Category Archives: Politically Incorrect

Will contemporary policy-makers avoid--or repeat--severe blunders?

Political-correctness suggests that the resolution of the Palestinian issue is predicated upon a dramatic Israeli land-concession and the establishment of a Palestinian state: the two state solution.

Moreover, political-correctness has subordinated Middle East reality and long term national security to the achievement of the holy grail of peaceful-coexistence between Jews and Arabs west of the Jordan River. In the process, the holy grailers have oversimplified the highly-complex, unpredictable, violent, intolerant, fragmented Middle East. This is the same school of thought, which applauded the 1993 (Oslo Accord) and 2005 (uprooting all Jews from Gaza) sweeping Israeli concessionswhich, in fact, escalated terror, war and hate educationand misperceived the Arab Tsunami, in 2011, as an Arab Spring, the Youth Revolution and the transition towards democracy.

Political-correctness has preferred talk and assessment-based subjective hope over centuries-old, well-documented, objective walk-based realism.

While political-correctness has failed to advance peaceful-coexistence, it has forced the Arabs to outflank Western pressure (on Israel) from the maximalist side, radicalizing their demands, and further intensifying the obstacles to peace.

Political-correctness resembles a surgeon, who focuses on the spot of the surgery, ignoring the complex medical history of the entire body and its bearing upon the surgery.

For instance, the sustained Arab war against the Jewish State has taken place in the Middle East, which has featured a systematic, regional state-of-war, terrorism, subversion, provisional one-bullet-regimes, tenuous policies and agreements, short-lived ceasefires and the lack of civil liberties since the seventh century appearance of Islam. These have been almost entirely intra-Islamic, intra-Arab wars, reflecting the (so far) unbridgeable ethnic, tribal, cultural, religious, historical, ideological battles, which has dominated the region, totally unrelated to Israel.

The Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue are not the Middle East conflict or the top priorities for Arab policy-makers, irrespective of the Arab talk, which has, historically, deviated from the Arab walk.

Contrary to political-correctness, the Palestinian issue has never been the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict, a crown-jewel of Arab policy-makers, nor a core-cause of regional turbulence; but for Arab talk, unsubstantiated by Arab walk.

Political-correctness has assumed that everyone wishes peace, prosperity and civil liberties, ignoring the fact that the dictatorial Arab regimes have systematically denied their people such prospects. While most Arabs may hope for regional peace, and are not preoccupied with Israel, the concept of the majority-rule is yet to assert itself in Middle East political reality.

Political-correctness has considered Islam to be another religion of peace, overlooking its fundamental tenets. For example, the constant battle between the Abode of Islam and the eventual subservience of the Abode of the Infidel; the determination to spread Islam, preferably peacefully, but via war if necessary; the duty to dedicate ones life to Jihad (Holy War) on behalf of Islam; the option to conclude provisional agreements - and to employ double-speak (Taqiyya), when negotiating - with the infidel; etc.

Arab attitudes toward Israel derive from the fourteen-century-old Islamic intolerance of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and other infidels, who claim sovereignty in the abode of Islam. The key issue has never been the sizebut the existence - of the infidel Jewish State on land, which is, supposedly, divinely-ordained to be ruled by believers.

Political-correctness has ignored, or down-played, another chief-obstacle to peace: the Palestinian track record from the wave of terrorism of the 1920s, through their alliance with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Bloc, Irans Ayatollahs, Saddam Hussein, North Korea and Venezuela, their training of international terrorists in Lebanon, Sudan and Yemen, and their current hate-education, incitement and terrorism. Such a track record attests to the anti-US impact of the proposed Palestinian state.

Would it be reasonable to assume that Israels withdrawal from the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria (which would drastically erode its posture of deterrence, unlike Israels substantial land concession to Egyptthe Sinai Peninsula) would cause the Arabs to grant to the infidel Jewish State peaceful-coexistence, which they have denied fellow believers since the seventh century?!

Would it be reasonable to assume that the Arab Middle East, which has been merciless towards weak, vulnerable fellow-Arabs, would display compassion towards a highly vulnerable infidel Jewish State, if it is reduced to a 9-15 mile-wide sliver along the Mediterranean, over-towered by a mountainous Palestinian state?!

The unfathomed gap between Middle East reality and the two-state-solution was demonstrated in 1993 when Israeli Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, promoted the two-state-solution and his vision of peace in The New Middle East (Henry Holt publishing). Attempting to rationalize Israels dramatic concession of its most strategic mountain ridge to the PLO, Peres asserted: Arafat is a national symbol, a legend in his own time (p. 17).... The international political setting is no longer conducive to war (p. 80).... We must focus on this new Middle East reality wars that will never be fought again (p. 85).... We must strive for fewer weapons and more faith. You could almost hear the heavy tread of boots leaving the stage. You could have listened to the gentle tiptoeing of new steps making a debut in the awaiting world of peace (p.196)....

In 1994, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to Arafat, Peres and Rabin for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East. It was praised by the political, academic and media establishments, which chose to ignore Arafats track record, underlined by his 1959 and 1964 founding of Fatah and the PLO terror organizations, calling for the liberation of Palestine eight years and three years before the 1967 War, respectively.

In other words, the Palestinian focus has been the de-legitimization and destruction of the pre-1967 Israel, as highlighted by the 2017 Palestinian Authority K-12 school curriculum (established in 1993 by Mahmoud Abbas), Palestinian media and Friday sermons in Palestinian mosques.

The two-state-solution gospel is a miniaturized replica of the 1938 hope-driven Anglo-German peace-for-our-time initiative of the British Prime Minister Chamberlain, who sacrificed national security clarity on the altar of a peaceful holy grail. He appeased a rogue regime, yielded the most strategic Czechoslovakian land to Germany, reflected feebleness and whetted the aggressive appetite of Hitler; thus producing a robust tailwind for the Second World War.

Will contemporary policy-makers avoidor repeatsevere blunders?

Ambassador (Retired) Yoram Ettinger is an insider on US-Israel relations, Mideast politics and overseas investments in Israels high tech. He is a consultant to members of the Israeli Cabinet and Knesset, and regularly briefs US legislators and their staff. His OpEds have been published in Israel and the US he has been interviewed in both Australia and the U.S. A graduate of UCLA and undergraduate at UTEP, he served amongst other things, as Minister for Congressional Affairs at Israels Embassy in Washington. He is the editor of Straight from the Jerusalem Cloakroom and Boardroom newsletters on issues of national security and overseas investments in Israels high-tech.

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban. -- Follow these instructions on registering:

Visit link:
Obstacles to peace: a politically-incorrect diagnosis - Canada Free Press

AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - A group of Texas business leaders urged state lawmakers on Monday to abandon plans to pass a bill to restrict bathroom access for transgender people, calling such a measure bad for the economy.

The Republican-dominated legislature begins a 30-day special session on Tuesday with 20 items on the agenda, including one of the "bathroom bills" that have been a flashpoint in U.S. culture wars.

Supporter of the legislation have said it is a common-sense measure that protects public safety. Critics call it discriminatory.

Texas, the most powerful Republican-controlled state, could lose about $5.6 billion through 2026 and businesses could find it difficult to recruit top talent if such a measure is enacted, according to the state's leading employer organization.

"The distraction of a bathroom bill pulls us away from being competitive as a state," Jeff Moseley, chief executive of the Texas Association of Business, told a rally outside the Capitol.

"On this discussion, conservatives can disagree with conservatives," said Moseley, whose group has typically aligned itself with the state's Republican leaders.

The legislation restricts access to places like bathrooms and locker rooms based on the gender listed on people's birth certificates and not the gender with which they identify.

A similar law in North Carolina, partially repealed in March, prompted the relocation of sporting events and economic boycotts that was estimated to have cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars.

The stakes are higher in Texas, which has an economy larger than Russia's.

A bill similar to North Carolina's passed the Texas Senate in the regular session and was killed by pro-business Republican leaders in the House, who ran out the clock on the measure.

The bathroom bill's main backer, Republican Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, a social conservative who sets the state Senate's legislative agenda, has said economic losses would be inconsequential.

"(The Texas Republican majority) want to maintain separate restrooms, locker rooms and shower facilities for men and women and boys and girls, and they dont care if the media thinks it is politically incorrect," his political campaign said in a statement on Monday.

Republican House of Representatives Speaker Joe Straus and companies including IBM, American Airlines, Apple and Southwest Airlines have spoken out against the bill.

"On the bathroom bill, there is no real compromise because even the most mild bill is going to be interpreted as discriminatory," said Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University in Houston.

Reporting by Jon Herskovitz; Editing by Peter Cooney

View post:
Texas business leaders call on lawmakers to drop 'bathroom bill' - Reuters

Comment: Ground shifts for president as spin on Russia meeting leaves him turning circles

Independent.ie

There's a transition point that comes in many scandals when the facts make it impossible to sustain the argument the administration's allies had been using. Specifically, it requires them to go from saying, "these accusations are false; it never happened" to saying, "sure, it happened, but there's nothing wrong with it".

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/president-trump/comment-ground-shifts-for-president-as-spin-on-russia-meeting-leaves-him-turning-circles-35945481.html

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/article35945480.ece/f95f3/AUTOCROP/h342/2017-07-19_wor_33003156_I1.JPG

There's a transition point that comes in many scandals when the facts make it impossible to sustain the argument the administration's allies had been using. Specifically, it requires them to go from saying, "these accusations are false; it never happened" to saying, "sure, it happened, but there's nothing wrong with it".

That is where Republicans now find themselves, and there's a deep irony at work. Donald Trump rode into office on the widespread belief that politics is corrupt and only an outsider like him could clean it up. Now, it looks like his all-purpose excuse for his own misdeeds and those of his family and advisers will be: "Hey, don't blame me - we all know politics is corrupt."

You can see it in this tweet Mr Trump sent: "Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent. That's politics!"

As numerous politicians and political professionals from both parties have attested since the story of the meeting between Don Jr, Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort and a group of Russians who were explicitly presented to them as acting on behalf of the Kremlin, that's not just untrue, but absurd. When a hostile foreign government offers you help in your campaign, what you do is call the FBI.

The idea animating Mr Trump's position is that during a presidential campaign there is virtually no sin or even crime that can't be justified on the grounds that it's a campaign. As Fox News personality Jeanine Pirro said in defending Trump: "As someone who's run for office five times, if the devil called me and said he wanted to set up a meeting to give me opposition research on my opponent, I'd be on the first trolley to Hell to get it." Or in the words of Fox News host Sean Hannity: "It always happens. And if anyone says it doesn't, it's a lie."

So having spent months claiming the accusation the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government in its attempt to swing the election to Mr Trump was ridiculous, now the position is there's nothing wrong with collusion.

This can become a handy excuse for almost anything. Did Mr Trump fire FBI director James Comey to shut down the Russia investigation? It's politics! Is Mr Trump using the office of the presidency to enrich himself and his family? It's politics!

Read more: Trump defiant in face of defeat on Obamacare

Having convinced his supporters Washington is an irredeemable swamp of corruption that he will clean up, Mr Trump now holds himself blameless for any malfeasance, because look at what a swamp this place is. The people who actually have experience in politics agree there are ethical limits to what you may do in pursuit of your political goals. But Mr Trump, believing his own caricature of what politics is, feels constrained by no limits whatsoever. He approaches governing as though it was professional wrestling, not something with any substantive meaning but a series of staged fights you perform so your side cheers. Sure, there are "rules" but they're no more important than the rule that you're not supposed to hit your opponent with a folding chair. If it's part of the show, you do it.

In the context of that show, there's no such thing as a political opponent with whom you still share some things in common, like a commitment to the country's founding ideals. There are just enemies, and the war against them has to be total. If Russia wants to help you fight your true enemy (Hillary Clinton), then you welcome the help.

And there are a number of Mr Trump's supporters for whom the fight is its own reward, just as his 2016 campaign was its own reward even before he won. It was thrilling and liberating, allowing them to stop hiding their thoughts and give vent to their feelings, no matter how "politically incorrect" they might be. No need to worry about some liberal calling you racist or sexist - just put on your 'Trump That Bitch' T-shirt, tell somebody with a Spanish accent what you think of immigrants, and let it rip. Who cares if he actually accomplishes anything on policy? As one Republican voter tells the 'Des Moines Register': "I just want him to annoy the hell out of everybody, and he's done that."

Just to be clear, there are Republicans criticising the Don Jr/Jared/Manafort meeting and no doubt dreading what the next revelation will bring. Mr Trump's approval is down to the mid-30s, and when the latest 'Washington Post'/ABC News poll asked about the meeting, only 48pc of Republicans said it was appropriate, hardly unified support for the White House's position.

There's a great risk for Trump and his allies in using the "it's politics" defence. As pollster Guy Molyneux said in the 'American Prospect', while we use the word "populism" to describe both Mr Trump's appeal to working-class voters and that of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, unlike those Democrats, Mr Trump made an argument focused not on economic elites but on politicians and "Washington", and his voters responded. But he's now saying he's no different from any other politician, and the people he brought with him are simply adopting the standards of Washington.

Even if that excuse was to fly, it wouldn't leave him a lot of room to claim in 2020 he had transformed politics, drained the swamp and fulfilled the promise of his campaign.

Most of his supporters might decide it's enough for him to have the right enemies. But they may not be as excited to get out to the polls again if he keeps telling them what he does is just politics. ( Washington Post)

Irish Independent

Read more here:
Comment: Ground shifts for president as spin on Russia meeting leaves him turning circles - Independent.ie

Theres a transition point that comes in many scandals when the facts make it impossible to sustain the argument the administrations allies had been using. Specifically, it requires them to go from saying, These accusations are false; it never happened to saying, Sure, it happened, but theres nothing wrong with it.

That is where Republicans now find themselves, and theres a deep irony at work. Donald Trump rode into office on the widespread belief that politics is corrupt and only an outsider like him could clean it up. Now, it looks like his all-purpose excuse for his own misdeeds and those of his family and advisers will be, Hey, dont blame me we all know politics is corrupt!

You can see it in this tweet President Trump sent this morning:

As numerous politicians and political professionals from both parties have attested since the story of the meeting between Don Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort and a group of Russians who were explicitly presented to them as acting on behalf of the Kremlin, thats not just untrue but absurd. When a hostile foreign government offers you help in your campaign, what you do is call the FBI.

The idea animating Trumps position is that during a presidential campaign there is virtually no sin or even crime that cant be justified on the grounds that, well, its a campaign. As Fox News personality Jeanine Pirro saidin defending Trump, As someone whos run for office five times, if the devil called me and said he wanted to set up a meeting to give me opposition research on my opponent, Id be on the first trolley to Hell to get it. Or in the words of Sean Hannity, It always happens. And if anyone says it doesnt, its a lie.

So having spent months claiming that the accusation that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government in its attempt to swing the election to Trump was ridiculous, now their position is that theres nothing wrong with collusion. Forget it, Jake. Its Chinatown.

This can become a handy excuse for almost anything. Did Trump fire FBI Director James B. Comey to shut down the Russia investigation? Its politics! Is Trump using the office of the presidency to enrich himself and his family? Its politics! Having convinced his supporters that Washington is an irredeemable swamp of corruption that he will clean up, Trump now holds himself blameless for any malfeasance, because look at what a swamp this place is.

The people who actually have experience in politics agree that there are ethical limits to what you may do in pursuit of your political goals. But Trump, believing his own caricature of what politics is, feels constrained by no limits whatsoever. He approaches governing as though it were professional wrestling, not something with any substantive meaning but a series of staged fights you perform so your side cheers. Sure, there are rules, but theyre no more important than the rule that youre not supposed to hit your opponent with a folding chair. If its part of the show, you do it.

In the context of that show, theres no such thing as a political opponent with whom you still share some things in common, like a commitment to the countrys founding ideals. There are just enemies, and the war against them has to be total. If Russia wants to help you fight your true enemy (Hillary Clinton), then you welcome the help.

And there are a certain number of Trumps supporters for whom the fight is its own reward, just as his 2016 campaign was its own reward even before he won. It was thrilling and liberating, allowing them to stop hiding their thoughts and give vent to their feelings, no matter how politically incorrect they might be. No need to worry anymore about some liberal calling you racist or sexist just put on your Trump That Bitch T-shirt, tell somebody with a Spanish accent what you think of immigrants, and let it rip. Who cares if he actually accomplishes anything on policy or makes anyones life better? As one Republican voter tells the Des Moines Register, I just want him to annoy the hell out of everybody, and hes done that.

Just to be clear, there are Republicans criticizing the Don Jr./Jared/Manafort meeting and no doubt dreading what the next revelation will bring. Trumps approval is down to the mid-30s, and when the latest Post/ABC News poll asked about the meeting, only 48 percent of Republicans said it was appropriate, hardly unified support for the White Houses position.

Theres obviously a great risk for Trump and his allies in using the Its politics defense. As pollster Guy Molyneux recently explained in the American Prospect, while we use the word populism to describe both Trumps appeal to working-class voters and that of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, unlike those Democrats Trump made an argument focused not on economic elites but on politicians and Washington, and his voters responded. But hes now saying that hes no different from any other politician, and the people he brought with him (including his own family) are simply adopting the mores and standards of Washington.

Even if that excuse were to fly, it wouldnt leave him a lot of room to claim in 2020 that he had transformed politics, drained the swamp and fulfilled the promise of his 2016 campaign. Most of his supporters might decide that its enough for him to have the right enemies. But they may not be as excited to get out to the polls again if he keeps telling them that what he does is just politics.

Read more here:
How Trump's latest Russia spin contradicts his claims during the campaign - Washington Post

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Pity the poor presidents. Its not enough for presidents to deal with enemies foreign and domestic, conduct warfare with Congress and dispense lollipops. Sometimes they have to deal with help from sons, daughters, brothers, in-laws and other hangers-on to the bully furniture at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Sometimes its a son or daughter who just wants to help the old man, but at other times its an in-law who just wants to help himself to whatevers available. A grateful child, offering help from a big heart and an untutored brain, can be the greatest threat of all.

The current president, like most fathers, thinks his kids are the greatest. He has described his son Donald Jr. as a lad like he once was, smart, clever, ambitious and a man who subscribes to the gospel of famous football coaches that winning isnt the most important thing, its the only thing.

Psychologists are lately brought in to diagnose the Donalds various failings. One of them is that he suffers narcissism, a common affliction of politicians. Even doctors of voodoo can make a diagnosis that sounds, if not profound, at least plausible.

The witch doctors have concluded that Mr. Trump sees his adult children, particularly Ivanka, his daughter, and Donald Jr., as extensions of himself, like most fathers, only more so. They are his world because they are him, says Elan Golomb, author of Trapped in the Mirror: Adult Children of Narcissists in Their Struggle for Self. Such children, she says, dont exist in their fathers eyes as separate persons. To a narcissist, the child is seen as me.

Even [Mr. Trumps] children agree that there is little separation between themselves and their celebrity father, writes Marc Fisher in a psychological autopsy in The Washington Post. Weve all made peace with the fact that we will never achieve any level of autonomy from him, Ivanka told an interviewer. No wonder [the president] places them in positions of power.

A simpler explanation of why the president indulges his children, even as they distract attention from what he is trying to do as president, is that theyre the only people in town whom he can trust, fully and completely. Every president yearns for someone like that. If you want a friend in Washington, Harry S. Truman once remarked, get a dog. That goes double for presidents.

John F. Kennedy braved considerable criticism when he appointed his brother, Robert, to be his attorney general. Robert was a lawyer picked green and of limited accomplishment, but he was a brother whom the president could trust. Bobby was thus more important than a million dollars worth of Harvard lawyers, who are usually worth only what theyre paid.

Its not just the kids and other relatives in official positions who can be a distraction, or worse, for a president. Jimmy Carter, full of piety and rectitude, was embarrassed by his beer-swilling brother Billy, who more often exhibited the familys common sense and street smarts. Bill Clinton not only had to abide Hillary, but his half-brother Roger, a drug dealer whom he pardoned to get him out of the pokey.

Harry Truman, who has become everybodys idea of a president who wont abide misfeasance and nonsense from anybody, had his burdens, too. His mother, Martha Ellen Young, had a delightfully politically incorrect tongue and to the delight of reporters, wagged it frequently. She was an unreconstructed rebel whose hatred of the Yankees was born of watching, as a 10-year-old girl in Missouri, a Union Army detail plunder and burn the family homestead. Once, when her son Harry was invited to dinner at the home of a prominent Kansas City family, she told him, When you go there, turn the silverware over and check the hallmark. Its probably ours. When she visited the White House for the first time she even refused to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom. Her heroes were Lee, Jackson and Sterling Price (you could look it up).

The Trump children, like American children of an earlier generation, are devoted to their father in a way that seems strange and even subversive in the present day, when the dysfunctional family is in fashion. You would never hear us yelling at our parents or using a tone that was inappropriate or disrespectful, Ivanka told Politico. Even a tone.

Another son, Eric, thinks he figured out why they so viciously attack the family. They cant stand that we are extremely close and will always support each other.

President Trump often boasts about his children, and hes entitled. Theyre good children, he says. Who could argue? The president owes it to them not to put them in troubled water over their heads. He should repay their loyalty by sending them home to run the family business. A swamp full of alligators is no place for worthy progeny.

Wesley Pruden is editor in chief emeritus of The Washington Times.

See more here:
What to do with the narcissist's children - Washington Times

Comedian Bill Maher was quick to apologize in June after he faced widespread criticism for using the N word in an interview with Senator Ben Sasse on his HBO talk show.In a statement, Maher said the word was offensive, and I regret saying it and am very sorry.

In the June 3 episode of Real Time that led to calls for Maher to be fired, Republican Senator Ben Sassecommented that hed be welcome in Nebraska as we'd love to have you work in the fields with us.

Work in the fields? Maher replied. Senator, Im a house nigger. After some audience members groaned, Maher clarified: Its a joke.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Despite apologizing, in aNew York Times Table for Three interview with Annie Liebowitz and Phillip Galanes published weeksafter the controversy, Maher took issue with the furor. I think most people understood that it was a comedians mistake, not a racist mistake, Maher said, when asked by Galanes if he was scared of losing his job.

The conversation then moved on to Ice Cubes June 9 appearance on Mahers Real Time, where the rapper confronted the comedian over his use of the N-word.

On the show, Ice Cube said that Mahers use of the word was part of him often crossingthe line on issues of race and comedy."I think we need to get to the root of the psyche, Ice Cube said. It's a lot of guys out there who cross the line because they're a little too familiar. Or, guys that, you know, might have a black girlfriend or two that made them Kool-Aid every now and then, and then they think they can cross the line. And they cant." He was evidently referring to Maher's past troubled relationships with black women.

Read more:People are calling for Bill Maher to be fired after he used the N-word on live TV

Over lunch with Annie Liebowitz and Phillip Galanes,Maher claimedthe rapper had tried to get him to admit things that arent true.

I've never made black jokes. Ive made jokes about racists. But my fan base knows that, so it never went anywhere.

Listen, I hope we had a teachable moment about race: trying to make something good from something bad. But maybe also about how to handle something like this: apologize sincerely if youre wrong and I was and own it, Maher said.

The controversy over Mahers use of the N-word didn't stop himrecently being nominated for his 40th Emmy award.It was not the first time Maher has been criticized for jokes and comments touching on race and religion.His ABC show Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher wascanceled in 2002 after he suggested that the 9/11 hijackers were not cowards. Critics say he has a history of making Islamophobic comments.

Read more:
Bill Maher Says His Use of N-Word on Live TV 'Not Racist Mistake' - Newsweek

Apparently, one of the things conservatives like about Donald Trump is his propensity to be politically incorrect. I do believe that as a society we have become overly obsessed with political correctness. For example, why get bent out of shape if someone says Merry Christmas? Does it really matter if a Native American is referred to as an Indian? Islamic terrorism is a real thing, so why bother to deny it.

People often engage in linguistic gymnastics so as not to be offensive and that is what I consider to be the absurdity of political correctness.

Having said this, I think it is important to make a distinction between being political incorrect and just plain bad manners and vulgar behavior. If we are looking to a time in our history when people were less politically correct, it is important to remember that plain, blunt language doesnt need to be vulgar.

When was it ever OK to make fun of a womans physical appearance and refer to her as a fat pig? When was it ever acceptable to mock someone who suffers from a physical disability and put them into a position of public derision? When was it ever proper to imply that a judge could not render an impartial decision because of his ethnicity? When you mock and ridicule people on a personal level you arent being politically incorrect, you are being vulgar and indecent. There is a difference and it is important to recognize the distinction.

James Carr, Celina

.

View original post here:
Letter: The absurdity of political correctness - Lima Ohio

UK Chancellor Phillip Hammond has started a sexist storm after comments he made about driving trains.

It was a remark made in front of the whole of cabinet during the week, while discussing rail strikes, and the stranglehold unions have on picking train staff.

The Chancellor, 61, asked why it is so rare to see female train drivers, andargued that driving a modern locomotive was so simple now that even they can do it.

And yes, while a woman can do it, not many do. Of the 19,000 train drivers in Britain, only just over five per cent are female.

Read more: Donald Trump goes on sexist rant at rally.

The Sun has reported that while one MP, Jess Phillips, has told the media Hammond disgraced himself with the remark, as well as insultinghalf the countrys population, another has denied he even said it, putting the blame on another minister. However, there has been no official denial that Hammond made the comments.

Putting blame aside, the question is, is the comment insulting? If it was said in a different location, such as on a television show, would anyone even bat an eyelid, and instead laugh at the joke.

On the other hand, was he just highlighting a need for greater equality, but saying more were needed in the industry?

The rights of women have changed greatly over the years but it seems sexism is still front and centre of much of our lives. While the traditional roles of males and females has changed, attitudes towards it hasnt, but to what effect. The once appreciated wolf-whistle is frowned upon, you cant ask someone if they have children without thoughts of discrimination, and even a list of best dressed isconsidered sexist.

Read the rest here:
Is this politician's comments old-fashioned funny or just plain sexist? - Starts at 60

staff writer 15 July 2017 5:27PM 0 comments

HARARE - The Church has condemned the police for its use of force in crushing Wednesdays demonstration by the MDC youths describing its heavy-handedness as irrational and bad for upholding national peace and democracy at large.

Zimbabwe Divine Destiny (ZDD) leader Bishop Ancelimo Magaya had no kind words for the police and labelled Wednesdays behaviour as barbaric and an act of repression.

What is wrong with citizens expressing their democratic rights by making their demands on an election issue?

Where else can they express displeasure on electoral issues? This matter is beyond the police, they have nothing to do with Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (Zec) and political parties, they should have just let people demonstrate, does that harm anyone? Magaya asked rhetorically.

As matters stand, police are now the instigators of violence and not enforcers of law because the demonstrators were within their constitutional rights to demonstrate and the police failed in their duty to protect these citizens.

On Wednesday, MDC youths staged a demonstration against Zec demanding that the national elections management body introduce electoral reforms ahead of next years elections.

Heavily-armed police crushed the demo by beating protesters and ordinary people going about their business before indiscriminately firing tear gas and using water cannons to clear the city.

Police spokesperson Charity Charamba had told the Daily News that they had not okayed the demo.

The response by the police spokesperson that ZRP had not cleared the demonstration is an age-old flimsy excuse.

Police should always be impartial but we have witnessed demonstrations by disgruntled Zanu PF members proceed unperturbed, even where clashes between rival factions were imminent. It is now clear that there is one law for the rest of the nation and another special one for those deemed to be pro the ruling party and this is unacceptable.

In the same breadth an opposition members car was burnt in Kuwadzana and the police do not seem to have appetite to investigate nor descend with similar gusto on such because the victim is politically incorrect in their view. What a shame! Magaya said.

Charamba told State media that police investigations were underway to establish how the MDC car was torched.

Two unknown people were seen at a car park at Kuwadzana Shopping Centre and immediately after they left the security guard saw the car, an Isuzu single cab; white in colour registration number ADA 1562, catch fire.

A report was made at ZRP Kuwadzana and police attended the scene and called the Fire Brigade but the vehicle had already been damaged. The value of the car is $10 000.

After investigations we will be in the position to ascertain the perpetrators and the motive, said Charamba.

Zanu PF secretary for administration Ignatius Chombo, who is also the Home Affairs minister, said it was an inside job.

I really think it was an inside job to get attention and a trick by a fracturing party that is facing loss in the next elections, said Chombo.

Magaya said the Church had a duty to promote peace and condemn violence.

The Church cannot keep quiet when citizens lives are put at risk and threatened by none other than the State police. It is for the same reason that the Church launched a Christian Vote campaign last month and amongst the values we are rooting for is, non-violence.

We need to exorcise this demon of bloodletting and violence and realise politics can be clean and progressive as opposed to what some of our liberators would have us believe.

When will this nation, its people particularly, enjoy peace to vote freely, to ask complain or even demonstrate on anything irregular without being vilified? asked Magaya.

Excerpt from:
Church condemns police brutality - DailyNews

The Reason You're Alive

By Matthew Quick

Harper. 240 pp. $25.99

Reviewed By David Martindale

In The Reason You're Alive, Matthew Quick performs a nifty literary magic trick.

The author of The Silver Linings Playbook introduces readers to David Granger, a politically incorrect Vietnam veteran who takes pride in the fact that he's basically too ornery to die.

By book's end, everyone will wind up loving the camouflage-wearing, knife-carrying sociopath.

Turns out he's really not such a bad guy once you get to know him.

Granger tells us his life story: going rogue and committing atrocities in the Vietnam jungle, coming home to a military psychiatric facility, marrying a woman more unstable than he is, and always at odds with his now-grown, "ignorant" liberal, art-dealer son.

Our protagonist ultimately goes on a mission to atone for an old transgression. He feels compelled to return a knife he stole nearly 50 years ago from his Vietnam nemesis: Clayton Fire Bear.

When readers make it to the Capra-esque final pages, they are almost certain to shed a feel-good tear or two. Our hero would bust their chops for all the "boo-hooing" and "girly-man behavior," but so be it.

This review originally appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

'Sting Like a Bee': When the champ found His voice Jun 29 - 8:55 PM

Mark Bowden's "Hue 1968": Lies, destruction, and the invisible enemy Jun 29 - 8:55 PM

Published: July 16, 2017 3:01 AM EDT The Philadelphia Inquirer

We recently asked you to support our journalism. The response, in a word, is heartening. You have encouraged us in our mission to provide quality news and watchdog journalism. Some of you have even followed through with subscriptions, which is especially gratifying. Our role as an independent, fact-based news organization has never been clearer. And our promise to you is that we will always strive to provide indispensable journalism to our community. Subscriptions are available for home delivery of the print edition and for a digital replica viewable on your mobile device or computer. Subscriptions start as low as 25 per day. We're thankful for your support in every way.

Link:
Matthew Quick's 'Reason You're Alive': A feel-good sociopath's story - Philly.com