Category Archives: Political Correctness

Prime Minister Narendra Modi did a Sherlock Holmes on December 15, saying what kind of CAA protesters are indulging in arson can be told by their clothes ( yeh aag lagaane vaale kaun hain, woh unke kapdon se hi pata chal jaata hai). Sir Arthur Conan Doyle never allowed Dr Watson to solve any mystery before Holmes did (though the understudy does a lot of work in The Hound of Baskervilles), but a Dr Watson in the BJP tried to outdo his master. Last week, BJP general secretary Kailash Vijayvargiya made a breakthrough in identifying illegal migrants: He said he knew some of the workers at his place were from Bangladesh as they were seen eating poha!

But Modis and Vijayvargiyas statements are more problematic not for being politically incorrect (I am not a fan of political correctness), but because they are wrong and expose inherent bigotry. In both, these comments were a glaring anti-Muslim connotation. Professors of Hindutva nursing such a sentiment surprises none, but one expected at least Modi to be adept at masking it. If the clothes statement was crass, the food remark was ridiculous.

Theres no denying that regions and religions have their typical food habits, but to make a judgment based on what one eats can go horribly wrong. Heres what Juhea Kim wrote in Peaceful Dumpling (which promotes veganism):

Any kind of superficial judgment of others is based on our need to feel superior. An ethical eater doesnt equal to an ethical person No one likes to be judgedand some days it will be you.

The second point is particularly interesting. Hitler was a vegetarian in his final years and he wasnt the only vegetarian who presided over massacres. Today, someone rolling a Malabar parotta around beef roast in Kerala could well be from the Hindi heartland (many of them who constitute a major workforce there have made the southern state their second home, the local food their daily diet). Kim says one of her mentors, who she calls the most conscientious person I know, is not an ethical eater. But although he eats a traditional American diet, he is still the first person I think of when I need a moral role model, she writes.

Many great men have been at the receiving end of sartorial judgments. Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar was denied entry into the Library of Asiatic Society in Calcutta in 1874 because he was wearing a dhoti.

V R Krishna Iyer, one of the most respected jurists India has seen, had a similar experience at the Presidency Club in Chennai sometime in the 1980s. If those ignominious incidents were a result of Indians upholding remnants of the British philistine that bred class distinction, the present-day Holmeses, and Watsons embody community-and-caste-based malice that gnaws at the roots of Indias diversity.

If people start judging each other by what they wear, everyone in white shirt-dhoti (or kurta-pajama in the north) today would be considered a corrupt politician. Thankfully, it is not so.

The poha-hating BJP general secretary can, however, take heart that an American neurologist-psychiatrist called Alan Hirsch has done some research linking food habits with personalities (he had to wind up his Sensa crystals which he claimed would make people slimmer even if they eat junk food sprinkled with the crystals). One of his studies on ice-cream flavours, sponsored by who else Baskin Robbins, claimed to have found vanilla eaters to be impulsive idealists, those who preferred mint choc chips frugal, cautious and argumentative, and chocolate flavour lovers dramatic, lively and charming.

Whats your scoop, Dr Watson?

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Read this article:

Show your plate and they will tell you who you are - Economic Times

|

Posted: Jan 26, 2020 12:01 AM

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Steve Mnuchin cant seem to move away from a huge economic misconception that I wrote about two years ago called Living in an Economic Twilight Zone. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this week, Mnuchin said the White House has started work on the second round of tax cuts even as the budget deficit continues to grow. It would appear that he still believes in this misguided premise that we can grow our way out of $23 trillion worth of debt.

Mathematically speaking, that has not been the case since our national debt was more than $9 trillion at the end of2007. Then, a president came in who was too busy apologizing for American exceptionalism and had no idea how to create an environment for growth. He believed in demonizing profits, regulating small and large businesses, taxing corporate America and increasing public assistance to record levels as the poverty rate grew larger every day. That administration believed that these actions, along with spending and expanding the size of government, was a plan for Americas growth and prosperity.

A strong economy is a great thing. I dont believe its ever been better in my lifetime than it is under this administration. But we cannotand will nothave sustainable growth, prosperity and economic stability without a strong, detailed, steadfast and unwavering plan to downsize the federal government and cut spending. We are living today in a perfect economic storm. It almost seems impossible for this storm to do anything but continue to circle around and grow in strength. The likelihood of the storm going out to sea and dissipating seems unlikely.

At the same time, we have one of the strongest presidents weve ever had; hes a businessman, not a politiciana president who knows how to get things done and a president whose decision-making is not based on political correctness. Perhaps the most important thing is that we have a president who is willing to make hard decisions for the future of America, its people and its economy. We have never had a greater opportunity to make changes that can begin to peck away at our national debt. But it would appear as though President Trump is surrounding himself with people that believe that growth is the answer to everything and will solve the debt problem for future generations.

We will never be able to cut national debt without growth in our GDP and growth in our economic environment. It is literally impossible to do without growth. It is also unattainable to reduce national debt without cutting spending and reducing the size of our government.

With the Trump administration, there is a great opportunity to heal Americas debt problem. We have a man in office who is willing to do whats necessary for the good of the American people and who prioritizes growth in our free-market economy. We may never see this perfect storm of growth with the opportunity to cut government again in our lifetime. Cut the size of government, and we will cut the size of our debt as our growth continues. For the storm to be truly perfect, it needs us to do both.

Abraham Lincoln espoused smaller government, individual responsibility and freedom for all. Lincoln established one of the principles upon which the Republican Party was founded when he said, Lets have faith that right makes might; and in that faith let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.

If we dont start in the next five years, it will be impossible to reduce deficits. Lets get back to Abraham Lincolns ideals and keep government small. Lets seize the opportunity to grow and strengthen the financial base like never before, to take advantage of this moment and begin completing the circle of Americas future prosperity.

Dan Celia is president and CEO of Financial Issues Stewardship Ministries, Inc., and host of the nationally syndicated radio and television program Financial Issues, heard daily on more than 660 stations across the country and reaching millions of households on several TV networks, includingFISM.TV. Visitwww.financialissues.org.

Continued here:

A Strong Economy Is a Great ThingBut Is That All We Need? - Townhall

The novel initially received a great deal of positive press. It sparked a bidding war that ended in a 7-figure deal, garnered a movie deal with Clint Eastwood, was called "extraordinary" by Stephen King, and was picked by Oprah for her book club, guaranteeing its bestseller status.

Then the controversy erupted.

American Dirt tells the story of two Mexican migrants, a mother named Lydia and her child Luca, attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border. It was written by a woman named Jeanine Cummins, who identified as white until very recently (she has a Puerto Rican grandmother).

Many reviewers have panned Cummins' book for its lack of empathy, its reliance on stereotypes and trauma, and its apolitical stance that seems intent on "humanizing" migrants but that fails to implicate America or its government.

"The book is riddled with gross misrepresentations of its subjects," writes David Schmidt for the Blue Nib. "Mexico is depicted as a one-dimensional nation, irredeemably corrupt and violent, while the United States of American Dirt is a fantasy land: a country free of gun violence, hate groups and organized crime. While the book ostensibly pushes a progressive message, it drives home a very Trumpist myth: 'crime and violence are Mexican problems.' If English-speaking readers assume that this novel accurately depicts the realities of Mexico and migration, it will only further the cause of disinformation and prejudice."

In addition to the criticism, the debate inspired a Twitter thread about "writing my Latino novel" that lampoons stereotypes about Latinx culture. It's also brought up serious points about the predominantly white state of the media and publishing industry and about who gets to tell what stories.

By most accounts, Cummins' narrative fails to responsibly represent its characters. Realistically, though, many people will see the criticism of American Dirt and will be filled with rage about how political correctness is infringing on freedom of speech. This is missing a deeper point (and no one is saying you can't keep working on your novel about a woman's sexual liberation, Mike).

The question isn't necessarily whether writers should be able to write about what they don't know (they should). The question is: Who gets to decide what voices get to speak? Is it really freedom of speech when certain voices are always louder than others?

American Dirt is, ultimately, the project of people whose voices have always been the loudest. It's the product of a whole lot of white literary establishment power, and ultimately it's a finely crystallized symbol of the colonialist mindset that is alive and well in the literary world.

"I'm of the persuasion that fiction necessarily, even rather beautifully, requires imagining an 'other' of some kind," writes Parul Sehgal in The New York Times. "As the novelist Hari Kunzru has argued, imagining ourselves into other lives and other subjectives is an act of ethical urgency. The caveat is to do this work of representation responsibly, and well."

According to Myriam Gurba, whose excellent review was one of the first searing takedowns of the book, Cummins' novel does the following:

"1. Appropriating genius works by people of color

2. Slapping a coat of mayonesa on them to make palatable to taste buds estados-unidenses and

3. Repackaging them for mass racially 'colorblind' consumption.

Rather than look us in the eye, many gabachos prefer to look down their noses at us. Rather than face that we are their moral and intellectual equals, they happily pity us. Pity is what inspires their sweet tooth for Mexican pain, a craving many of them hide."

The problem is not only that Jeanine Cummins felt she had the right to tell this storyit's that she told it insensitively, in a way that misrepresents the uniqueness of every migrant experience and instead crushes it into a stereotype and reshapes it for a white audience's eyes. If writing fiction requires a sort of alchemical synthesis of empathy, nuance, and razor-sharp awareness, then Cummins seems to lack all of these things.

Still, it's likely the book would not have been so heavily panned had it not received such extensive praise and hype. "While I have nothing against Jeanine's (or anyone else's) writing a book about the plight of Mexican women and immigrants (especially if they do their homework and don't exoticize our culture), I am deeply bothered that this non-#OwnVoices novel has been anointed the book about the issue for 2020," writes David Bowles for Medium.

The ache and frustration in Latinx critics' responses lies not only in its content, but in the larger cultural context into which it was released. "At a time when Mexico and the Mexican American community are reviled in this country as they haven't been in decades, to elevate this inauthentic book written by someone outside our community is to slap our collective face," Bowles concludes.

"The heart of the problem is that American Dirt is not really a story of Mexican migrants at all. It is the story of American entitlement, one that never questions the brute injustice of geography of birth determining opportunities in life. American Dirt is an accurate depiction of what Americans demand Mexicans and other brown people suffer to be allowed into the country," writes Rafia Zakaria for CNN.

If you look at the state of the publishing industry, it's easy to see why American Dirt slipped through the cracks. "According to the trade magazine Publishers Weekly, white people made up 84 percent of publishing's workforce in 2019. Publishing is staffed almost entirely by white people and in large part, that fact can be explained by publishing's punishingly low entry-level salaries," writes Constance Grady for Vox. "Such salaries mean that the kind of people who work in publishing tend to be the kind of people who can afford to work in publishing As a result, publishing is predominantly staffed with well-meaning white people who, when looking for a book about the stories of people of color, can find themselves drawn toward one addressed specifically to white people."

Meanwhile, people of color attempting to break into the industry often have difficulty if they don't fit into the white publishing industry's expectations of them. "We fight in newsrooms, boardrooms, studio meetings, book proposals, and other spaces where white editors hungry for all of our pain and none of our nuance serve as gatekeepers," writes Alex Zargoza for Vice. "If we do break through, we then have to battle editors who want us to create trauma p-rn for white readers to clutch their chest to and lament the savagery of the countries we came from are. We lose out on anything near a seven-figure deal, effectively punished for not wanting to do what Cummins did, which was treat ourselves like the pitiful emblems of pain liberal whites see us as, or bloodthirsty barbarians Donald Trump has made us out to be."

For all the doubts she expressed about writing the novel, Jeanine Cummins' statements following the controversy haven't helped her case. She's not exactly a sympathetic figure (she just earned a million dollars from a book, after all, and received a flood of glowing reviews early on). In the epigraph she wrote about her immigrant husband, Cummins writes about her fear that her husband will be deported. She fails to mention that he's an Irish immigrant, and instead essentially equates his struggles with those of the people she's trying to write about. She's even been banning critical tweets on Twitter, apparently, which is ridiculous.

Instead of shutting down this discussion and trying to paint herself as anyone but an outsider looking in, Cummins should be embracing the critiques. She should, for example, take one for the team and shut down the forthcoming movie deal, which would undeniably win an Oscar, if it were made.

She probably won't do that, though, because it's likely Jeanine Cummins still believes she is helping a cause. She also probably cares about what's going on at the U.S.-Mexico border, whichto her creditis more than the half of America that voted for Trump can say. She also apparently spent five years doing research, though it clearly wasn't enough, considering all the errors in her book.

Cummins also probably figured that, as a well-connected writer, she had a better shot at getting her book in the hands of millionswhich was true, and this speaks more to the issues in the publishing and media industries than to the author herself.

Still, the conversation shouldn't get lost in criticizing Cummins or the book. This can, instead, be a valuable teaching moment, one that should be used as an opportunity for the literary world to learn and change. Without confronting the systemic racism embedded in the media and publishing industries, change will never happen. We have to learn to differentiate between a writer's freedom to write about anything they choose and a writer's (and the literary establishment's) decision to put forth damaging content under the guise of social justice or "resistance" literature.

The publishing company (Flatiron) and agencies that made American Dirt into such a success probably felt they were also working in support of a good cause. But the hurt that the book has caused many Latinx (and many non-white) readers and writers should be a lesson for anyone trying to write about things that are unfamiliar to them, or to anyone deciding whether to promote a book, especially a book by a white writer about a sensitive, very nuanced and political issue that's playing out in real time and that's already being written about by people who are actually experiencing it.

In general, the publishing industry needs to ask itself a lot of questions based on this feedback. These questions could include: Has the book been read and vetted by people who actually lived the experience it describes? Has the author of this book done justice to the nuance of the issue? Does the book play into stereotypes? Does it fetishize trauma? Why is this story being told? Is it helping the issue? Why is the author telling this story? And is there anyone who would be even a little bit offended that a symbol of division and painsuch as, say, barbed wire reminiscent of a certain bordermight be used as a centerpiece at a book release party?

American Dirt, Sehgal concludes in her delightfully scathing review, "is determinedly apolitical. The deep roots of these forced migrations are never interrogated; the American reader can read without fear of uncomfortable self-reproach. It asks only for us to accept that 'these people are people,' while giving us the saintly to root for and the barbarous to deploreand then congratulating us for caring."

White sympathy can be dangerous. In truth, a great deal of the migration flows currently stemming from Central America were created by American drug wars and violence that ensued from American-sponsored coups and violence. If American citizens are so desperate to do something for migrants, then it needs to start with uplifting their voices and compensating them for their work on their terms, whatever those terms may benot telling stories that attempt to "humanize" someone but that actually further reinforce preexisting stereotypes and spread misinformation.

American colonialism has long operated in the tradition of invading and entering another country on the basis of a deluded idea that the Others need to be "saved" and that the invasion is for their own good; and charitable nonprofits often fall into the same trap, air-dropping resources instead of working with communities, thus creating cycles of dependence and collapse. Clearly, entering someone else's territory (or invading their story) is not always an optimal strategy.

Colonization has long been an accepted practice in literature, too; remember that Memoirs of a Geisha was written by a white man named Arthur, and The Help was written by a white womanwhich received similar criticism for its treatment of Black characters, and which was, ironically, published by the same person who published American Dirt.

The question of whether it's possible to write about "the other" through a postcolonial lens is a labyrinthine, almost unanswerable one, but we don't even have to go down that winding road now. Instead, maybe well-meaning allies can start by practicing solidarity and deepening interpersonal relationships with people impacted by issues at hand, by supporting on-the-ground organizations like Cosecha and RAICES (or any of the names on this list), by understanding that there isto say the absolute leastno one "migrant" or "Latinx" "experience," and by asking questions, and then shutting up and listening for once.

Follow this link:

What We Can Learn From the American Dirt Controversy - Popdust

Wendy Williams allegedly ripped a pretty decent fart on live TV. She was in the middle of talking about political correctness when the accident happened. Williams has been in the news quite a bit over the past few weeks and recently had to publicly apologize to Joaquin Phoenix and individuals with a cleft palate after she said she found the actor to be "oddly attractive" and then talked about the scar over the actor's lip.

During a new segment on her show Friday, Wendy Williams was discussing the Odell Beckham butt-slapping incident, which has also been making headlines. While talking, she seems to take a pause when a totally audible fart can be heard. She then acts as if nothing happened and continues her talk on political correctness. Social media has not been able to get enough of the rather loud fart and the look on Williams' face when she allegedly lets it rip.

Lapel microphones are used on talk shows and The Wendy Williams Show is no different. While it's not confirmed, it is believed that the mic in question is uni-directional, which means it's only supposed to pick up audio from one direction. In this case, just like all talk shows, the goal is to hear the person's voice as loud and clear as possible. For Williams to rip a fart and have it picked up on an uni-directional microphone is quite a feat, which means that it had to have been pretty loud with a decent amount of force behind it.

Farts are pure comedic gold in most circles, so it would have been refreshing to see Wendy Williams have a good laugh while addressing it. Accidents happen and it's not like she defecated in her dress in front of a live studio audience, along with the folks watching and listening at home. Farts happen, it's just natural for the body to relieve some gas from time to time. Maybe she had a bad breakfast burrito or bad creamer in her coffee before the segment. There's a lot of different variables to take into account here.

Some believe that the live television flatulence was karma for Wendy Williams' comments on the cleft palate. Over 63,000 people have signed a petition to get her fired after the 55-year old talk show host pulled her lip up with her finger to mock the condition. Many are not excepting her apology to Joker star Joaquin Phoenix and individuals with a cleft palate. It should be noted that Phoenix's scar is not a cleft palate. Instead it's a scar that he has had since birth. Regardless, Williams is still on the air and surprising her audience with all kinds of audio goodness. You can check out the video of Wendy Williams allegedly ripping a big juicy fart on live TV below, thanks to the Pop Hub Twitter account. The awesome fart in question pops up at the 18-second mark.

More here:

Did Wendy Williams Fart on Live TV While Talking About Political Correctness? - TVweb

MIDDLEBURY, Vt. (WCAX) A controversial author who ignited demonstrations at Middlebury College three years ago is expected to return to campus later this spring.

Dr. Charles Murray has reportedly accepted an invitation by the Middlebury College Republicans to tentatively speak on campus March 31, according to an op-ed by the group in the Middlebury Campus newspaper.

The college confirmed in a written statement Wednesday that the group invited Murray to discuss his upcoming book, Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class.

A 2017 speech by Murray prompted demonstrations and a confrontation in which a Middlebury professor was injured. Murray is a social scientist who critics say uses pseudoscience to link intelligence and race.

"We believe that the way the administration and the protesters handled the 2017 event was a stain on Middlebury's reputation and a betrayal of its mission of 'creating a world with a robust and inclusive public sphere,'" said the op-ed. "We believe that this public sphere is integral to the meaning of a liberal arts education and the freedom of academic inquiry."

The 2017 incident garnered national attention over the issues of political correctness on campus and freedom of speech.

The college created new guidelines following the incident that called for evaluating the safety risks and security needs and consider canceling only events that cause imminent and credible threats that cannot be helped by changing the event plan.

The college canceled a lecture by a conservative Polish speaker last April out of safety concerns.

See the rest here:

Controversial author expected to return to Middlebury College - WCAX

"Me and My Tapeworm Isobel" by Marius Enescu.

PHOENIX (PRWEB) January 21, 2020

Many are frustrated with aspects of todays society such as cancel culture and political correctness, arguing that it causes us all to feel as if we walk on eggshells by being careful not to offend anyone. Marius Enescus Me and My Tapeworm Isobel: Extras from the Volume Intellectual Cramps deviates from political correctness in the interest of what the author calls political directness, offering a quick read containing Enescus biting and wickedly humorous satirical views on the world around him.

The book creatively highlights the tiny observations and thoughts Enescu has about life and humanity on a daily basis; he approaches with humor and lightheartedness a wide range of topics such as medicine, our eating and drinking habits, how we present ourselves in public and how the media influences our desires and attention.

Rather than spending his time and thoughts remaining politically correct by todays societal standards, Enescu instead prefers to call his approach to communication political directness. His hope is that the book helps teach the world how to be more sincere with themselves and others without diminishing the complexity and beauty of humanity.

If we can allow one another to be genuine when we speak, we will be able to have more friends, more love and understanding of one another, Enescu says. The difference between friends and enemies will become clearer but then we will learn to respecting our differences instead of hating them.

Enescu receives praise for Me and My Tapeworm Isobel, with one Amazon reviewer lauding the book as a great read and awarding it a five-star rating.

Me and My Tapeworm Isobel: Extras from the Volume Intellectual CrampsBy Marius EnescuISBN: 9781489720603 (softcover); 9781489720597 (hardcover); 9781489720610 (electronic)Available at LifeRich Publishing, Amazon and Barnes & Noble

About the authorBorn in Eastern Communist Europe, Marius Enescu uses his surgical skills in performing blunt incisions within the sometimes-sordid aspects of real everyday life, while humorously opposing them to the unrealistic and fabricated image described by wishful thinking and exaggerated political correctness. To learn more about Enescu and his works, please visit his website.

Contact:LAVIDGE PhoenixKalin Thomas480-648-7540kthomas(at)lavidge(dot)com

Share article on social media or email:

See the original post:

Escape from Overzealous Political Correctness and Appreciate Humanity in Whimsical New Satire Book 'Me and My Tapeworm Isobel' - PR Web

James Melville argues that wokeness is the latest concept to be hijacked by the right-wing to make a stand against equality, democracy and justice.

Right-wingers have cultivated a bogus enemy of political correctness which they have now rebranded as woke. In effect, they are demonising common decency to legitimise bigotry.

So when actor Laurence Fox declared his all-out battle cry against wokeness on BBC Question Time, he was jumping on the bandwagon of an ever-increasing demonisation of political correctness thats been bubbling away for years, along with a mainstream backlash against progressiveness since the 2016 EU Referendum and the US Presidential Election.

Being woke means being conscious of racial discrimination in society and other forms of oppression and injustice.

Brexit and Trumpism have become the pegs on which a culture war has been hung in Britain and America. It has become an unedifying battle between a series of tribes ranging from remainers versus brexiters or woke versus gammon or snowflakes versus bigots. This turf war has spread to new frontiers covering climate change, transgender rights, #MeToo, Stormzy criticising Boris Johnson, knife crime, and Harry and Meghan.

The discourse has become toxic and evidence-free at a time when we desperately need more insight, respectfulness and empathy. Shouting down the other side has become more commonplace than the basic courteous art of listening.Repugnant narratives are justified on the basis of freedom of speech and telling it like it is.

It has become incredibly boorish. It is debate thuggery. It has become a culture war.

The term woke has been hijacked by the right-wing and its meaning turned inside out. Instead of meaning being correct, it has been rebranded as constituting a liberal elite political programme of thought control of our political, legal, educational, media and cultural institutions; another expression of political correctness. This new definition implies that a woke person is acting in bad faith by being fake in order to advance an agenda.

Political correctness has become a term that is used by the right-wing to plant the idea that there is a deep divide between ordinary people and the liberal elite who the right-wing claim has sought to control the speech and thoughts of the public. But, in effect, the right-wing is doing the same thing they claim the liberal elite are doing: trying to control public thought and opinion. Their opposition to political correctness is also arguably about providing a smokescreen for their own bigotry.

Tragically, the tactic appears to be working. More in Common, a campaign organisation that works on initiatives to address the underlying drivers of division, and polarisation, to build more united, resilient and inclusive societies, conducted a survey in 2018 in which 80% of the Americans surveyed said that they now viewed political correctness as a problem.

Brexit was the Trojan horse within this anti-PC campaign. It emboldened influential commentators to frame the narrative of a country that had lost control to progressive liberals who were shutting down sovereignty, patriotism and identity because they were subserviently letting foreigners tell us what to do or enabling immigrants to steal our jobs. The treacherous saboteurs of the liberal elite were undermining national identity and taking control away the people and the country.

Efforts by liberals and the left to fight back are portrayed as fake, aggressive and woke.The reluctance by many liberals to take part in this race to the bottom of a culture war of political discourseis embodied by the famous Michelle Obama mantra of when they go low, we go high. But, the answer isnt to avoid playing the game at all, but to play the game better.

So how do liberals and the left win this messaging culture war?

We think of the culture war as a toxic debate in which both sides scream at each other and division widens. Yet, progressives have won on most social issues over the past 20 years in areas such as gender, racial and sexual equality. But, in the case of the US and the UK, progressives have lost political power in the process.

Its now up to progressives to frame the messaging without coming across as condescending or shrill. It is one thing to persuade and another thing to win by debating with patronisingshrillness.Using a sanctimonious cultural superiority argument to silence foes risks deeper division and a further backlash which ends up with the rise of Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and Brexit. They may have the power, but its up to the progressives to find the toolkit to dismantle it.

Progressives must however, never ever lose sight of the fact that being politically correct is not an insult. Political correctness gave us the NHS. Political correctness gave us democracy. Political correctness gave women the vote. Political correctness gave us freedom of speech. Political correctness gave us human rights. Its called political correctness because its correct.

Political correctness was always about treating people with dignity and respect, including the weaker and more marginalised members of society. What sort of person are you to find that objectionable?

Being woke means being conscious of racial discrimination in society and other forms of oppression and injustice. In mainstream use, woke can also be used more generally to describe someone or something as being with it.

Im with that, who isnt?

Read more:

The Weaponising of 'Woke' - Byline Times

In this season of fires in the southern hemisphere, I am reminded of the one we have burning right here in our country. It has a name, and that name is Donald Trump. And he is systematically burning his way through every moral tenant our nation has held dear. He is, like a wildfire, out of control.

I am also reminded of ways wildfires can be effectively fought. Of course, the most obvious weapon against fire is water. Dousing a fire with enough water will have the desired results. While dousing Donald Trump with water is not an option, we could try to soak him with truth, logic, morality.

Still, my suspicion is that none of that will work. Trump has already shown that he has a very sketchy relationship with morals and truth, so most likely trying to use those against him would have little effect.

Another very effective way to fight fires is to remove whats fueling it. Cutting fire breaks can often limit the damage a fire can cause. With regard to the Trumpster fire, voting him out of office would remove the fuel. Unfortunately that will take many months, and there is no guarantee we will get a fair election this time either.

The perfect way to stop a fire is to deprive it of oxygen. Fire is, simply put, a very rapid oxidation of a material; without oxygen that cant occur.

When it comes to Trump, his oxygen is notoriety. He is a narcissist and as such thrives on being the center of attention. The presidency is the perfect place from his point of view in that every move a president makes, every word a president says is news and thus gets attention.

Add to this Trumps instinctive tactics to garner attention, and you have an out of control narcissist in a very dangerous position of power.

So how do we starve this fire of oxygen?

We can begin by slowing down the amplification of every morally bereft statement or act the man makes. There is nothing to be gained by broadcasting his latest tweet or outrageous statement all over social media. All it does is feed his ego and fan the flames. It also infuriates his cult-like followers, who are never outraged by his behavior, instead finding it the perfectly refreshing antidote to the political correctness they rail against.

For anyone who is seriously opposed to Trump and his politics, the rebroadcasting of his outrageous behaviors only reinforces the already obvious fact that he is morally bankrupt and a danger to the entire world. Frankly, if you dont already know that, no amount of information is going to change your mind. And splashing his latest tantrum across social media only gives him the oxygen he needs to keep going.

Though he might not see your posts or your friendss posts, he does watch polls and trends, and as long as his name is running high in the ratings, good or bad, he is happy.

There is no new information regarding Donald Trump. He is a one trick pony; his tweets and chopper-talk press appearances are all designed to do one thing: focus cameras and microphones on Trump.

So why give him more of what he wants? Its not like he is going to do anything surprising. He will continue to dismantle our freedoms, attack the bedrock morals of society and lie lie a lot.

I could successfully make up tomorrows headlines simply by imagining how low he could go. I would have a high probability of predicting him correctly, and, frankly, so would everyone else.

Its time to starve the Trumpster fire of its oxygen. Stop feeding the flames on social media and start doing something to make sure he is doused in November.

Get out and work for a candidate to defeat him. Start working to make the world a better place. Start living your life openly and freely and without the cloud of Trumps smoke hanging over your head. You will find it a lot easier to breath.

Hardy Haberman is a longtime local LGBT activist and a board member of the Woodhull Freedom Alliance. His blog is atDungeonDiary.blogspot.com

See the original post:

Putting out the Trumpster fire - Dallas Voice

Lauren Groffs review of American Dirt, Jeanine Cumminss new novel about a mother and son fleeing cartel violence in Mexico, is one of the odder articles that The New York Times Book Review has published in recent memory. It is less a work of criticism than a lengthy self-examination, with Groff, who is white, agonizing about whether it is even appropriate for her to review the book:

I was sure I was the wrong person to review this book. I could never speak to the accuracy of the books representation of Mexican culture or the plights of migrants; I have never been Mexican or a migrant. In contemporary literary circles, there is a serious and legitimate sensitivity to people writing about heritages that are not their own because, at its worst, this practice perpetuates the evils of colonization, stealing the stories of oppressed people for the profit of the dominant. I was further sunk into anxiety when I discovered that, although Cummins does have a personal stake in stories of migration, she herself is neither Mexican nor a migrant.

Things took a stranger turn when, shortly after the review was published, the Times tweeted a pull quote: American Dirt is one of the most wrenching books I have read in a few years, with the ferocity and political reach of the best of Theodore Dreisers novels. There was one problem: That sentence did not appear in the review itself. Groff demanded that the Times delete the tweet, which it did. Pamela Paul, the editor of the Book Review, explained that Groff had revised her piece, seemingly at the last minuteand seemingly once she got wind that a backlash was brewing against American Dirt. Groff then quasi-renounced the review: I give up, she tweeted. I wrestled like a beast with this review, the morals of my taking it on, my complicity in the white gaze.

Groffs public turn in a hair shirt raised several questions: Did she change her opinions in deference to political correctness? Why did she agree to the review in the first place, if she was so clearly uncomfortable putting her byline on it? And why didnt Groff or Paul see this disaster coming a mile away?

The answers to these questions begin with the publishers acquisition of American Dirt. Hype for the book began building as soon as it was bought by Flatiron for a seven-figure advance in 2018. A movie deal, involving the producers of The Mule and the writer of Blood Diamond, followed a year later. The book was hailed by John Grisham and Stephen King as a perfect thriller, and in the lead-up to its publication there were profiles of Cummins in the usual newspapers and glossy magazines, heralding the years first blockbuster novel.

Excerpt from:

How Not to Write a Book Review - The New Republic

A great groaning and rolling-of-eyes seized the internet last week as Dave Chapelle announced he was supporting Democratic candidate Andrew Yang in the primaries. I cant say that I was surprised. Many have heard of the Yang Gang, that motley group of Redditors and Channers, gamers, memers, vapers, Bitcoin enthusiasts, and compulsive masturbators that have formed the basis of Yangs campaign online. But in addition to these unwashed masses, Yang has also steadily been attracting an elite, mostly male constituency I like to call eccentric Tories, or to coin a term, New American Tories. When I watched Chapelles latest stand-up special,which premiered in August on Netflix, as he reflected about the joys of gun-ownership and land ownership (he has a farm in Ohio) and ranted about his irritations with young people and the rise of identity politics and cancel culture, I thought to myself, Oh, hes kind of a Tory.

The terms Tories and Toryism are not really part of the modern American political vocabulary, so let me explain a little. The Tory faction emerged in the late 17th century in England as the defender of the monarchy and tradition against the Whig party, which advocated the interests of parliament. Tory is now the colloquial name for the Conservative parties of Canada and Great Britain, the latter of which just won a resounding victory at the polls. But the name refers as much to a disposition as an ideology or specific party. The classic image of the Tory, which holds from the 1700s to today, is that of a fat, self-satisfied landowner, generally complacent but driven to red-faced distemper by anything that would intrude on the enjoyment of his privilege and the comforts of his estate.

Tories are often eccentric and drawn to eccentric figures. The 17th century English poet William Shenstone said they belonged to the fanciful tribe. Look, for example, at the shaggy British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who dreamed as a boy of being world king, attended Eton and Oxford, and seems to have been genetically engineered to stymy political cartoonists by outstripping their best endeavors. And for all their aristocratic pretensions, Tories historically were often parvenus new money as we call it in America anxious to preserve the wealth and status that theyd recently acquired. As Marx acidly remarked, The Tories represent the plebs of the aristocracy.

Yang seems to uniquely attract this kind of person the recently established and self-regarding. His supporters include Tesla founder Elon Musk, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, rapper and actor Donald Glover, who threw an impromptu concert for Yang in December, Weezer lead singer Rivers Cuomo, and actor Nicholas Cage. They all in one way or another belong to a previous age, in which the pretensions of wealth and talent were given more deference. They are men accustomed to having their fanciful notions regarded with awe and respect. In the midst of or approaching middle age, they fear the loss of the world they could understand and master. The 17th century philosopher Spinoza asserted that every individual thing strives to persist in its existence, and these magnates certainly follow that universal law, resenting anything that would dilute or diminish their sense of singularity.

In America, libertarianism used to attract people with this sensibility, but the era of Trump and populism has evidently made libertarians realize that Leave me alone is no longer a viable political position; they have moved on to If I give you some money, will you leave me alone? in the form of the Freedom Dividend, Yangs Universal Basic Income proposal. The New American Tories have adopted the classic Tory answer to social unrest paternalism. Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, the great Tory leader of the late 19th century, realized that the problems facing the rapidly industrializing nation had to be dealt with, and that further impoverishment of the lower orders was likely to lead to revolution and so he became the sponsor of initiatives to somewhat relieve the plight of the poor and dampen radical agitation.

Among the cranks and curmudgeons with the most to lose from a changing society, Yang is particularly favored by comedians. Hes received nods from Hannibal Burress (quite literally a landowner concerned about the continued collection of his rent), Norm MacDonald, Ken Jeong, Tommy Chong, and, of course, Dave Chapelle. (Some of Englands greatest satirists and wits, from Jonathan Swift to Samuel Johnson, were Tories.) If, as Clive James said, Humor is just common sense, dancing, then its in the interest of the aging humorist that common sense remain the same, lest they have to learn new dances on less-than-spritely legs. The central premises of Yangs campaign general social liberalism (let people do what they want!), a rejection of identity politics (this political correctness stuff is out of control!), and UBI (just give people $1,000!) all can sound like a comedians bits. Oversimplification, often funny in the way it can simultaneously fuse wisdom and folly, becomes an unfortunate tic of the comic mind when applied to more serious pursuits.

While the British Tory might long for the days of colonial Kenya, Rhodesia, or the British Raj a time in which an English mediocrity was fanned by natives the New American Torys hopes are more modest and democratic, fitting his native country. He longs for a perpetual 1997, when the American empire was at its height, before 9/11 and the war in Iraq. This yearning is perhaps reflected in Yangs foreign policy, which favors a return to Clinton-era multilateralism and international engagement. The New American Tory longs to fall asleep on the couch watching an old episode of Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, his dreams untroubled by the importunities of cancel culture. He pines for a time when the racial and social conflicts of America didnt seem so serious and were easily laughed off in a late-night TV monologue. In short, he hopes for a way out of politics and its constant tensions.

There are definitely worse creatures lurking in the margins of American political life than these new Tories, but perhaps fewer with so much self-regard and so little self-awareness, nourishing grievances that look outwardly so petty. Believing themselves to be independent and not part of any class or mass movement, they are unlikely to form a permanent part of a Yang coalition and will gravitate to other candidates on the traditional right and center. They are victims of the mental habits that afflict many eccentric people: undue cynicism directed at others combined with nearly inexhaustible reserves of credulity for their own often-harebrained ideas and notions. The New American Tory is materially secure but feels aggrieved by the lack of proper respect society now affords to his station. Why should he expect others to feel any other way?

Read the original:

Andrew Yang and the New American Tories - The Outline