuesday, Harvard University removed Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY) from one of the advisory committees for its school of public policy. In doing so, Harvard joined a growing list of businesses and other institutions that are making complex choices about how to engage with politicians who amplified President Trumps false claims of fraud in the 2020 election. Harvards message wasnt just about politics though; it was intended to be an unambiguous leadership lesson to both its students and the nation.

Dont be a Stefanik.

The conservative Congresswoman, who represents a large portion of upstate New York, has been one of the Presidents most vocal supporters, and following Trumps failed reelection campaign, Stefanik was one of the 147 members of Congress who voted to reject the certification of Joe Bidens electoral college victory. The congresswoman, who has been frequently lauded by Trump for defending him during his impeachment last year, is a steadfast supporter of the President, and joined him at his controversial rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma last summer. Stefanik, who handily won reelection this past November, has been seen as a rising star in the Republican Party, yet she has also faced withering criticism in her home district for her comments on the election.

It appears that criticism has now extended to Cambridge, Massachusetts as well.

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 21: Representative Elise Stefanik, a Republican from New York, listens ... [+] during a House Intelligence Committee impeachment inquiry hearing on Capitol Hill November 21, 2019 in Washington, DC. The committee heard testimony during the fifth day of open hearings in the impeachment inquiry against U.S. President Donald Trump, whom House Democrats say held back U.S. military aid for Ukraine while demanding it investigate his political rivals. (Photo by Andrew Harrer-Pool/Getty Images)

In a message to the Senior Advisory Committee of the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School on Tuesday, the Kennedy Schools Dean, Douglas Elmendorf explained his decision to remove Congresswoman Stefanik, a Harvard alumnus, from the committee after she declined his request to resign.

My request was not about political parties, political ideology, or her choice of candidate for president, Elmendorf wrote. Rather, in my assessment, Elise has made public assertions about voter fraud in Novembers presidential election that have no basis in evidence, and she has made public statements about court actions related to the election that are incorrect. Moreover, these assertions and statements do not reflect policy disagreements but bear on the foundations of the electoral process through which this countrys leaders are chosen.

In other words, Elmendorf asserted that it was Stefaniks failure to speak and act consistently with the fundamental norms of American democracy that cost her the role on the committee a damning assessment from a school that is one of the flagship institutions on the topic.

Stefanik, for her part, strongly criticized the decision. In a statement she tweeted on Tuesday, Stefanik said the decision by Harvard's administration to cower and cave to the woke Left will continue to erode diversity of thought.

The Ivory Towers march toward a monoculture of like-minded, intolerant liberal views demonstrates the sneering disdain for everyday Americans and will instill a culture of fear for students who will understand that a conservative viewpoint will not be tolerated and will be silenced. Stefanik added.

While Stefaniks words and actions may very well play to her political base as well as the outgoing Presidents supporters, the removal from an advisory committee of her alma mater is an embarrassing turn of events for someone who many saw as a one of the next-generation stars of the GOP. It also reinforces the fast-moving shift in attitude following the violent riots in the nations capital last week.

Through its decision, Harvard is making Stefanik a cautionary tale for what happens when elected officials and other leaders stretch the credulity of their statements beyond the boundaries of constructive and, some might say even civil, discourse. With no empiracal evidence to support her claims regarding the fairness of the recent elections, it is not surprising that the Kennedy School, one of the nations leading public policy schools, found her actions to be beyond the pale of mere policy disputes.

Harvard may be one of the first, but will unquestionably not be the last, of the institutions that will face similar decisions in the weeks and months ahead both in the halls of higher education, as well as in board rooms across America. As a result, there will no doubt be strong debate about what constitutes political free speech, as well as political correctness. But Harvards opening volley in the debate is as direct as it is unambiguous: if you choose to lead through deception, then you may very well be left standing alone.

But for now, rather than being an advisor for one of the finest institutes of higher education in America, of which she proudly affiliated herself, the disgraced Congresswoman is now just as likely to be in a case study like the ones she studied at Harvard. But in this case, it wont be for how she led

But for how she didnt.

Read the original here:

Dont Be A Stefanik: Why Harvard Removed A GOP Congresswoman From Its Leadership - Forbes

Satan is described as the father of lies in John 8:44 of the New Testament.

Whether we think of Old Scratch or not, most of us would agree we live in an age of deceit. Many citizens have abandoned common sense and reason for theory and wishful concoction, contending that black is white or that two plus two equals five, and then demanding the rest of us march in lockstep with them.

Some, for example, argue that biological men should be allowed to compete in sports against biological women. Protest that claim on social, media or in any public forum, and you will be declared a bigot.

Some would have us believe that the presidential election involved little or no fraud, and we should just move along. Those who claim to possess proof of that fraud are ignored by the mainstream media and our courts, or are dismissed outright as liars and sore losers.

Tens of thousands of Americans from across the country gathered in Washington D.C. on Jan. 6 to protest electoral fraud. The media and some of our politicians are now labeling them an insurrectionist mob incited to violence by President Donald Trump. Those of us who heard the presidents speech know this is a lie.

Some apparently believe a $27 trillion national debt wont cause our economy and our country to collapse in the future. The current population of the United States is roughly 328 million people, which means every American living today, from great-grandpa to this mornings newborn, owes approximately $82,000. Yet on we go, printing dollars with the same wanton disregard as the proverbial drunken sailor, with the difference being the sailor wakes in the morning with a hangover and a good case of remorse.

Experts tell us lockdowns and masks will prevent the spread of COVID-19. If thats the case, then why is California, with some of the most stringent anti-virus measures in the country, leading the way in terms of new infections?

Our governors and mayors allowed our big-box stores to remain open during the pandemic, but closed fabric stores, beauty salons, restaurants, and countless other smaller businesses. No existing data proves the environments of small stores are more likely to spread the virus, so why are they continually ordered to shutter their doors?

Then there is our twisted language. We are hounded by words and phrases like equity, inclusion, whiteness, systemic racism, white fragility, patriarchy, and diversity. These may sound impressive, but they are hollow as a drum, meaningless tags employed to signal ones virtue or to attack an opponent.

Some believe women are oppressed, America is a land rife with racial hatred, males are toxic, and the police routinely and indiscriminately shoot people of color. Ask for proof, and you will again be smeared as a bigot, a misogynist, or a fascist.

The de-incarceration and defund the police movements should be laughed off by anyone with a brain in their head, but instead they are gaining traction as ways to fight Americas alleged racism and classism.

Such deceptions come with a price. In the case of the United States, that price is a broken and divided country. In the aftermath of the mayhem at the Capitol, this chasm has only widened, abetted in large part by a biased mainstream media.

These fabrications and foolish ideas have already damaged our democracy. If they continue unchecked, they may well destroy it.

In Darkness at Noon and the Progressive Mindset, Nicholas Kaster sharesseveral thoughts from physician and writer Theodore Darlymple. Most startlingly, Dalrymple concluded that [p]olitical correctness is communist propaganda writ small. He continued:

Perhaps most applicable to our own society, Dalrymple concluded, A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

Whatever our political views, if we wish to remain healthy both as individuals and as a society, we must embrace reality and truth rather than blindly accepting the tenets of political correctness, the critical theory agenda, betrayal by spineless politicians, and the mendacity of our mainstream media. Its long past time to stand for truth and facts rather than being sucker-punched by conjecture, deceit, and deliberate obfuscation.

Truth can hurt, but lies masquerading as truth can kill.

Jeff Minick lives in Front Royal, Virginia, and may be found online at jeffminick.com. He is the author of two novels, Amanda Bell and Dust on Their Wings, and two works of non-fiction, Learning as I Go and Movies Make the Man.

Originally posted here:

When We Live with Lies | Chronicles - A Magazine of American Culture

I made a decision last January to read more writers of color. It was motivated by the big dustup over Jeanine Cummins novel American Dirt, a controversy centered on whether a white writer had the right to write a story of Mexican refugees fleeing a violent drug cartel. While I came down on the side of an author to write outside the realm of her own experience I just appreciate good writing I also recognized that the publishing industry has a pathetic record when it comes to giving voice to non-white writers. The aftermath of the death of George Floyd and the subsequent conversation about and recognition of systemic racism in our country only strengthened my resolve.

Its not that I ignored writers of color before: I just hadnt made a conscious effort to seek them out. Im glad I did because Ive discovered several terrific writers who otherwise might have escaped my notice.

Jerald Walker is at the top of the list. The author of two previous books of nonfiction, Walkers new collection of essays, How to Make a Slave, finds him at 40, a professor of creative writing at Emerson College, raising two Black sons in a white suburb of Boston and struggling with how to exist as a Black American teacher, father, writer and responsible human being in the complexity of our countrys racial landscape.

The fury of his youth he acknowledges his background as a gang member and drug addict has been somewhat tempered by age and parenthood, but hes also changed his perspective. When he runs into a white liberal at a cocktail party who wants Walker to hate him White people, he insists, are your oppressors Walker confounds the man by telling him, My students dont focus on white cruelty but rather its flip side: Black courage slaves and their immediate descendants were by and large heroic, not pathetic, or I wouldnt be standing here. The surest way to drive white liberals up the wall, Walker writes, is to deny them the chance to pity you.

Other essays address shopping at Whole Foods while Black, making restaurant reservations online only to show up and be ushered away, and the dilemma Walker encounters when on an Amtrak train: editing a student essay, his pencil slips from his hand and rolls under the buttock of a sleeping white woman seated on the adjacent seat. Walker ruminates about and deals with these situations with a fierce, multifaceted intelligence that is only enhanced by his ability to see the humor (albeit dark) in them. Hes an extraordinary observer and writer.

Danielle Evans, whose new collection of short fiction is The Office of Historical Corrections, is a welcome fresh voice. In Richard of York Gave the Battle in Vain, she tells a highly unconventional bride-left-at-the-altar story with an exuberance that I found to characterize all of her work. She has a sharp eye for artifice and hypocrisy but never takes an easy shot, describing even her less attractive characters with compassion.

In Boys Go to Jupiter, a disaffected, apolitical young woman becomes the target of an online hate mob after a photo of her wearing a Confederate flag bikini goes viral. Again, the story doesnt go down the expected path, and Evans adroitly tackles the minefield of political correctness, free speech and cancel culture.

Richard Blancos book of poems, How to Love a Country, was another happy discovery. Blanco, the Miami-raised son of Cuban immigrants, writes poems that are unsparing in their depiction of injustice past and present, from the exile of Navajos to the Pulse nightclub murders. But he also celebrates our ideals and what holds us together.

Complaint of the Rio Grande is told from the point of view of the river itself, the site of so many immigrant crossings: I wasnt meant to drown children, hear mothers cries, never meant to be your geography: a line, a border, a murderer.

Its the hope Blanco somehow keeps alive that makes his work so precious. Our imperfect, divisive, heartbreaking country, Blanco writes in America the Beautiful Again, is the only country I know enough to know how to sing for.

When reporting on a nations civil war erases the truths of a beautiful people

Facing down a pandemic, small Bay Area presses aim to diversify publishing

In Unforgetting, Roberto Lovato unearths the secrets of El Salvadors past

Should there be an American literary canon?

Bay Area Asian American authors share books that inspired them

Brit Bennett tackles colorism and identity in new novel, The Vanishing Half

The Writers Grotto carves out new paths to survive

View original post here:

Choosing to discover more books by authors of color - SF Chronicle Datebook

Audible stories made possible by the Prescott Hearing Center. Get your FREE hearing test today!

(The U.S.S. Hatteras against the C.S.S. Alabama. Image courtesy of Wikicommons, Public Domain.)

It was just 158 years ago today, January 11, 1863, when two warships were locked in a brief but desperate struggle of survival off the shores of Galveston, Texas, in the midst of the Civil War. The two ships were an unlikely pare. The U.S.S. Hatteras, a side wheel steamship, was not built for war at all. When hostilities commenced, the Union Navy didnt have enough warships to complete the blockade of the South, and so the war department went on a buying spree, any ship capable of speed and carrying a sufficient armament, was swept up, which was the case of the St. Mary, a civilian side wheel that we now know as the U.S.S. Hatteras. On the other hand, the C.S.S. Alabama was a different bird altogether. Built by the British, whos support for the Confederacy has never truly been acknowledged, nor explored by historians sufficiently, was a first rate of the line killing machine, with heavy decks, and her magazines below the waterline, her smooth sleek figure made her a man eater, and she would earn the equal distain and admiration of the Union Navy, until like all, she too met her fate towards the end of the war off the coast of France, another foreigner that helped the South during the War.

The C.S.S. Alabama had already earned a reputation under her commander Captain Raphael Semmes for attacking, sinking or even capturing merchant men. However, it was on this date that she met up with a squadron of Union blockade ships, one of them being the Hatteras. Trying to escape, but really leading the Yankee into a trap, the Hatteras gave chase, blockading being the name of the game. Captain Semmes flew under a false flag, claiming to be an English Ship, all the while allowing the Hatteras, under the command of Homer Blake, to catch up. Now, the Yankee were no fools, and realized something was amiss, but political correctness caused just as much faint hearts back then as now, and Commander Blake stayed cautious, but not as prepared as his enemy was. For more than four hours, the chase continued, until Blake was able

to hail the ship, to which the Confederates replied that they were Her Britannic Majestys Ship Petrel, after all, they were flying the Union Jack. Still Blake decided to send a small boarding party, but just then, the trap was sprung, and Semmes called out we are the C.S.S. Alabama, and lowered the Union Jack, raised the Stars and Bars, and let loose a terrible broadside, racking the Hatteras. In just about 13 minutes, the battle was over, some of the crew of the Hatteras escaped, others were taken prisoner, and the Alabama made off to terrorize the seas for more than a year to come.

Originally posted here:

This Day In History, January 11th, 2021 - "The Alabama Sinks The Hatteras" - Signals AZ

We all know that denial is not a river in Egypt, but how many of us know that denial is the state of our firm?

In his 2008 book entitled Strategy and the Fat Smoker, David Maister wrote that we often (or even usually) know what we should be doing in both our personal and professional life. We also know why we should be doing it and (often) how to do it. Figuring all that out is not too difficult. What is very difficult is actually doing what you know to be good for you in the long run, despite short-run temptations. Therefore, many leaders, and by extension many small and midsized CPA firms, live in denial.

More often than not, what needs to be done by a firms managing partner or CEO is obvious. While its not always easy, he or she needs to make those tough decisions in the best interests of the firm. But many leaders are in denial and fall short of whats required, and, in many cases, thats the principal reason why so many firms cant get to the next level or, worse yet, cant perpetuate themselves.

Presented below are the obvious but not easy things that a managing partner needs to do in todays world of public accounting to be viewed as an effective leader who sits on top of a firm that is not in denial:

From a quick review of the above, its clear that a managing partner is the heart and soul of a CPA firm, the one who must do what needs to be done to avoid denial and to ensure success. Having said that, many firms do not have effective managing partners. Here are four common mistakes to avoid when selecting managing partners:

1. Dont ask the firms No. 1 biller to be managing partner.

While a successful managing partner usually carries a small client load to stay grounded in client service and to remain credible with the partner group, billings and chargeable hours are truly a small part of the job. In my view, a managing partners clients are the partners, giving them the opportunity to maximize their strengths while minimizing their weaknesses. A managing partner has to be readily available for big opportunities or problems.

2. Think long and hard before you ask someone from the outside to be managing partner.

Without a lot of due diligence and partner buy-in, an outsider is too risky, particularly if someone comes from outside the professional services firm environment. An outsider obviously doesnt know the firms history or culture or the partners individual strengths and weaknesses. An outsider also isnt attached to the firms vision, mission and strategy. Please stay away.

3. Dont ask two partners to function as co-managing partners.

In the spirit of political correctness, its not unusual for firms to select co-managing partners. Its a safe decision that doesnt offend quality partners who compete for the position.

While from time to time, this kind of arrangement can work, many times it doesnt and is therefore a step that should be taken with lots of caution. Too often firms with co-managing partners are plagued with inaction or conflicting directions with little, if any, consistency on strategy. If co-managing partners can be avoided, take the bold step and the tough decision: select the right person for the job today and make sure you do your best to retain the other contenders.

4. Dont ask a part-time committee to be managing partner.

Firms cant operate by part-time committees. A firm needs to make decisions and move on. Sure, a firm needs oversight committees such as a management committee or an operations committee to drive their day-to-day activities. A firm also needs an executive committee for corporate governance, partner matters and strategy. But a firm cant easily do what is obvious if the key leadership role is delegated to a part-time committee that reacts to situations if and when time permits. Its a recipe for disaster. No one is thinking about strategy and the future while, at the same time, making sure that the necessary blocking and tackling are being tended to.

So, why do some firms continue to live in denial and lack an effective managing partner? In many cases, it comes down to trust and security.

Many firms select a new managing partner from their ranks at an age somewhere between 45 and 53. Candidates are usually excellent client relationship partners with substantial client service responsibilities. The thought of giving up a substantial portion, if not all, of the client relationships that have been developed over years of service is scary to many. For sure, there is a risk in being a managing partner. Candidates may ask, What happens if Im not successful? In the spirit of trust, I lose most, if not all, of my client responsibilities and begin to lose touch with my outside referral sources. Ill have nowhere to go but to exit the firm when Im no longer the managing partner.

This is a very real concern and many firms do not want to recognize the severity of the issue. Instead, firms say, trust us, and while thats easy to say, history has shown that this trust has sometimes been misplaced. As a result, for the overall good and welfare of a firm, I recommend that a managing partner be offered an agreement that addresses what happens if he or she is no longer the leader of the firm. Such an agreement can address what happens to future compensation, what happens to employment, and what happens to retirement benefits or deferred compensation arrangements. It can pay huge dividends down the road for everyone.

Read the original:

Is denial a river in Egypt or the state of your firm? - Accounting Today

It was a grim moment last week when I realised that news of the revival of Sex and the City, my all-time favourite television programme, did not make me excited or happy. Instead, it made me anxious, detached and depressed. It was not that the brilliant character of Samantha, played by Kim Cattrall, wont be there, though that is sad. No, it was that the culture wars won by those overwhelmingly on the side of extreme, often insane commitment to political correctness have ruined everything, including what constitutes entertainment. A programme about white women and heterosexual sex? Front of the line for massacre by the PC police.

As I sought information on the reboot, which is called And Just Like That it was clear how things would be. Pundits and tweeters piled in to lecture those impure enough to still harbour fond attachment to the original. Vanity Fair explained that, while the original had offered a story about proudly imperfect women that may have seemed refreshing and even feminist at the time (it did), the show also used it as a cheap excuse to centre a very specific viewpoint: straight white affluence, as written by straight white women and gay white men.

There you have it. Sex and the City in its joyous old form is no longer on the Allowed list of things to enjoy because it is too white and too straight. Crimes include Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) expressing concern about being involved with bisexual men, or in Vanity Fairs eye-wateringly ungenerous terms, doubting such mens very validity.

An even more heinous crime is, you guessed it, transphobia. This, we learn, oozed everywhere from the failure to offer prominent and serious storylines to trans people, to the hideous impropriety of Samanthas jovial and long-running relationship with a group of local cross-dressing male prostitutes. For this she stands accused of gleefully using a a transphobic slur in a dig against sex workers. Eh? Come again? Had the community of Manhattan men on whom those characters were based been told at the time that 20 years later Samanthas term would cause grave offence, theyd have surely roared with laughter and told you to get a life.

All that said, the old Sex and the City was not perfect. Those ready with their bucket of cold, woke-flavoured water have missed the point and spirit of the programme, and have, therefore, failed to understand where its legacy actually has been problematic. This, to my mind, was in selling to a whole generation of girls and young women myself included an image of casual sex that made it seem fundamentally glamorous, frictionless and liberated. It may be the last thing: it certainly isnt the first two.

My favourite character was always Samantha. We all loved her. She was our gateway drug. She offered a vision of femininity we had never encountered. She wasnt annoying or coy or quiet. She was hilarious, forthright and dressed like a maniac: all things young women believe make them less, not more, attractive.

And yet here was this force of nature, hoovering up men by the hundreds, gobbling them up, spitting them out, and politely closing the door in their faces when they wanted more. Most of us werent into feminism yet, but we thought we knew it when we saw it. We certainly felt it. This was a woman we wanted to be and a life we wanted.

Read more here:

The woke lot want to cancel Sex and the City - but for the wrong reason - Telegraph.co.uk

Why is there not a single trans voice featured in Harry and Meghans first podcast? Its a question that needs answering. The half-hour recording the couples first since signing a $25 million deal with Spotify sets out to explore the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on, as the Duchess herself puts it, people from all walks of life. Given this description, excluding the trans community from participating seems, at best, problematic perhaps even sinister. Why leave trans people out in this most public of discourses?

This editorial decision a slap in the face for an already marginalized community seems all the more surprising because of who has made it. While the rest of us have spent 2020 hunkering down and cursing the gods, Harry and Meghan have made no bones about aggressively pursuing woke dollar. They have unblinkingly positioned themselves as the millennial king and queen of political correctness, frequently releasing videos in which they rail vaguely against privilege. Memorably, Harry used one of these videos to say the British Commonwealth, the institution for which his grandmother is the living embodiment, needs to acknowledge the past even if it is uncomfortable.

Anyway, the podcast deal announced very shortly after the $100 million Netflix deal is the latest escalation in this campaign: a kind of high stakes meta psychodrama in which these two pushy ex royals ride the Windsor family brand as far as they can stateside, at the same time apparently subverting the journalistic media they claim to loathe by lucratively becoming part of it. The company they have formed for this purpose, Archewell, has described the podcasts it will henceforth expensively produce as being to build a community through shared experiences, narratives and values.

The first podcast, trans people ostracization aside, is everything youd expect. It begins with the regal thanking of healthcare and frontline workers (as if the sacrifices these people have made have been made for the duke and duchess themselves). Meghan then rather grandly explains that she has spent the holiday season, not, as you might expect, counting her money, but contemplating all people who have experienced uncertainty and unthinkable loss as a result of COVID-19.

After that, there is just time for Harry to urge listeners to sit back and grab a cozy beverage, before the platitudes begin rolling in, in earnest. Various guests mostly liberal celebrity friends of the couple start by unselfconsciously describing themselves (philanthropist, poet, an explorer of consciousness etc.) before, against a deeply irritating Disney-style soundtrack intended to guide the listeners emotional response, delivering statements such as: humanity is ready for a new story. Through new context, new meanings, new relationships, we are giving birth to a new humanity.

At one point a woman who is described as a person who brings healing to communities of color tells us something I have learned about myself this year is how much of a spiritual practice simplicity and solitude can be. Another described as a democracy advocate tells us: most of all, I gave myself permission to be sad, so I could find joy on the other side.

Throughout, its this type of fare, precisely the sort of thing one suspects that people who have to worry about such base concerns as working to put food on the table, tend not to say to one another. Surprisingly, no one quotes Maya Angelou until the 18th minute, but when it comes its a zinger: my wish for you is that you continue. Continue to be who and how you are and to astonish a mean world with your acts of kindness. (You go, Meghan.)

Amazingly, and revealingly, of all the contributors, it is Elton John who sounds most sane and connected to reality. He speaks frankly about the nightmare of alcoholics being unable to attend AA meetings during lockdown and the manner in which normal people have had to deal with losing loved ones and jobs. Its been the worst year Ive ever known, and Im 73, he says.

***Get a digital subscription toThe Spectator.Try a month free, then just $3.99 a month***

And then were back to meaningless platitudes. Without the dark, the stars cannot shine, someone says. A self-described street poet tells us: 2020, thats a very hard year for me to call my friend. And then Meghan begins to bring proceedings to a close by informing the listener: no matter what life throws at you, trust us when we say: love wins. Harry agrees. Love always wins, he says, supportively. So true, Meghan adds.

Perhaps there is a demographic that finds this kind of thing not only edifying, but enlightening. If there is, my suspicion is these people value style above substance: they prefer the manner in which things are said in a smoky, croaky, faux intellectual voice, perhaps than the content of what is being said. Certainly, Meghan is very pleased with her voice. She seems lately to have obviously styled her intonations on those of Barack Obama himself, the great liberal deity with the quadrophonic voice. If this podcast venture doesnt work out, shes certainly got a future in the ASMR game.

Ultimately, the podcast is a bit of a cheat the contributions by Meghan and Harry are mercifully minimal. Instead, they use the old trick of all journalists paid by the word for interview pieces: they just provide short links to the words of others. But we will find out more about them as people, presumably, in subsequent episodes, when they will have to sing rather harder for their supper by filling the airtime themselves. Then well really discover the scale of their ambition for world domination, and also, perhaps, the reason for their strange erasing of trans people from the COVID record.

This article was originally published on The Spectators UK website.

Read the original here:

Harry and Meghan's podcast of political correctness - The Spectator USA

Editor:

As a former Cub and Boy Scout, I was very disappointed when the Boy Scouts caved to political correctness and started enrolling girls. My Boy Scout leaders taught us how to be responsible, caring and productive men. I dont know what the Girl Scouts taught because it was meant for girls.

I was sad to read that the Girl Scouts sued the Boy Scouts over enrollment issues (Legal battle between Girl, Boy Scouts heats up, Reading Eagle, Dec. 27). This is another example of how political correctness is negatively affecting organizations geared to teach boys and girls how to be good people.

It is a shame that this age of ridiculousness has just about ruined two organizations that were founded to educate, encourage and allow youth to develop leadership skills and respect nature.

How about we let boys be boys and girls be girls. Lets appreciate the different developmental needs of boys and girls.

How about we go back to common sense?

How about we stop pretending that all this nonsense is moving our country forward when all its doing is causing more division.

I remember my oath and still try to live by it: On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and Country and obey Scout law, to help other people at all times to keep myself physically strong mentally awake and morally straight. How about we go back to that, or does it just make too much sense?

Eric Mazur

Bern Township

Here is the original post:

Letter: Lawsuit over Scouting a sign of some sad trends - Reading Eagle