Category Archives: Political Correctness

Scott Jennings, Opinion contributor Published 10:26 a.m. ET July 8, 2020

Protesters tore down a statue of Christopher Columbus Wednesday outside the State Capitol in St. Paul, Minnesota. (June 10) AP Domestic

Two forces are colliding in 2020. One has no idea what it wants. The other is crystal clear.

Lets start with Donald Trump, running for reelection as president of the United States. His answer on why he wants a second term has been, charitably, non-existent.

Here was Trumps first swing at it, with Fox News host Sean Hannity:

Well one of the things that will be really great: You know, the word experience is still good. I always say talent is more important than experience, Ive always said that. But the word experience is a very important word. Its a very important meaning. I never did this before, I never slept over in Washington. I was in Washington, I think, 17 times, all of a sudden Im president of the United States, you know the story. Im riding down Pennsylvania Avenue with our first lady and I say, This is great. But I didnt know very many people in Washington, it wasnt my thing. I was from Manhattan, from New York. Now I know everybody.

Given a mulligan by Sinclair TV host Eric Bolling a few days later, Trump whiffed again in a rambling response that lacked a cogent argument like I fixed the economy once, and Ill save it again.

Trump ran on real things in 2016, namely how the political elite had left American workers behind on immigration and trade. He promised lower taxes, conservative judgesand pro-life policies. He railed against political correctness run amuck, appealing to Republicans and blue-collar Democrats alike.

Unfortunately, the president has yet to formulate a similarly insightful argument for a second term as he struggles to manage the twin crises of coronavirus and social unrest. His speech at Mt. Rushmore hammering the leftists attempting to erase Americas history (and its future) before our very eyes was an improvement, despite what you heard from the homogeneous national political press that is dedicated to Trumps destruction.

More from Scott Jennings: Riots give Trump a chance to rally his supporters and go after racism

But Trump behind in his reelection and threatening to take the Republican Senate down with him must now carry his argument forward by characterizing todays rope-pullers as tomorrows policymakers in a Joe Biden administration. If you are worried about economic upheaval today, wait until the mob oversees Bidens policy shop.

Vandalism at the statue of Christopher Columbus in Garfield(Photo: Courtesy of the city of Garfield)

Anarchists, radical leftists, Democratic Party leaders, and their cheerleaders and apologists in the press cannot control or hide what is happening.Its just the Confederate statues, they tell us, as Christopher Columbus sinks in a Baltimore harbor. It isnt about disrespecting America, just ending police brutality, they claim.

Except that the spiritual leader of the other colliding force Colin Kaepernick released a video over the weekend calling the Fourth of July a celebration of white supremacy. Theres no other way to interpret his argument the American experiment is built on an evil foundation and must be erased.

Apparently, top Democrats were listening. Illinois Sen.Tammy Duckworth a leading contender to become Bidens running mate said on Sunday we ought to consider removing statues of George Washington and raised the specter of doing away with Mt. Rushmore altogether. She said Trump spent all his time talking about dead traitors this weekend, despite the fact that his speech was entirely about the Founding Fathers and other American heroes.

The guru says jump! and his followers shout how high!

Prominent Democratic operatives started this nonsense last summer by pushing to label all Trump voters as racist. Now, they bless an all-out assault on a core tenet of American political discourse that we are all in this together by arguing that not only are Trump and his supporters racist but that celebrating Americas founding means you endorse white supremacy.

Kaepernicks cult knows exactly what it wants: to cancel its political opposition and then delegitimize the American story as we have always known it. They seek radical policy changes that can only be accomplished by removing the democratic guardrails of separation of powers and the protection of minority party rights in the legislative branch.

Read: 100+ youth march 'for freedom' in downtown Louisville on Independence Day

Senate Democrats are signaling they will end the legislative filibuster if they gain control, effectively surrendering to the most extreme elements of the American left (they already run the House under Nancy Pelosi). Combine this change with a newfound taste for emergency powers exercised in the name of the coronavirus, and you can see how the lefts wildest and most radical dreams could come true in short order.

What does America look like when Republicans no longer have the procedural tools to save the country from extremism? Turn on your television. The people destroying American cities and public property and the petrified, enabling Democrats too weak to stop them will have your future in their hands.

Scott Jennings is a Republican adviser, CNN political contributor, and partner at RunSwitch Public Relations. He can be reached atScott@RunSwitchPR.comor on Twitter@ScottJenningsKY.

Read or Share this story: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2020/07/08/joe-biden-protesters-destroying-cities-control-your-future/5383434002/

Go here to read the rest:

Opinion: If Democrats take control, 'the mob' will have your future in their hands - Courier Journal

We endorse the sentiment articulated recently in a joint statement by 150 authors, academics and journalists that restriction of free speech, whether by a repressive government or by a counterculture demanding uncompromising fealty and conformity, erodes democracy and harms the subaltern. Thesignatories include author Salman Rushdie, linguist Noam Chomsky and Harry Potter creator J K Rowling.

In the era of social media, where arguments are short and emphatic, nuance is displaced by arbitrary certainty and intolerance of dissent. The result is to coarsen the public discourse and polarise, rather than inform, opinion. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other, says the statement. Political correctness is not merely a cringeworthy fashion but also an instrument of censorship. To attribute to some value or sentiment a quality of unquestioning inviolability and then to damn anyone who dares to disagree even tangentially is an attack on the freedom of expression. Whether the tactic is deployed by those on the political right or those on the left, the result is to curtail reasoned debate and shrink the realm of public clarity. Womens rights, race and skin colour, nationalism, religion, leader worship the number of subjects, differences on which at the level of ideas can swiftly transform into violent confrontation, keeps growing.

A statement issued by some individuals, however accomplished and however respected, will not, by itself, bring about a diametrical shift in the temper of the public discourse. But the discourse is richer for incorporating this caution and appeal to reason. May reason prevail.

This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Economic Times.

Originally posted here:

Where the mind is without fear - Economic Times

American sports are changing, and the Kansas City Chiefs are on the clock.

Last week, the NFLs Washington Redskins announced plans to reconsider the teams name, a decision that will almost certainly lead to a new name by the start of the football season. A few days later, the Cleveland Indians of Major League Baseball said they would think about a new name too.

"We recognize our unique place in the community," the baseball team said in a statement, "and are committed to listening, learning and acting in the manner that can best unite and inspire our city."

If both franchises pick new names, the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the NHLs Chicago Blackhawks would be the only remaining major sport franchises using Native American symbols in their promotions and game-day activities.

Each of those teams including the Kansas City Chiefs must begin a thorough reappraisal of their use of those images and traditions.

Changing the defending Super Bowl champs name would be an enormous, controversial undertaking. But the Chiefs and other community leaders who happily bask in the clubs success must at least publicly explain in this current moment why keeping the name and associated rituals are so essential to the teams success.

The concerns of the Native American community, and a much broader audience, cant be ignored. As other teams take a hard look at ethnic stereotypes and racist caricatures, the Chiefs cant simply sweep this issue under the rug or hope that a well-timed meeting will calm everyone down. Its time for a real examination of all of it: the tomahawk chop, the drum, Arrowhead Stadium, Warpaint and the costumes worn by fans at the game.

The National Congress of American Indians calls such iconography intolerant. "Rather than honoring Native peoples, these caricatures and stereotypes are harmful, perpetuate negative stereotypes of Americas first peoples, and contribute to a disregard for the personhood of Native peoples," the group says.

The question isnt whether all Native Americans find these symbols objectionable. The point is that some Native Americans do. That should be enough for the team and the city to reconsider their fondness for a chant and a costume that have no relation to the game.

How can the NFL pressure the Washington team to change its name while endorsing the chop or the war drum here in Kansas City? The contrast will be too obvious and will be noticed by everyone in America if the Chiefs success continues. (Quarterback Patrick Mahomes newly inked 10-year contract extension gives us hope that it will.)

There will be enormous resistance to even talking about this. As in Washington, D.C., and in Cleveland, fans will insist the names are meant to honor Native Americans or arent related to that community at all.

If Kansas City were picking a name today for a sports franchise, would it pick one based on ethnicity? Of course not. Times have changed. What made sense in the 1960s would never even be considered now.

Others will claim political correctness run amok, or another example of so-called "cancel culture." In a Monday tweet, President Donald Trump criticized name changes in Washington, D.C., and Cleveland: "They name teams out of STRENGTH, not weakness," he wrote.

Hes wrong. Real strength is understanding the power of words and images and the importance of using them to promote unity, not division. Real strength is reexamining old traditions in the light of new circumstances.

The Kansas City Star (Kansas City, Mo.)

Continued here:

Other Viewpoints: Is it time for more team names to change? - The Columbus Dispatch

Professor Engels said: "This campaign is indisputably not only the result of the usual differences of opinion in politics because, after all, a lively discourse between opposing positions is the basis of democracy, but it is the very conscious result of a desire to influence German (and also Polish) public opinion." Leszek Szymaski/PAP A Belgian professor has claimed that German media is trying to influence the presidential run offs in Poland with negative reports about Andrzej Duda and positive reports about Rafal Trzaskowski.

According to historian Professor David Engels, the mainstream media in Germany has been bombarding Poles with divergent views in order to 'help' them make the 'right' decision.

According to the professor, Warsaw mayor Rafa Trzaskowski is portrayed positively as progressive liberal.Lech Muszyski/PAP

He told PAP: "I don't want to over-generalize and suggest that all journalists and media are alike, because there are still some significant exceptions, but it is clear how unilaterally the German media usually speak about Poland."

He added that almost every day major German magazines and TV stations are devoting themselves topublishing blatantly one-sided materials in which left-liberal politicians are portrayed as cosmopolitan heroes in shining armour, trying to save their country from economic ruin, from clerical-pedophiles, from intolerant homophobes and Islamophobes, as well as from vile and dictatorial ministers, while their task is being hampered by stubborn, insensitive and dim-witted peasants from Eastern Europe."

The historian who now lives in Poland said that in his opinion the'right direction'for Poland, suggested by the German media, is "accepting mass immigration, introducing sexual'diversity'at the school level, subjecting all manifestations of national democracy to Brussels technocracy, replacing the Christian character of the Polish nation with multicultural relativism, the censorship of all media that do not subordinate to political correctness, distancing themselves from the United States (US President Donald Trump) and, of course, subjecting the vital interests of the state to the needs of'European neighbours,'that is, of course, the German economy."

Current president, Andrzej Duda, is portrayed negatively in German media.Przemysaw Pitkowski/PAP

"This campaign is indisputably not only the result of the usual differences of opinion in politics because, after all, a lively discourse between opposing positions is the basis of democracy, but it is the very conscious result of a desire to influence German (and also Polish) public opinion."

The reason for"this continuous interference,"he says, is the fact that "Poland is the only major European country which is not (yet) completely dominated by the notion of multiculturalism, relativism and technocracy, and it finds itself in the very heart of the Visegrad Group, which is the last independent European centre of power beyond the direct control of Brussels."

"As today's Germany is undoubtedly an advocate of the new ideology of political correctness, they perceive the Polish refusal to submit to their wishes as slander, a slander that is all the more irritating, since many (though fortunately not all) Germans maintain a peculiar, somewhat'condescending'approach to their eastern neighbours.

Professor David Engels says German media is trying to influence the forthcoming presidential election run off.Elekes Andor

He continued: "I think that it is more important now than ever to clearly separate the obvious propaganda carried out by the current German political and media elite on the one hand, from normal Germans on the other, who are often a helpless victim of the content they are fed," says the historian. "And this applies not only to Germany, but also to most Western European countries."

He added that the only correct response should not be "falling into the trap set for Poland and withdrawing into isolationism or even nationalism but, rather,thestartofa counteroffensive.

"Poland could be an ideal gathering place for European conservatives, the heart of the reconstruction of a Christian Europe and the centre of a truly objective media market, which informs the inhabitants of Western Europe about what is truly happening with their countries, and this possibility is just what the current German media fears."

Go here to read the rest:

German media is trying to 'help' Poles make the 'right' election decision, says Belgium academic - The First News

In early June, President Trump had federal officers use tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse a peaceful protest so he could stage a photo op outside St. Johns Church, which sits across from the White House.

The image, now infamous, shows Trump awkwardly holding up the Bible as though hes never held a book in his life. Its a surreal shot that somehow captures the performative dimension of his entire presidency.

But why the Bible? And why go through all that trouble to do the photo op in front of a church?

Its well-known that evangelicals are one of Trumps most loyal constituencies, but its still not clear why. Conventional wisdom says that evangelicals held their noses and voted for Trump purely for pragmatic purposes the biggest reason being the Supreme Court. They may not like him, the argument goes, but hes a useful political vehicle. (See, for example, the Courts decision on Wednesday that allows the Trump administration to expand religious exemptions for employers who object to the Affordable Care Acts contraceptive mandate.)

But what if Trump wasnt a trade-off for evangelicals? What if an obsession with manhood and toughness made a figure like Trump the natural fulfillment of their political evolution?

This is the argument Kristin Kobes Du Mez, a historian at Calvin University, makes in her new book Jesus and John Wayne. According to Du Mez, evangelical leaders have spent decades using the tools of pop culture films, music, television, and the internet to grow the movement. The result, she says, is a Christianity that mirrors that culture. Instead of modeling their lives on Christ, evangelicals have made heroes of people like John Wayne and Mel Gibson, people who project a more militant and more nationalist image. In that sense, Trumps strongman shtick is a near-perfect expression of their values.

To be candid, I wasnt sure what to make of this thesis, but Im also not an authority on American evangelicalism. So I contacted Du Mez, who teaches at a Christian college and has spent 15 years studying evangelicals, to talk about the direction of the movement and how it led to Trump and what she calls our fractured political moment.

A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.

The contrarian argument at the core of your book is that the relationship between Trump and (mostly white) evangelicals is more harmonious than most people suggest. Can you sum up your thesis?

Well, there are all these theories that evangelicals were holding their noses when they voted for Trump, that they were somehow betraying their values. But Ive studied evangelicals for a long time and I was watching them very closely during the election and in the aftermath, and I just didnt see any regrets at all. There was no angst or no sense that this was somehow a difficult trade-off. In fact, what I saw was a bunch of enthusiasm. There were some evangelical leaders who were expressing caution about Trump, but most of the rank and file had zero difficulty supporting Trump.

And when did that become clear to you?

Id say right around the time the Access Hollywood tapes were released thats when it crystallized for me. So we had these tapes where Trump is talking about sexually assaulting women in such crass terms. And the media really homed in on white evangelicals at that moment, asking if this was a bridge too far. Although there was a little hesitation here and there from evangelicals, about a week later they were all back on board.

I know you teach at a Christian university, but did you grow up in the evangelical world? Do you know it from personal experience?

I didnt identify as an evangelical growing up, but most evangelicals dont. We tend to identify as Christians. Looking back, though, I would probably define myself as evangelical-adjacent. I grew up in a small town in Iowa, and this was very much a part of my world.

As I grew up, I was exposed to this evangelical popular culture through our local bookstore, the only bookstore in town. The shelves were filled with these evangelical books, with Christian contemporary music and Christian movies. I was in a Christian youth group. And so my experience with evangelicalism was through the popular culture.

Help me understand why masculinity and nationalism are so foundational to the contemporary evangelical worldview.

What I look to as a historian is this critical period in the post-World War II era when these gender ideals fuse with anti-communist ideology and this overarching desire to defend Christian America. The idea that takes root during this period is that Christian masculinity, Christian men, are the only thing that can protect America from godless communism.

At the same time, you have the civil rights movement destabilizing white evangelicalism and conceptions of white masculinity. Then you have feminism destabilizing traditional masculinity. And all of this comes together for evangelicals, who see their place in the culture slipping away, and they see their political power starting to erode because of this cultural displacement. Thats the moment when you see Christian nationalism linking together with a very militant conception of Christian manhood, because its up to the Christian man to defend his family against all sorts of domestic dangers in the culture wars, and also to defend Christian America against communists and against military threats.

So the idea is that Christian masculinity is the only thing that can preserve traditional American culture and that belief is what precipitates the turn toward a more muscular Christianity?

Thats exactly right. So when you think of evangelicals, a lot of people think of the term family values. But I actually went back to the origins of family values evangelicalism and I was really surprised just how much it was placed in the context of foreign policy, how much it was in the service of defending the American nation. If you go back and listen to James Dobson of Focus on the Family and read the books that emerged during this period, this is all very clear.

The phrase family values is typically hurled at evangelicals in order to call out their hypocrisy, but I think your book makes pretty clear that theyre not hypocrites at all. They only appear hypocritical if you misunderstand what they actually value.

Exactly. If you understand what family values evangelicalism has always entailed and at the very heart of it is white patriarchy, and often a militant white patriarchy then suddenly, all sorts of evangelical political positions and cultural positions fall into place.

So evangelicals are not acting against their deeply held values when they elect Trump; theyre affirming them. Their actual views on immigration policy, on torture, on gun control, on Black Lives Matter and police brutality they all line up pretty closely with Trumps. These are their values, and Trump represents them.

Id like to steelman the evangelical perspective, so can you tell me what cultural forces theyre reacting against?

Well, it changes over time. In the 40s and 50s, its all about anti-communism. But once the civil rights revolution takes hold, it becomes about defending the stability of the traditional social order against all the cultural revolutions of the 60s. But the really interesting moment for me is in the early 90s when the Cold War comes to an end. You would think there would be a kind of resetting after the great enemy had been vanquished, but thats not what happened.

Instead, we get the modern culture wars over sex and gender identity and all the rest. And then 9/11 happens and Islam becomes the new major threat. So its always shifting, and at a certain point I started asking the question, particularly post-9/11, what comes first here? Is it the fear of modern change, of whatevers happening in the moment? Or were evangelical leaders actively seeking out those threats and stoking fear in order to maintain their militancy, to maintain their power?

So this drift into a more militant and nationalist Christianity leads to this obsession with toughness and machismo. The way you put it is that evangelicals are looking for spiritual badasses. They dont want gentle Jesus, they want William Wallace or John Wayne.

Yeah, these are their role models. Most white evangelical men that I knew during the height of this movement, which is really the early 2000s, were very militant. They were buying these hypermasculine books and taking part in these mens reading groups. They werent living out this rugged, violent lifestyle, except maybe at weekend retreats where they role-played this stuff. But in real life, they were still walking around in khakis and polo shirts, but these were the values that were really animating their worldview.

Wait, are there weekend retreats where evangelical men are role-playing Braveheart?

I dont know about that in particular, but this is very much a thing. The success of John Eldredges book Wild at Heart [a huge bestseller that urged young Christian men to reclaim their masculinity] was a big deal in the evangelical world, and it sold millions of copies just in the US. Every college Christian mens group was reading this. It was everywhere in the early 2000s.

There were lots of conferences celebrating this version of a rugged Christianity. It was big business, and there were lots of weekend retreats where men could go out into the wilderness and practice their masculinity. Local churches invented their own versions of this. One church I know in Washington had their own local Braveheart games that involves wrestling with pigs or something. It was all weird and different, but the point was to prove and express your masculinity.

Is this fascination with manhood unique to evangelical culture in particular? Or is this something you find in other Christian subcultures?

The emphasis on strict gender difference and perceived need to define Christian manhood is far greater in conservative white evangelicalism than in other Christian subcultures. White evangelicals also stand out in terms of their emphasis on militancy and their conceptions of masculinity, and in how that militant masculinity is connected to Christian nationalism.

In Black Protestantism, for example, you may find an emphasis on Christian manhood, but youre much more likely to encounter discussions of fatherhood rather than a militant warrior masculinity. In mainline Protestantism youll be more likely to encounter a kinder, gentler masculinity more of the Mr. Rogers sort. (Militant white evangelical masculinity explicitly denounces Mr. Rogerss model of manhood.)

That said, evangelical constructions of masculinity have made inroads into mainline circles largely via popular culture (many mainline churches use evangelical literature in their small-group Bible studies, for example), so the lines between white evangelical and mainline Christianity are not always all that clearly drawn.

Theres a lot going on there, but Ill bring this back to Trump. Do most evangelicals consider him a spiritual badass?

For many hes not, but he is their great protector. Hes their strongman that God has given them to protect them. So, again, the ends justify the means here. But I think its important to understand that the appeal of Trump to evangelicals isnt surprising at all, because their own faith tradition has long embraced this idea of a ruthless masculine protector.

This is just the way that God works and the way that God has designed men. He filled them with testosterone so that they can fight. So theres just much less of a conflict there. The most common thing that I hear from white evangelicals defending Trump is that they just wish he would tweet less. I dont find a lot of concern about his actual policies or whats in his heart.

I dont understand how a draft-dodging, spray-tanned hypochondriac has become a hypermasculine protector for militant evangelicals

I mean, thats fair, but you have to remember that their whole idea of militant masculinity was formed in reaction against feminism and more recently against so-called political correctness. That has been just such a powerful enemy for white evangelicals who feel oppressed by these new standards of behavior. And I think Trump really succeeds by not following any of those rules of civil discourse.

If most evangelicals are taking their moral and political cues from Trump or the Duck Dynasty clan or from Christian radio and television, havent we crossed over into something post-religious, something closer to a lifestyle or a cultural pose?

I think we have. But I will say there is still diversity within evangelical churches, communities, and families. There are so many evangelicals who read their Bible every morning, who hold to scriptural teachings as they understand them. But for many of them, the Bible is a complicated book. Which verses do you hold on to as formative for your life, and which do you dismiss? Many are reading through the filter of this ideology now.

But Ive encountered lots of evangelicals who dont want to speak out, who feel a lot of pressure within their own communities. This is not what their faith means to them, this is not what Christianity is to them. So when we talk about white evangelicals, we should acknowledge that there is disagreement within churches and communities and families, but its true that a solid majority of white evangelicals have bought into this ideology.

One of the most interesting threads in your book is this story about how evangelical leaders have tried to modernize the church by using pop culture to lure people in, but over time the pop culture has completely supplanted the theology and all thats left is the vacuous political brand.

I teach at a Christian university, so the majority of my students would fit into this category of white evangelicals. And just this past year, I was teaching a course where it involved reading the first three chapters of Genesis. It was about biblical gender roles and taking a critical look.

And at one point during our discussion, one woman raised her hand and said, I have a confession to make. I think this is the first time Ive actually read the first three chapters of Genesis ... Ive been working with the VeggieTales stories and I assumed I knew this, so I didnt bother with the Bible. [VeggieTales is a Christian animated series for kids that uses pop culture to retell biblical stories.] She was so embarrassed to confess that, but then several other students confessed to the same thing.

So this is the evangelical culture these kids have been raised in. They listen to pop Christian music on the radio. They read the pop Christian books. They watch Focus on the Family childrens programming. They watch VeggieTales cartoons. And Christian parents are told to keep their kids away from the broader secular culture, so its also very insular. They stick to the Christian version of it. Thats the only theology they know.

This is really a story about a religious movement getting entangled with politics and consumerism and being bastardized as a result of the collision.

I think thats right, and theres a lot of money to be made through the book sales, the advertising, and the connections between the political strategists and some of the folks behind this consumer market. What I really tried to do here is just understand the networks behind American evangelicalism. Who is publishing what? What are the distribution networks?

Its critical to understand evangelicalism through this lens. Even when someone walks into a Christian book store or goes online and orders a Christian product, that feels like an authentic expression of their faith to them.

I hear people say all the time that Trumps election was a tragedy for evangelicals, but after reading your book, I wonder if it isnt their greatest victory.

It depends on your vantage point, right? Ive been studying evangelical masculinity for almost 15 years, and seeing the veil ripped off in this way was almost cathartic for me. I was able to see the nature of the movement with even more clarity. This is what family values evangelicalism looks like, and now its apparent to everyone.

But for evangelical dissenters, this is indeed a tragedy. And yet I think even those who are resisting, or who are calling this out and who are struggling with the direction that evangelicalism has taken, still need to reckon with the ways in which they, too, as part of this tradition, have been complicit in this ideology. The Trump era didnt just happen. Weve been moving in this direction for a long time.

Support Voxs explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Voxs work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

More here:

Evangelical Christians and Trump: Is the partnership a surprise? - Vox.com

Post-BLM, even a popular ice-cream brand name can be deemed a source of racial oppression.

Alongside Covid-19, it seems another debilitating infection has returned to New Zealand: the pandemic of political correctness.

Political correctness is, of course, an opportunistic affliction, something that most on the left carry asymptomatically. The problem for everyone else is that were all potentially exposed to its chronic stupidity.

The new outbreaks latest victim? Ice-cream.

The humble Eskimo Pie, an ice-cream treat beloved of Kiwis for generations, is to be renamed in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement sweeping the globe. That it wasnt an indigenous circumpolar person killed by a police officer in Minneapolis makes no difference. Its now just not cool to call Inuit people all 183,000 of them Eskimos.

Times change but its still a chilling move, if youll excuse the pun. No one of Inuit descent has complained about the brand name Eskimo Pies, though in 2009 an Inuit visitor from Canada, Seeka Lee Veevee Parsons, did say she was shocked by the sale of Eskimo lollies another Kiwi favourite in New Zealand.

Nevertheless, the maker of Eskimo Pies, Tip Top, has decided to drop the name so as to be part of the solution on racial equality. How changing the name of an ice-cream sold for decades in a country more than 12,000 kilometres from even the closest Inuit native is part of the solution to racial equality remains unclear.

And no word yet on what the ice-creams new name might be, but one presumes it wont be Inuit Pie or Yupik Sandwich. Odds on itll be something as inoffensive as possible perhaps something catchy like frozen, smooth, semi-solid vanilla foam coated in cocoa solids and cocoa butter. Itll likely have to be zero-sugar and low-fat, too.

One person who presumably wont be eating whatever Eskimo Pies become, though, is New Zealand Herald reporter Siena Yates. Yates, an entertainment reporter, wrote an op-ed explaining why shes decided to have weight-loss surgery.

Were all fatphobic apparently. And, as it turns out, racist and a bit sexist. Thats why Yates, a person of colour, is overweight and now in need of surgical intervention. Fatphobia is all related to anti-blackness, says Yates, quoting US academic and author Sabrina Strings who, in her book Fearing the Black Body: The Racial Origins of Fat Phobia, said that during times of colonisation and slavery, overfeeding and fatness were evidence of savagery and racial inferiority.

Sure, journalism these days is a tough gig, but its not yet slavery as far as I know. And this diagnosis will likely come as a surprise to the huge numbers of non-slaves also suffering from obesity around the world.

Heres a simple piece of weight-loss advice, Siena: lay off the (Eskimo) pies.

John Mitchell is a writer based in New Zealand.

Picture by: Sarah Cohen-Rose and Chris Cohen, published under a creative-commons licence.

Help spiked prick the Covid consensus

So here we are 14 weeks into Britains three-week lockdown. We hope you are all staying sane out there, and that spiked has been of some assistance in that. We have ramped up our output of late, to provide a challenge to the Covid consensus. But we couldnt have done that without your support. spiked unlike so many things these days is completely free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you enjoy our work, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even 5 per month can be a huge help. You can donate here.Thank you! And stay well.

To enquire about republishing spikeds content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Read more from the original source:

New Zealands other pandemic political correctness - Spiked

President Donald Trump in the White House press briefing room on Thursday.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Donald Trump has long revealed himself to be a bully, one who punches down yet screams bloody murder when someone else so much as taps him. Nowhere is this trait more manifest than in his free speech hypocrisy. Throughout his political campaigns and his presidency, Trump has routinely decried the scourge of political correctness, slammed the weakness of snowflakes who cant handle his telling it like it is, and demanded the right to publish factual misstatements without correction on private social media platforms. Yet Trump has wielded the extraordinary powers and privileges of the presidencyusing everything from the presidential bully pulpit to the classification system to his leverage over executive branch personnelto threaten, intimidate, and punish those whose words embarrass or anger him.

Lest the advantages of his office not fully protect him from unwelcome speech, Trump also continues to employ a technique that he has long used in his private life, his business life, and his political life: contracts featuring nondisclosure and nondisparagement clauses, or NDAs. At the moment, Trump is engaged in litigation to stop the publication of a book by his niece, Mary Trump, which reportedly contains damaging revelations about him. Because Mary once signed an NDA, Trump has declared that she is not allowed to write a book. On Wednesday, a New York Supreme Court appellate judge lifted a temporary restraining order on publication of the book. Given the heightened public interest in information about the president and the strong presumption against prior restraints on publications of any kind, the interests at stake are on Mary Trumps side.

Of course, though, Trumps penchant for NDAs goes well beyond his own family. More troubling still is his practice of requiring campaign staffers and White House employees to sign sweeping NDAs that bar them from criticizing Trump, his family members, or any Trump organizations for the rest of the signers lives. A recently filed case, now pending in federal district court in Manhattan, offers a fresh look at Trumps use of NDAs to muzzle former campaign staffers.

In Denson v. Donald J. Trump for President Inc., Jessica Denson, who worked on the 2016 campaign, seeks a judgment declaring that the form NDA that the campaign required its employees, contractors, and volunteers to sign is unenforceable. When Denson filed a previous state-court lawsuit against the campaign raising claims related to her employment, the Trump campaign sought to enforce the NDA against Denson through arbitration, claiming she violated the NDA by filing the lawsuit. Although an arbitrator initially granted damages to the campaign, a New York state appellate court vacated the award on the grounds that public policy prohibits parties from using NDAs to punish individuals for filing lawsuits. The court did not weigh in on the validity of the NDA itself, noting that any challenge to the campaigns NDA would have to be presented to the arbitrator in the first instance. While the campaigns arbitration proceedings were pending, Denson filed a federal lawsuit seeking to have the NDA declared invalid. The federal court agreed with the Trump campaign that Denson had to resolve her claim through arbitration. When Denson sought to initiate her own class arbitration challenging the NDA, however, the campaign asserted that it could itself choose to bypass arbitration, and insisted that the plaintiff file her purported claims in court. In her current lawsuit, filed last month, Denson does just that.

The NDA that Denson challenges is breathtaking in its scope. Its nondisparagement clause prohibits campaign workers, for the rest of their lives, from demean[ing] or disparag[ing] publicly the campaign, Donald Trump, Trump family members, or Trump companies. The nondisclosure clause forever bars campaign workers from revealing confidential information or using such information in any way detrimental to Mr. Trump, his family, or any Trump businesses. Confidential information includes any information with respect to the personal life, political affairs, and/or business affairs of Mr. Trump or any Family Member. On the off chance that the definition leaves some kernel of information unshielded, it extends as well to all information of a private, propriety or confidential nature or that Mr. Trump insists remain private or confidential (emphasis mine).

Denson argues that the NDA is invalid on multiple grounds, including the First Amendments speech and press clauses and New York state contract law. Among Densons contract law arguments is the notion that any benefit from enforcing the contract is outweighed by the public interest in the free exchange of ideas. At the heart of each legal claim are two key insights about free speech in a democratic system. First, the right of the people to criticize and to share information about government officials is essential to democracy and the rule of law. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has extolled our profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. Second, speech that scrutinizes government officials is as vulnerable as it is valuable. One need not be a hardened cynic to fear that those who wield power will use it to suppress their critics. This commonsense insight is manifest in numerous aspects of First Amendment law, including the presumption against content-based restrictions on speech and the high bar that public figures must surmount to win damages against speakers who defame them.

The Trump campaigns sweeping NDA affronts these foundational principles. This would be so even if Trump had not won the presidency and were merely an influential politician. That he is now the president of the United States makes starker still the NDAs insult to free speech and democratic discourse.

Finally, although the courts may not need to reach Densons First Amendment claim, given the strength of her state law positions, it is important to put to rest the notion that the campaigns NDA is a purely private instrument, and that the First Amendment therefore does not apply. It is true that the campaign organization technically is a private and not a governmental entity. However, the NDAs terms extend well beyond the time of Trumps candidacy and pertains to all information and views about Trump the president as well as Trump the candidate and private citizen. It seeks to stifle any unapproved utterance, from thousands of individuals throughout the course of their lives, about the president of the United States. The First Amendment would mean little if its protections could be circumvented so easily.

Trump has made clear that he values free speech only for himself and his supporters. The Constitution and the laws of New York state are not, thankfully, so selective.

For more of Slates news coverage, subscribe to What Next on Apple Podcasts or listen below.

Readers like you make our work possible. Help us continue to provide the reporting, commentary, and criticism you wont find anywhere else.

Read the rest here:

Trump's political NDAs are an abomination to the First Amendment. - Slate

Defund the police? Someones breaking into my home. Lets see, who do I call?

The school board, the mayor?

Does anyone even truly consider this?

Lets think about our public school system. No God, no Pledge of Allegiance, no morals, no respect for authority, only political correctness.

The Left and most Democrats believe only their opinion can be heard. They would do away with American history, our forefathers monuments, documents, the Constitution, the flag itself. And no more history without revision.

So, if you are a Christian, a believer of anything good in this country, love the flag and patriotism, you are called a racist.

George Floyd was murdered by a police officer. The law and justice must be done. Racism does not excuse looting, rioting, burning a church, destroying cities and businesses many owned by Black people.

Anarchy will serve no one. What do you bet they try to defund and disarm the military next.

Oh, wait. Obama and the Democrats already did that in the last presidency.

Brenda Bussiere, Turner

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Link:

Brenda Bussiere: What is going on? - The Bethel Citizen

You can run, but you cant hide. American idiom

They are just angry because the truth you speak contradicts the lie they live. Steve Maraboli

White people who are afraid of the truths exposed about racism in recent weeks and months as a result of the resurgence of expressions of Black Lives Matter have cleverly hidden from the conversations by claiming they are too political.

This is a method deployed to avoid having conversations that are too hard to handle by far too many whites in this country. As they have continued to deny the presence of systemic racism, conversations have been stifled by those who claim they are too political.

Politics is defined as: of, relating to, or concerned with politics; of, relating to, or connected with a political party. If a particular political party chooses to ignore these conversations it is their choice. Dont let so-called politics be your excuse. Be honest and say you dont want to talk about it. Be honest and say it brings up too much guilt.

When white people have been mistreated in this country they have had free rein to express their displeasure, standing behind the First Amendment argument of free speech. Dont we as people of color have freedom of speech as well? Or is our freedom of speech limited by what white people want to hear? Wasnt this country founded by white people who were expressing their displeasure with the King of England?

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Natures God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separationThe history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these StatesIn every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Declaration of Independence (July 1776)

As the nation celebrates Independence Day on the anniversary of the independence of white colonists from a despotic King, I look and ask when our Independence Day is coming. When will these words in the Declaration of IndependenceWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happinessapply to people of color?

Were celebrating two hundred years of white folks kicking a$$. Richard Pryor on the July 4th 1976 bicentennial celebration

As people of color, particularly Blacks, struggle to have our voices heard, we get constant pushback, repudiation, snubs, rebukes, rejection, spurning, repulsion, and refusals to listen by uncomfortable white people. Why are they so uncomfortable hearing our side of the story? Because it conflicts with the lies they tell, believe, perpetuate, carry on, maintain, sustain, eternalize and believe to the depths of their souls.

One of my favorite words in the English language is obfuscate. It means, to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy; to make obscure or unclear. We are in the midst of some of the most profound obfuscation in the history of this still fairly young nation. Many older people of color will tell you they miss the old days when racism was clearly expressed by white people. They dont say this because they enjoyed it. Its because its better than people lying to your face saying they are not racist all the while they are committing racist acts. It does not really matter if the biases are unconscious or conscious, they cause the same pain.

When I hear white people say they are uncomfortable talking about racism I think to myself, how do you think we feel being victimized by racism? Many white people are uncomfortable talking about something that we cant stop talking about because it is our lived experience every day of our lives whether white people see it, believe it, admit it, understand it, consider it, give credence to it, or deny it. It does not go away because white people are all of a sudden woke. Most white people have been sleeping like Rip Van Winkle, except he only slept for 20 years.

Now one of the tools of obfuscation is the good ole trick of changing the narrative. Some white people work really hard to convince us that we are delusional, and that we keep bringing up the past indiscretions of white people to make them feel guilty. If a white person feels guilt its on them. We did not cause it. Their actions and the actions of their ancestors caused it. Are we to simply forget what happened to us? Should we just stop talking about it? Do some people prefer that we live in the future instead of the past and present?

The truth is still the truth, even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.

When I hear that we are bringing up old things like slavery, and Jim Crow segregation, Im reminded that slavery and Jim Crow segregation are not responsible for the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery. We dot have to go back very far to find white indiscretions. They happen every day. Here are a few recent headlines to remind you.

Colorado Police Officers Under Investigation For Photos At Elijah McClain Memorial

Two Florida officials fired for erasing faces of Black firefighters from city mural

University of North Carolina Wilmington professor behind vile racist and sexist tweets to retire

Woman Yells You Live Off White People in Racist Rant at BLM Protesters

NC Hampton Inn Employee Fired After Calling Police on Black Guests Using the Pool

Trump shares video of white couple pointing guns at protesters in St. Louis

Target employee says N.Y. customer demanded she remove Black Lives Matter mask

Austin schools suspend Black students nearly 5 times as often as white students

A Black man tried to cash his first paycheck. The teller called 911.

All of these headlines happened within about a week. Racism has not gone dormant during the protests, in fact its rearing its ugly head on a consistent basis if you pay attention.

Some accuse the protestors of politicizing race. Lets explore what that looks like historically. Politicians are also known as lawmakers. Lets take a look at some laws they have written in this country.

ALABAMA

ARIZONA

FLORIDA

GEORGIA

NEW MEXICO

OKLAHOMA

WYOMING

These laws were all written by white politicians. So I guess in this way race is about politics. Yet when we bring up this type of politics, white people in many instances get mad, and storm out of the room. They accuse people of color of using the race card. White people created the race card. They hold all the trump cardsno pun intendedin the deck.

One of my least favorite phrases in the English language is political correctness. So I guess if people whove been called spics, niggers, chinks, and such, begin to demand that people use terms that are not demeaning, then they are asking people to be politically correct. No they are not! They are telling you that they dont want to continue to be called racial epithets just because white people love those words so much. People who complain about political correctness are people who dont have a problem with schools around the country being named after Confederate generals, or sports teams like The Washington Redskins. In their way of seeing the world, people of color are being overly sensitive and are revisionists historians, trying to destroy the beauty of America.

Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monumentsthe beauty that is being taken out of our cities, towns and parks will be greatly missed and never able to be comparably replaced! President Donald J. Trump, tweet 17 August 2017

Back in the early years of the twentieth century a battle was being waged by some leaders in the Black community. They were trying to get white people to capitalize the word negro. They saw it as a sign of respect if the word was capitalized. White people continued to use the lower case version.

While many white people have turned books like So You Want to Talk About Race and How to Be an Antiracist into bestsellers, other white people wont even say the phrase Black Lives Matter out loud. Some white people want to learn and some are apparently not ready to budge on issues of racism. What can we do?

Take advantage of the moment. Appreciate that some white people are woke right now. Invite them to learn, and talk about racism before it falls out of vogue. We know this momentum wont last forever. Get the conversations in while you can. Understand that some people will never shift their position and move in the direction of being either non-racist or actively anti-racist.

Use your influence to get as many white people to the table to talk as you can now. Understand the tremendous peer pressure many white people feel from family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers to not talk about racism. And finally, stop calling it political when it has nothing to do with politics, its about human decency and respect. Its time to learn and unlearn. One does not work without the other. Lets follow the example of the post-Apartheid South Africa.

To provide for the investigation and the establishment of as complete a picture as possible of the nature, causes and extent of gross violations of human rights committed during the period from 1 March 1960 to the cut-off date contemplated in the Constitution, within or outside the Republic, emanating from the conflicts of the past, and the fate or whereabouts of the victims of such violations; the granting of amnesty to persons who make full disclosure of all the relevant facts relating to acts associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflicts of the past during the said period; affording victims an opportunity to relate the violations they suffered; the taking of measures aimed at the granting of reparation to, and the rehabilitation and the restoration of the human and civil dignity of, victims of violations of human rights; reporting to the Nation about such violations and victims; the making of recommendations aimed at the prevention of the commission of gross violations of human rights; and for the said purposes to provide for the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. South African Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995

Continued here:

An Uncomfortable Guilt: The excuse of politics is not why people avoid talking about systemic racism - Milwaukee Independent

By Cory Carroll

I read with interest Katie Langfords June 19 story regarding Dr. Detlev Helmig. I was drawn to this since I have not only used Dr. Helmigs research in my work, but also presented with him to audiences along the Front Range.I do not want to discuss guilt or innocence. I want to point out the draconian actions by the University of Colorado Boulder on a professor with a proven track record of accurate, unbiased, and critically relevant research.

If Dr. Helmig is guilty of monetary improprieties, as implied by the university, I will guarantee it was a mistake. My assertion is that Dr. Helmigs work revealed the health hazards from fracking, and those wells are owned by an extremely powerful group (the oil and gas industry), and that group wanted him silenced.

As a family physician and chair of Physicians for Social Responsibility Colorado, I want to know as much as possible about seen and unseen hazards that harm my patients, and the citizens of Colorado. The pollutants that Dr. Helmig measures harm people. Prior to his work, there were incomplete assessments on these toxins, but his continuous monitors showed shocking findings.

As a consummate scientist, Dr. Helmig looked at the data and presented the results without bias or political correctness, which created enemies. Some of the pollutants he measured are from the usual sources in cities, exhaust from autos and buildings. However, some of the toxins are unique to the oil and gas activity, mainly fracking, that has proliferated along the Front Range, with a large concentration in Weld County.

What Dr. Helmig showed is that air toxins, from these sites, is transported to the population centers via prevailing winds and is exposing millions of unsuspecting people.

Prior to his work, the reports from the oil and gas companies and the less accurate measurement done by the state indicated there were no dangerous levels. Dr. Helmigs research painted a different picture. A recent paper from February of this year entitled, Air quality impacts from oil and natural gas development in Colorado, and prior publications were a big problem for oil and gas corporations. With the changing Legislature in Colorado and focus to change the regulations over the oil and gas industry, bad publicity was the last thing the industry wanted.

But they had a problem. Dr. Helmig is a respected researcher who has published more than 290 papers and his work has been cited by more than 8,000 other researchers. His work is full of integrity and value.

I do not know of the connections the oil and gas corporations have with CU Boulder, but the decision of the college to terminate a well-respected professor who has ongoing research with outside funding for at least a year is extremely strange, to say the least. When you add that the firing came over a phone call, out of the blue, without any details or opportunity for an appeal, and in one hour all the locks were changed at his lab, his website taken down, phones and emails disabled, it only makes sense that the oil and gas industry has influence at CU Boulder.

The years of work Dr. Helmig provided the university, the value he has provided the local communities, his academic excellence, all destroyed in a day.

Interruption of the valuable research that Dr. Helmig has been doing will cost lives. I have several colleagues in surrounding states who have used Dr. Helmigs work to fight polluters and create healthier communities. We need more professors like Dr. Helmig who are willing to publish the truth and not back down to powerful interests. If we allow the silencing of ethical scientists by unethical institutions, we are doomed as an advanced society.

Dr. Cory Carroll is a board-certified family physician actively practicing in Fort Collins since 1992 and current chairperson for Physicians for Social Responsibility Colorado.

Go here to see the original:

Guest opinion: Cory Carroll: Helmigs work has saved lives - The Daily Camera