Category Archives: Political Correctness

This article is inThe Spectators March 2020 US edition.Subscribe here.

For most of the past 200 years, the left, whether revolutionary or liberal, derived power and popularity from being on the side of freedom. If you resented the economic, social and political privileges enjoyed by hereditary aristocrats and landowners, you were on the left. If you chafed against the restraints imposed on what you could read, write, say, think or do by established churches or majoritarian cultural Christianity, you had reason to support one left-wing movement or another philosophes and Jacobins in the 18th century, liberals in the 19th century, the American Civil Liberties Union in the 20th.

In the 20th century, particularly in America, the right also campaigned in the name of freedom. Though that often led to electoral success, the left still continued to define what freedom meant in private life and public politics. Now that has all changed. The revolution is complete, and the old revolutionaries are the new establishment, behaving exactly like the ancien rgime they toppled. What you can read, watch, write, say, think and do is again being morally policed. New aristocracies are entrenched in the form of an unelected permanent bureaucracy in government the deep state and a highly endogamous economic and cultural elite that has little in common with the lives and livelihoods it directs.

When the left-wing establishment of today laments the threat to good order and norms posed by the populist right, it even sounds like the traditional establishment of centuries past. The populist rights very mode of speaking (or tweeting) is vulgar and offensive. Conservative defenders of the left-wing establishment, otherwise known as the NeverTrump gang, obsess over the uncouth character of the president and perceive his supporters as a mindless rabble ever on the edge of violence. This was just how the defenders of the old aristocratic order saw the Chartists and other popular movements demanding political and economic reform.

There is, to be sure, still a non-establishment left championed by figures such as Bernie Sanders. But Sanderss radicalism applies only to the quasi-free market part of the ruling class: he rails against the insurance companies and pharmaceutical industry but does not take on the educational establishment or the permanent unelected government. Far from being a revolutionary threat to capitalism, Sanders is a non-threat to a political and economic order that is as statist as it is capitalist.

A truly radical challenge to the establishment would change the countrys economic and political dispensations alike. This is what the new nationalism attempts, in however clumsy a fashion: Trump has disrupted bureaucracies, even if he has not uprooted them, and his administration has been equally willing to disrupt the global trade system. Although Trump may not understand it in these terms, the latter the defiance of globalization is a necessary political struggle as well as a necessary economic struggle. Its a struggle to restore to localities (and not just the nation as a whole) a measure of economic cohesion that allows for political cohesion.

The original American revolutionaries understood many things that todays left-wing establishment does not, including the importance of place in self-government. When the spokesmen of the elite attack the Electoral College and the United States Senate for being insufficiently democratic, they are attempting to turn democracy against itself, by dissolving all clumps of self-government into a mass with no organization a liquid electorate easily diverted, channeled and dammed by the ruling class. The abolition of place in democracy is akin to the abolition of the union in labor. Individual voters and individual workers can still do as they please, but without organization they have no power. They become simply a pool of resources, political or economic, to be managed by others, a reservoir in which one drop is of no significance.

If freedom in politics requires organization, freedom in private life calls for the restraint of moral and psychological coercion. The Enlightenment philosophes hated the Catholic Church because it interfered in what they really cared about: writing and thinking. The left believes to this very day that the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general, are grave threats to freedom and so whatever restrains the churches must be good for liberty. Hence religious liberty, which the left of earlier centuries often defended against religious establishments, is now seen as backward and reactionary a fastness for theocrats who only want to deprive women and homosexuals of the right to recreational sex.

But the churches long ago lost their legal power and have lately lost even the cultural authority they once wielded over western societies. Today an informal but no less strict anti-Christianity left-liberalism as a godless religion polices our sexual mores and habits of speech and thought. Not long ago, to be a homosexual was to risk professional ruin and social opprobrium. Now, to be a person of faith who is bound by conscience to reject the normalization of homosexuality is to incur the same penalty. And so freedom of speech has become a right-wing cause.

Whether or not the nationalists of today and their allies are committed to freedom in principle, any more than the left of yore was, is irrelevant in practice. One class of people, affirming left-of-center pieties, possesses power in this country in the media, in education, in the boardroom and in the government. Those who resist that power are the party of freedom, whether they think of themselves that way or not. They believe that something other than the global economy and government experts and the cult of political correctness holds the truth about human happiness. And that other thing nation, faith, place, the nobility of the soul can only flourish if we remove the impediments placed in its way by our ruling class.

This article is inThe Spectators March 2020 US edition.Subscribe here.

Read the original:

What the new nationalism means - The Spectator USA

What is your idea of perfect happiness? Life with no Instagram and no selfies. I am so tired of looking at people staring out of the window of a private plane with a small dog in their laps.What is your greatest fear? Couples who have to be sat side by side at L.A. dinner parties. What is that all about?!Which living person do you most admire? Gloria Steinem.What is the trait you most deplore in yourself? Perfectionism.What is the trait you most deplore in others? Narcissism.What is your greatest extravagance? Sleep and doughnuts.What is your favorite journey? The one to my bed every night.What do you consider the most overrated virtue? Political correctness.On what occasion do you lie? It is hard to get through a large cocktail party without lying dozens of times. You look amazing! Oh, my God, its so great to see you!We need to see each other more!when really I am dying to get home and watch Netflix.What do you dislike most about your appearance? The fact that my butt seems to be sliding down my thighs.Which living person do you most despise? Well, we all know who, but I dont want to give him any more airtime.What is your greatest regret? That I never slept with Cary Grant.What or who is the greatest love of your life? Our son, Jack.When and where are you happiest? Staring at our son every night when he is sleeping.Which talent would you most like to have? The ability to relax.What is your current state of mind? Cluttered.If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be? My terrible temper.What do you consider your greatest achievement? Being a good parent, or at least trying to be.If you were to die and come back as a person or thing and could choose what to come back as, what would it be? The Barcelona Pavilion.What is your most treasured possession? My ability to simply say Fuck it.What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery? Have you ever taken a mirror and bent over and looked at what happens to your face? If you are over 35, it is not pretty. Ive definitely entered the age of only lying on my back when in intimate situations.What is your favorite occupation? Making films.What is your most marked characteristic? Loyalty.What do you most value in your friends? A sense of humor.Who are your heroes in life? Doctors.What are your favorite names? Classic ones. Names have become so absurd. Especially in L.A. If I meet one more person named after a tree, a fruit, or an obscure spice, Im going to lose it.What is it that you most dislike? People who cancel dates at the last minute. L.A. seems to be filled with these people.How would you like to die? Alone.What is your motto? Listen to everyone and then do what you want. Actually, Ive lifted that quote from Diane von Furstenberg, but its genius. I live by it.

Read more:

Tom Ford Answers the Proust Questionnaire - Vanity Fair

MELBOURNE The fairness of transgender athletes competing in women's sports will be under the microscope in Australia on Sunday when New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard continues her bid to qualify for the Tokyo Olympics.

Hubbard, who competed in men's weightlifting competitions before transitioning seven years ago, will lift in the women's 87-plus kg division in the Australian Open in Canberra on Sunday.

She kept her Olympic hopes alive by winning last month's World Cup in Rome where she lifted 270kg, edging Ukraine's Anastasiia Lysenko by 4kg.

The Australian Open offers another chance for 42-year-old Hubbard to shore up ranking points in qualifying, which requires lifters to compete in at least six events in an 18-month period before the Games.

Hubbard is eligible to compete in women's events, according to the International Weightlifting Federation's guidelines for the inclusion of transgender athletes. She is also eligible to lift at Tokyo if she qualifies.

The International Olympic Committee's guidelines, issued in 2015, allow any transgender athlete to compete as a woman provided their testosterone levels are below 10 nanomoles per liter for at least 12 months before their first competition.

Some scientists have criticized the guidelines, saying they do little to mitigate the biological advantages of those who have gone through puberty as males, including bone and muscle density.

Sports like weightlifting, which place a premium on strength, are at the center of the debate.

Hubbard's participation in women's events has dismayed rival lifters and their coaches.

Her gold medal wins at the Pacific Games in Samoa last year, where she topped the podium ahead of Samoa's Commonwealth Games champion Feagaiga Stowers, triggered outrage in the island nation. [nL4N24V1GQ]

Australia's weightlifting federation sought to block Hubbard from competing at their home Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast in 2018 but organizers rejected their bid.

Australian former track athlete Tamsyn Manou, who won three Commonwealth golds competing as Tamsyn Lewis from 1998-2006, said on Thursday that women needed to "take a stand" over the inclusion of transgender athletes in their sports.

"There's been a lot of people who are scared to come out and say anything because of political correctness," Manou told local radio station 2GB.

Qualifying for Tokyo would be a triumph for the media-shy Hubbard, who thought her weightlifting career was over after suffering a serious arm injury at the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games.

Coming back from surgery, she has had unwavering support from Olympic Weightlifting New Zealand for her Tokyo bid.

"Nothing has changed for us," Simon Kent, OWNZ's head of high performance told Reuters. "We are still following the same parameters we have since the get-go. We follow the IOC protocols and as Laurel said, she meets (them)."

(Additional reporting by Greg Stutchbury in Wellington; Editing by Gerry Doyle)

See the rest here:

Transgender Weightlifter Hubbard Continues Tokyo Bid in Australia - The New York Times

I did not think that Mike Bloomberg would be a thing in the 2020 Democratic primary. Im not certain he will still be a thing when all is said and done, but his name has been on our lips of late. It helps to have seemingly unlimited funds with which to buy advertisements, of course. But his plausibility as a presidential candidate is built on something more culturally substantive a default image of what leadership looks like to Americans white and male and rich. Though his polling numbers appear to have slipped following his first debate appearance, the significance of the Bloomberg candidacy goes beyond itself: his rise and stall tells us something about what Democratic voters project on to candidates, what theyre willing to tolerate from them, and what the limits of their imagination might be when it comes to picturing the next nominee.

A different flavor of acid-tongued billionaire, Bloomberg has pitched himself as uniquely suited to beat President Trump. Bloombergs 2020 image buoyed by TV ads and TV coverage is the get-it-done former mayor of New York City who is equipped to handle Trumps vindictive style of campaigning. I know how to deal with New York bullies, Bloomberg said of the president recently. Somebody said that hes taller than me, calls me, Little Mike. And the answer is, Donald, where I come from we measure your height from the neck up.

A mid-February, pre-Nevada debate NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll gives a snapshot of where his strongest support comes from. In the national poll, Bloomberg received 19 percent of support from all Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, second only to Sanders. At 24 percent, he was also the second choice of non-college educated white voters and suburban and rural voters, a handy demographic to poll well with come the general election white people are the majority in 90 percent of Americas suburban and small metro counties. Black voters in the survey preferred Biden and Sanders to Bloomberg, but he still received 16 percent of black support.

But in the past two weeks, things have gotten shakier for Bloomberg. In the FiveThirtyEight forecast, Bloomberg currently now has a 2 percent chance of earning a majority of delegates, down from a high of 10 percent. Hes behind Sanders, no one (what happens when no candidate wins a majority of pledged delegates) and Joe Biden. That he trails Biden is an issue, since Bloomberg entered the race largely to provide a moderate alternative to the former vice president.

His anemic debate performance last week may have had some effect on his slide in the polls. He was attacked for his history of sexist comments and his long-time support of stop and frisk policing policies. A Morning Consult poll shows that Bloomberg lost three percentage points after the debate, falling from 20 percent to 17 percent support in their surveys his net favorability, meanwhile, fell 20 points But what has really stunted his appeal? Is it his decidedly un-politically correct past, including the use of non-disclosure agreements to prevent women from talking about their allegations against him? Or his flat affect and inability to get into the fray of the fast-moving, sharp debates? Has Bloombergs past come back to haunt him or is it that his political abilities cant stand up to the present-day competition?

In the seven years since Bloomberg left elected office, much has changed. A feature of the Trump presidency has been national debates over PC culture think outrage from certain corners at the practice of kneeling at NFL games to protest police violence or the publics division over whether Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh had committed sexual assault as a teenager. Trump keeps going back to the PC culture well because its deep; a 2019 survey found that 48 percent of the American public thought that theres too much political correctness in the country today as opposed to too much prejudice 18 percent of that group were Democrats, and 89 percent were white.

It might be that voters, up until the first debate in which Bloomberg appeared, didnt know all that much about him outside of the fact that hes a finance billionaire from New York City and many Americans perhaps ascribe a certain blunt, no-bullshit personality type with that archetype. The idea that he might say whats on his mind, however inappropriate or however much it goes against the grain of whats polite in well-educated liberal circles whats politically correct is perhaps one of the reasons why some Democratic voters like Bloomberg. Or, at the very least, what makes them think he has what it takes to compete with Trump and to win back some of Trumps voters. Sanders, too, has a sheen of anti-PC culture given that his reputation is built on his authenticity and his I-wont-call-you-on-your-birthday grumpiness.

But are Democrats only willing to tolerate that veneer of anti-PC posturing in their politicians up to a point? Did the sexism allegations leveled against Bloomberg during the debate prove too much for Democratic voters to stomach? Were the specifics enough to shatter the image voters might have created of him in their heads? Its difficult to tell, but on this point, it might be that Bloombergs candidacy is a test of sorts for the Democratic Party, helping discern whether there is tolerance for not just an anti-PC affect in candidates, but actual actions that go against the spirit of feminist and racial tolerance movements the party has thrown its weight behind.

Regardless of whether Bloombergs support continues to weaken, his initial rise in the polls as Cory Booker, Julian Castro and Kamala Harris dropped out of the race might say something about what Democratic voters think it takes to win in a general election. All three were candidates of color running progressive, politically correct campaigns. Voters might just surmise that campaigns that are vocally attuned to promoting a politically correct agenda wont be palatable to the majority of American voters, or voters in key swing states.

Remember, also, that Elizabeth Warren, once a frontrunner and another PC candidate, has fallen in the polls as Bloomberg has risen. That poses another test of the Democratic electorate: whether it is willing to abide by systemic societal sexism against female candidates. In other words, anti-PC behavior in and of itself.

Warren has of course been dinged for being too liberal on health care, but many voters who like Sanders dont necessarily like her despite the fact that she and Sanders share a general worldview. A liberal woman is perhaps more likely to be painted into the woke corner, which a voter may assume is certain death in a general election. Democratic voters express pessimism about whether other Americans would be willing to accept a female candidate: a late January USA Today/Ipsos poll found that 68 percent of likely Democratic primary voters say the nation is ready to elect a woman as president, which is 7 percentage points lower than six months prior. Seventy-one percent of Americans said theyd be comfortable with a woman president but just 33 percent said their neighbors would feel the same. Pragmatic Democratic voters focused on electability might couch their move away from Warren as pragmatism, though it is also sexism sexism refracted through a broader societal lens, reflective of our cultures bias against the leadership prowess of women. But sexism all the same.

The testing of these anti-PC boundaries will continue to follow the Democrats well past the presidential election, though the wide array of primary candidates makes for a neat demonstration of the various threads in the knotty concept. Much of the conversation this primary has been about how liberal the Democratic nominee should be. Inherent in that is how politically correct the nominee should be in order to appeal to Democrats. Bloombergs record of anti-PC actions might prove to be too much for these voters but it also might be that theres such a thing as too much PC, even for a Democrat. The balance is delicate and evolving and its possible that equilibrium wont be reached in 2020, despite the high stakes.

More:

Bloombergs Rise And Stall Tells Us A Lot About Democrats And PC Culture - FiveThirtyEight

During a panel at Harvard several years agoon press and the presidency, political journalist Jessica Yellin described Donald Trumps conflict with the press as WWF, media edition: In one corner, Donald Trump, defending the anti-institutionalist position, fighting the elites. In the other corner, the media, defending their honor. We all know conflict does well with readers, with viewers.

Yellins reference to World Wrestling Entertainment (the WWE, formerly known as the WWF) points to something deeper: the striking parallels between Trumps political style and professional wrestling.

His connections to professional wrestling run deep, and, even if he isnt consciously drawing from the professional wrestling playbook, at the very least he intuitively understands its performative power its ability to enrapture audiences, tell a story and dominate headlines.

As a scholar who researched professional wrestling, I saw, in Trump the candidate with his bombastic rhetoric and bravado a distinctly pro-wrestling style. But now that he has transitioned from campaigning into an actual leadership role, can it translate into legislative action? Can he be a showman who also establishes legitimacy, builds alliances and delivers the goods?

Trumps wrestling ties

In professional wrestling, two (or more) opponents stage a violent fight in front of paying spectators. Unlike competitive sports, pro wrestling is premised on telling the best story. As a performer it doesnt matter if you win; what matters is the strength of the emotional response you generate from fans.

Matches are typically fought between a good guy (in wrestling parlance, a baby-face or face) and a bad guy (heel). Characters and storylines commonly revolve around age-old scripts about injustice, vengeance and good triumphing over evil with violence always celebrated as a means to resolve conflict.

The American understanding of pro wrestling has come to be synonymous with the highly profitable and powerful World Wrestling Entertainment Corporation. The publicly-traded business, founded by Jess McMahon in the early 1950s, produces televised live events that are broadcast to millions of homes around the world year-round.

Trump doesnt simply possess a performative style that resembles those of pro wrestlers. For years hes been connected with WWE and has actually participated in several of their shows.

Atlantic Citys Trump Plaza hosted WrestleMania IV and V. In 2007 he performed in WrestleMania 23, attacking WWE CEO Vince McMahon in the Battle of the Billionaires. Two years later, he reemerged in a storyline in which he claimed to have bought Raw, WWEs Monday night program, from McMahon, setting off another feud between the two.

His close ties to pro wrestling are such that he picked Linda McMahon, the wife of Vince McMahon and the former CEO of WWE, to lead his administrations Small Business Administration.

A WWE campaign

Trumps campaign kickoff certainly had a WWE feel to it.

On June 16, 2015, with Neil Youngs Rockin in the Free World blaring, he descended an escalator at Trump Tower before a crowd of onlookers some paid who flashed their cellphone cameras and waved signs.

The stage was smaller, and there werent any pyrotechnics, but the parallels were unmistakable. And after the opening bell, it was one brash pugilistic move followed by another.

He dispatched soundbite slogans and 140-character tweets that reduced complex groups and issues into simplistic stereotypes and remedies (Build That Wall, Lock Her Up, Drain the Swamp and, most famously, Make America Great Again!). Like the catchy slogans of wrestling stars Youre fired! (Vince McMahon), Rest in Peace! (The Undertaker), Know Your Role and Shut Your Mouth! (The Rock) the phrases can be easily remembered, even emblazoned on T-shirts, hats or signs.

During a rally in New Hampshire, Trump took a page directly out of the pro-wrestling playbook, working the crowd with an interactive call-and-response. Feigning the constraints of political correctness, he got a supporter to call Ted Cruz a pussy for not endorsing torture.

The in-ring action in pro wrestling is often a minor part of the drama. Behind the scenes, extensive backstaging, communications, and props from in-ring whispers exchanged with opponents to colorful tales of infidelity made by commentators enhance the drama and optics. A two-hour WWE show often displays less than 15 minutes of in-ring physicality.

Trump utilized similar tactics, like when he brought a group of women who had accused Bill Clinton of infidelity to one of the debates.

His January press conference which was supposed to allay concerns about his involvement in the family business was another command performance. He enlisted paid staffers to applaud his answers, attacked a CNN reporter (calling the networks coverage fake news) and covered a table with stacks of folders that were purportedly brimming with important business documents.

Finally theres the us vs. them dynamic which Jessica Yellin alluded to that became central to Trumps style and appeal. He identified and tapped into a strand of voter malaise especially among whites that few others saw, formulating a basic storyline that resonated: He was the underdog out to exact revenge on the powerful establishment the political, business and media elites who had sold out the interests of the little guy in their embrace of trade deals, corruption and open borders.

Trump, on the other hand, would be their fist-pumping champion.

What happens when the shows over?

Blurring the line between truth and fiction has always been at the heart of pro wrestling. Just like moviegoers, fans know that its an act. But for the sake of being entertained, theyre willing to suspend disbelief.

It worked in Trumps campaign, but can this style succeed during a presidency? Its difficult for a leader to maintain legitimacy when hes repeatedly caught in lies, whether its the size of his inauguration crowd or the homicide rate being at an all-time high.

Moreover, some early decisions have directly contradicted earlier rhetoric. With Cabinet picks that have accumulated more than US$15 billion in wealth, its difficult to see how Trump will drain the D.C. swamp of special interests.

In the end, actual policy will most likely make or break Trumps presidency. He must be able to help voters and work with Congress to pass his agenda.

While wrestling stars usually appear invincible on screen, most of the work is bruising and far from glamorous. Aside from a small cadre of top WWE performers, most pro wrestlers perform for little to no pay in local venues before small crowds of devoted fans. They destroy their bodies, receive little, if any, healthcare and endure grueling schedules.

Although they face little physical danger, politicians also conduct extensive behind-the-scenes work that can be grueling and thankless. Successful politics requires building coalitions, consideration of opposing viewpoints, understanding policy and sitting through numerous meetings. Is Trump willing to put in such work?

The health of American bodies, interestingly enough, has been his biggest leadership test to date. In the weeks after the election, some Trump voters were surprised to find out that they really might lose their health insurance. Nonetheless, Trump made repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act his first major legislative initiative. The plan which would have cut the coverage of an estimated 24 million Americans never even made it to a vote.

One reason could be that Trump and Congress spent only 63 days formulating and debating the legislation, compared to the year it took the Obama administration to advance and pass the Affordable Care Act.

While health care has captured headlines, significant threat comes from his proposed budget cuts, which will slash environmental, housing, diplomatic, educational and food programs, such as meals on wheels.

Like most forms of entertainment, the fans of pro wrestling want to get lost in the drama and yearn to be distracted from everyday life. Performers routinely get injured and sometimes even die yet the crowd is safe and removed from the violence.

With Trump, the tables are turned: Hell likely emerge with his health and finances intact while the crowd bears the risk. If millions of his supporters realize the pain, they will soon be seeing him as a heel.

R. Tyson Smith, Visiting Assistant Professor of Sociology, Muhlenberg College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Image: Reuters

More:

Donald Trump Won the 2016 Election Thanks to Hulk Hogan? - The National Interest Online

Helen Mirren, who won an Oscar for her performance as Britains Queen Elizabeth II in The Queen, says Meghan Markle was a fantastic addition to the royal family, and she applauds Markle and Prince Harrys decision to step back from royal duties, she tells Variety.

Mirren, who is the subject of an homage at the Berlin Film Festival this week and will receive the festivals Honorary Golden Bear for Lifetime Achievement on Thursday, says of the couples decision to withdraw from the royal family: I think their instincts are absolutely right, and I applaud them for it. Hugely actually. Of course, it is complicated.

She adds: Meghan Markle was a fantastic addition to the royal family charming, did everything right, was gracious, was sweet natured, and seemed to be Wow! What a lovely addition. Didnt seem to be neurotic

So, I think it is a loss in a way, but at the same time I think their instincts are absolutely correct. And I think it will all, hopefully, sort itself out, and the tabloid pearl-clutchers will get over their trauma at not having someone to attack all the time. Theyll find another victim probably me, she says with a laugh.

Mirren says she has witnessed a huge improvement in the position of female actors over the course of her career. (She says she prefers the term actress. It has a slightly fin de sicle feel about it that I like, she says. But thank you for being politically correct; I approve of political correctness as well, so thats alright.) Oh god, theres more work to be done, further to go, but it is great, its absolutely great, she says, with gusto. It just pisses me off that Im not now 23, and that that world is not open to me, because it is a much better world than it was when I was 23.

I have often been asked if I was angry, and I was profoundly angry about it as I ticked off 20 male characters to one or two female characters if you were lucky. Incidentally it hasnt changed that much. At least now you have female-led movies, and occasionally it is mostly female (casts) still very rare, but at least they exist.

But I always said when I was asked that question, and I still believe it, dont worry about womens profiles in drama, although you should, but worry about womens profiles in life in politics, in particular, and in the professions and fight for that, and to a certain extent I was right because that world changed, and as night follows day drama and culture us looking at ourselves through drama, through art has changed, because they are looking at a different world. So change the world and culture will change alongside that.

Mirren describes Margaret Thatcher as her greatest female role model, adding not because I believed in her politics I absolutely did not. I dont think she was a great person as a person. But she says a little girl who saw Margaret Thatcher on television would say Mummy whos that? and the mother would reply, That is the Prime Minister of England. Then that 4-year-olds head goes: Women can be Prime Minister of England. That wasnt the case when I was 4 years old, Mirren says.

She concedes that sometimes life does imitate art. Culture can lead the world. It can say: Look there are women scientists in the world. Drama can change the look of the world around us; it is a symbiotic relationship.

Mirren has been to the Berlin Film Festival a few times, most recently in 2015 with Woman in Gold, and she regards it with a certain reverence, so her Honory Golden Bear for Lifetime Achievement, and to be the subject of an homage for her work, means a great deal to her. The Berlin film audiences are highly educated and very critical. They are not impressed by Hollywood. They are very discerning, she says. So you take a film to Berlin with a certain amount of trepidation. For that reason it becomes a very important festival for all filmmakers. I guess all Im saying is to receive an award like this, particularly from the Berlin Film Festival, is to my mind quite impressive.

Mirren has been an avid watcher of European films since her student days, but hasnt appeared in as many European films as she would have liked to.

I very proudly count myself as a European actress, and in my career I would have ideally liked to have been more of a European actress, she says.

Im a member of the European Film Awards group and get incredible pleasure from seeing extraordinary European films every year, many of which never get to be seen outside their own country, that are incredible pieces of filmmaking.

One or two of them will get nominated for best foreign film in the Oscars, but behind that film are many, many brilliant movies, about such an extraordinary array of subjects, and approached in such original, inspiring ways.

When I go to the movies it is mostly to see European films. Where the American film industry succeeds it is where they have been influenced by European films, and along those lines there have been some great American movies, but I also have to say African, Antipodean, Asian, Latin American movies. I think the variety of culture, of history, the love of film coming out of Europe is so powerful.

Mirren regards drama theater, television and cinema as more than just a form of entertainment, but as a serious art-form, through which we can explore how we as humans think and behave. She says most Hollywood movies she saw as a young person didnt impress her, but when she discovered European films that changed her perspective on what could be achieved through cinema.

It wasnt until I saw European films that I realized that film could be a whole different thing. That it could be as expressive and as culturally important as theater was to my mind, and that revelation happened to me through seeing Antonionis LAvventura in a very seedy cinema in Brighton a XXX type of cinema and it was an incredible revelation for me. And thereon any European film that was showing anywhere I would go off to see, she says.

I was an usherette at an art film cinema called the Everyman in Hampstead (in London) when I was a student at college. So that gave me an incredible opportunity to see movies. Not just European movies. I remember seeing Citizen Kane like 10 times because it was so extraordinarily good. That was always my go-to film experienceto this day really. I love a nice popcorn movie and Im much more generous in my tastes than I used to be. But still my go-to film experience is something, as you said, that retells the human story in all its variety and its complexity, and misery and its joy.

We are constantly doing and then looking at ourselves doing, and then asking ourselves why we do, and how we do, and what we do. And that is what the history of art in human culture has always been.

While some other actors have moved into producing or directing movies Mirren has no wish to do the same. I think I am intrinsically too lazy. I did direct. I did a half-hour film for Showtime TV. I absolutely loved the experience. I was quite good at it. In fact Showtime asked me to do a full-length feature afterwards. But, again, Im much too lazy. You know, honestly, I want to sit at home and watch TV.

Excerpt from:

Helen Mirren Says Meghan Markle Was a Fantastic Addition to the Royal Family - Variety

Our friends at Twitchy found this interesting video. Its from activist, sex educator, and LGBT culture vlogger Arielle Scarcella, who has had it with the youngins in her community. Theyre insane. Thats pretty much what she lays out in her coming out video. Its short. Its sweet. It lists all the ways in which the LGBT community has gone insane. Scarcella announces shes leaving the Left and for the reasons she givesyou wouldnt blame her. Leave out the LGBT part, she notes that she doesnt follow the current orthodoxy that white straight males are evil, that black straight men are the white dudes ofblack people.

Its not just an LGBT thing. This leeches into other areas too because liberalism, by and large, is just making up crap to fit ones stupid, condescending, and hypocritical view. Case in point, how the Left in the Black Lives Matter movement view black police officers. Milky white Antifa members, who probably have never worked a day in their lives, are caught on video hurling racial epithets at black cops, but its okay because those black police officers arejust like white cops or something.

Scarcella quickly and concisely adds how her community has just gone off the rails, enabling mentally ill people, who to her arent even gay, lesbian, or trans, to leech onto the LGBT movement to score sympathy, external validation, or oppression points.

She even noted her own fights with the cancel crowd, as they have come after her for not adhering to the orthodoxy of the progressive left. She laments how the game of bigot bingo is overplayed, the intolerance from a movement that supposed to preach tolerance and love is hypocritical in the extreme, and she's done with the hive mind mentality. She notes that its gotten so out of hand the LGBT acceptance has dipped since the start of the political correctness olympics the Left seems obsessed with playing on a daily basis. So, thats why shes leaving the Leftand I think this goes beyond the LGBT community. It wouldnt shock me if there are scores of liberals who are leaving the Democratic Party over this sort of nonsense.

You have to be destroyed if you move a step or two away from what is, in the Lefts eyes, acceptablethats insane. But brave, Arielle. Welcome to freedom.

Link:

'It's A Hive Mind Cult': Lesbian Torches Woke LGBT Community In Farewell Video to the Left - Townhall

Joe Mantegna arrives for the John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum' L.A. Special Screening on May 15, 2019.Photo: Shutterstock

The TV series Criminal Minds recently ended its 15-year run on CBS. The final episode was acceptable nowhere near as bad as that of MarriedWith Children (which was no finale at all but two random episodes stitched together with no apparent purpose) but it was certainly no M*A*S*H, Newhart or Sopranos.

I knew of Criminal Minds existence early on but never watched an episode until my spouse and I began binging it last year. Early on its notable male lead was Mandy Patinkin, but he left midway through the third season. Taking his place was Joe Mantegna and that leads us to a story about his connection to the denigration of transgender women.

Related: Steven Universe season finale brings a transgender story to the Cartoon Network

I first recall seeing Mantegna in The Godfather Part III. He played Joey Zasa, a rival to the aging Michael Corleone and, in general, a real piece of work. No one cried when Zasa died and, when I saw the movie on opening day 30 years ago, a few people in the theater actually cheered.

Mantegna did a good job hosting Saturday Night Live in connection to the opening of the flick, but the next thing I remember seeing him in was the series First Monday, which debuted in mid-January 2002.It was off the air by May.

It shouldnt have made it to February.

Mantegna played Joseph Novelli, newly-appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court as an associate justice. James Garner was Chief Justice Thomas Brankin, a pastiche of William Rehnquist. Charles Durning was an old conservative associate justice, something of a mutation of his Dolph Briscoe knock-off from The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.

Great actors all (yes, including Garner; he rarely got the credit he deserved).

But the problem with First Monday was not the acting. It was the writing and perhaps whatever the writers were smoking when they came up with the script for the premiere episode of a series that was being touted as a Supreme Court analogue to The West Wings examination of the inner workings of the White House.

Night Court better served that role than did First Monday, which tried to be edgy out of the gate by dealing with the death penalty and trans issues, failing miserably at both.

The former I wont even discuss here because that part of the episode actually was more preposterous than the trans portion and that really is saying something given how horrid that trans portion was.

The legal aspect of the trans storyline was an insult to the entire notion of appellate court practice as well as to trans women. As Lori Buckwalter noted in her contemporary review of the episode, it was a poorly padded beating by a blunt intellectual instrument.

The case being heard by CBSs fictional Supreme Court involved a trans character seeking asylum in the U.S.

Nothing unusual about that as a legal matter (albeit not necessarily as a SCOTUS case). In general, its a real situation that, sadly, plays out every day, though in much uglier ways under the Trump Administration than even in the George W. Bush era.

But we learn that the attorney stepping up to argue the case in front of the full court had only learned about the case the night before.

So, immediately, the writers are conveying to America that a full U.S. Supreme Court argument on the merits of a case with constitutional implications differs from a typical Monday morning DWI arraignment in any local court in any county in any state only in that there are nine judges present instead of one.

It gets worse.

The arguments go badly and are written as if to purposely sow discord among trans people by hierarchically distinguishing between fully-transitioned (presumably post-op) transsexual women and an individual who is just a transvestite.The episode doesnt disclose how the case ultimately ended but the laughter from the justices tells any viewer all they really need to know on that point.

And it gets worse still.

Did I mention that the attorney who represented the transvestite was an incredibly attractive woman? She caught the eye of a conservative law clerk who, immediately after the oral arguments, hits on her for a date which took place at some unnamed D.C. salsa dancing venue.

Did I mention that the attorney herself was trans? Granted, anyone with any familiarity with media misrepresentations of trans issues or just how television writers try to go overboard to gin up ratings in general (much less with obscenely over-touted premiere episodes) likely suspected this was where it was all going as soon as she began her argument to the court.

Of course, the conservative law clerk didnt know and, quicker than you can say The Crying Game, the salsa dancing gave way to the attorney telling him she was trans with a seemingly computer-generated multi-octave voice-drop.

How can it be conscionable, Buckwalter asked, to leave the largely uncontested impression that we trans folk are ridiculous and available for verbal abuse in public, even in the nations highest judicial venue?

It isnt. But think about the context. The atrocity that was the first of First Mondays thirteen episodes came on the heels of the wonderful character of Prof. Erica Bettis (whose very existence did even more than real-life trans academics to inspire me to pursue a Ph.D.) being disappeared sans explanation from The Education of Max Bickford.

Are things that much better 18 years later?

Yes, there is Orange Is The New Black.But then theres also Dallas Buyers Club.

The greater concern now is not dramas and comedies but the largely uncontested transphobia that people who claimthey are being silenced are allowed to prominently position in newspapers. And then there is the matter of Der Strmer-caliber cartoons followed by non-believable apologies that, even if genuine, can never un-ring the transphobia permission bell.

Currently, this is a much greater problem in England than it is here.But just wait.

Between the openly conservative propaganda outlets and the quasi-legitimate ones with young, desperate journalism grads looking to make their bones by defying political correctness by picking on all-but-defenseless identifiable groups of people

By comparison, First Monday will seem like Inherit the Wind.

Read this article:

Criminal Minds actor Joe Mantegna starred in one of the worst transgender storylines ever aired - LGBTQ Nation

My friend introduced me to this quote from Saint Augustine. Saint Augustine wrote Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.

Just a short time ago, the social buzzword was politically correct. An arrogant demonstration of government control by telling us what to say, not to say or the correct way in which to say or do something. Well, if Pelosis action during the State of the Union address was an illustration of political correctness, then I want nothing to do with it. If I want to watch kids in a sandbox, Ill go to our local playground.

Now that the president has been acquitted of the Articles of Impeachment, he will clean house and rightfully so. People will say he is being vindictive. Perhaps he should be, considering the attacks on him and his family since his inauguration. Im glad that he is our president because he has the fortitude to take the action that is necessary to clean up this mess in Washington D.C.

Put aside any hatred you may have towards our president and open your eyes to what is happening in Washington, D.C. before its too late. Join me in promoting the Convention of States as granted to us by Article V of the United States Constitution. Help the President clean up Washington, D.C. Join the movement by going to http://www.conventionofstate.com and sign the petition.

Clair Moyer,

Lewisburg

Link:

I was blind but now I see | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item

The alternative right is undeniably damaging and toxic to American politics. Anytime intolerance presents itself in a culture it creates a fear and disturbs the constructive political conversation that is otherwise likely held. Unfortunately, because the alt-right makes use of the word right, many people group this small sect of people with actual Republicans and conservatives. That is not the case. The definition of the alt-right doesnt fall close to what a Republican is or stands for.

The term alternative-right, or alt-right, was coined by Richard Spencer by his webzine in 2010. Spencer is a well known white supremacist who used his platform to advocate for an America free of minorities.

The Southern Poverty Law Center defined the alt-right as:

"A set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that 'white identity' is under attack by multicultural forces using 'political correctness' and 'social justice' to undermine white people and 'their' civilization."

Alternative right stands to give hateful and racist people a means to organize. They believe in small government and limiting taxes, but that is where the similarities with the actual right end. Thats why they use the word alternative; they cant be a part of the real right.

In his farewell address to America, Senator John McCain discussed the issues that the alt-right and racist extremist groups pose to our country:

We weaken our greatness when we confuse our patriotism with tribal rivalries that have sown resentment and hatred and violence in all the corners of the globe. We weaken it when we hide behind walls, rather than tear them down, when we doubt the power of our ideals, rather than trust them to be the great force for change they have always been, he wrote.

The majority of Republicans despise and denounce the alt-right. They dont have real political ideologies or opinions. Theyre just racist populists who pretend that they care about political issues other than race to try and legitimize themselves.

Aligning the alt-right with the actual right not only hurts the right, but it legitimizes white supremacy. It is up to not only Republicans, but every ideology of the political spectrum to denounce the alt-right as not a part of the Republican party.

Mikayla Rochelle is a junior studying strategic communication at Ohio University. Please note that the views and opinions of the columnists do not reflect those ofThe Post. What are your thoughts? Tell Mikayla by tweeting her at @mikayla_roch.

Read the original post:

So Listen: The alt-right is not the right - The Post