Category Archives: Politically Incorrect

Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery has screened at TIFF. The reviews are very good with an 86 on Metacritic based on 7 reviews.

Many were skeptical about my assertion, a few months ago, that Rian Johnsons Knives Out sequel was Netflixs #1 horse for awards season. Well, now with Bardo, White Noise, and Blonde having been screened, there is no doubt that Johnsons film is top priority, as it should be.

This sequel is outrageous in its implausibility, but I didnt care. Johnson infuses such slick style and invention to the film that its too infectious not to be caught up in its peeling onion narrative. The writer-director has built up a considerable filmography over the last decade or so with Looper, The Last Jedi, and Knives Out.

We had already been warned beforehand, by Johnson himself, to not reveal too much about this sequel. Its twists and turns should be kept hush-hush. So, lets just do that. I will say that just like the 2019 original Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery is convoluted, but why complain about the ambition Johnson has brought to his screenplay here?

All you need to know is that tech billionaire Miles Bron (Edward Norton) invites his friends for a getaway on his private Greek island. Its a close knit of friends who call themselves the disrupters, a politically incorrect bunch who have plenty of secrets to hide. When someone turns up dead, Detective Benoit Blanc (a hammy but playful Daniel Craig) is put on the case.

The cast is aces. Claire Debella (Kathryn Hahn), the governor of Connecticut. Duke Cody (Dave Bautista) a hung-ho Twitch influencer. Birdie Jay (Kate Hudson) a former supermodel with no filter, and Lionel Toussaint (Leslie Odom Jr.) a scientist who works for Miles. However, Andi Brand (Janelle Mone), Miles former business partner, who lost everything during a hostile takeover, mysteriously pops up, claiming she was invited. But was she though?

Mone Is immensely appealing here. Tackling multiple personalities and never giving away her game. Make no mistake about it, the popular singer is a bona-ride actress and her work here will likely set her up for a fruitful career in movies.

This is a mystery wrapped in deception after deception. Johnson goes back and forth in time. Theres a non-linearity to the film that keeps you guessing. In a way, this is a deconstruction of the murder-mystery genre, constantly shape-shifting into something else at every turn. It can all be too much, but your eyes are always stay glued to the screen. Its infectiously slick. [B+]

Visit link:
Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery is a total, Overstuffed BLAST [TIFF] - Jordan Ruimy

At several points during the 70-year reign of Queen Elizabeth II which ended with her death on September 8 the very institution of the Crown was brought into question. It was criticised by the Right for presiding over the end of Empire. For progressives in Britain and beyond, it was the ultimate symbol of aristocracy and unearned privilege; the tentpole that held up a class structure that was obsolete and obscene. Britains longest-serving monarch transcended the limitations of her office by staying true to the best principles of being the constitutional head of a democratic state. In doing so, she ensured that the Crown not only survived the post-War churn but also continued to be a steady hand, a sort of over-arching spirit of a nation, through the tectonic shifts in politics and society for the better part of a century.

On June 2, 1952, when Elizabeth unexpectedly ascended to the throne, the jewel of the empire had already conducted its first general election. Over the next few years, as the head of a diminished Commonwealth, she was witness to a wave of decolonisation. Workers rights, European unity, emerging from war-time frugality, the sexual and social liberation of the 1960s through fraught times in politics and society, the Queen maintained a studied neutrality. Today, in an age of constant opinions, social media rants and virtue signalling, the power of that silence can easily be underestimated. Yet, it is that reticence that gave the head of the British state and the Church of England the ability to remain the most prominent signifier of nationhood as the UK became increasingly culturally and ethnically diverse. At times, especially during family dramas and tragedies the controversial love life of her sister Princess Margaret, the tragic death of Diana, the politically-incorrect gaffes by her consort, the departure of Meghan Markle and Harry that silence dented her image. In the larger reckoning, though, it kept her above the fray.

In ways subtle and grand, from her face on currency notes to the warm Christmas address, the Queen has been a fixture in the lives of her countrys people. By the sheer dint of her longevity, she is also a global figure. In a new period of uncertainty in the UK, from the fallout of the Ukraine crisis to the strained relationship with Europe, most people of that country are bound to miss the only monarch they have ever known.

See the original post:
Power of silence: Queen Elizabeth II's reticence stood her and her country in good stead in times of tumult and change - The Indian Express

Ron White is fearless. The veteran comic doesnt care what anyone thinks when he performs. While many of his peers are concerned about who they might offend courtesy of material or social media posts, White lets it fly.

The quick-witted, Scotch-sipping humorist is one of the last of a dying breed. Much like the late Sam Kinison and Gilbert Gottfried, White says what he believes regardless of consequence. I dont know how to be any other way, White said. Ive always done whatever I wanted to do for better or worse.

White, 65, who is politically incorrect, unapologetic and edgy, is amusing, but the comic known as Tater Salad, wouldnt be where he is without help from his friend and fellow comic, Jeff Foxworthy. During the late 90s White left the world of comedy to start a pottery business in Mexico. White hit his nadir not long after crossing the border.

I didnt think I would ever be solvent again, White said. I was with an unstable woman at the time. Jeff didnt think this business was a good idea and he thought the woman I was with was dangerous. He brought me back around 2000 and I opened for him.

The following year, Foxworthy floated the Blue Collar Comedy project by White. Foxworthy, who was an accomplished national headliner, tabbed his two friends, Bill Engvall and White, to join him for a Blue Collar Comedy tour. Larry the Cable Guy, aka Dan Whitney, was added as the fourth humorist. White said he told Foxworthy it was a dumb idea.

That shows you what I know about the business, he said. Our first album (Blue Collar Comedy Tour Live) sold more than four million copies.

The Blue Collar tour was wildly successful. The jaunt spawned the television series, Blue Collar TV, which ran on the WB from 2004 to 2006 and three films. I owe so much to Blue Collar, White said. I have a lot of great memories. It was an incredible time for us.

But when Foxworthy, Engvall and Whitney reunited for a tour in 2011, White passed. If I went out with them, I would have had to write clean material, White said. Im a little rowdy for them. I got busted for weed (in Vero Beach in 2008). Sometimes you just have to move on. I never wished anything for those guys but the best.

White remains unpredictable and amusing by his lonesome. When White, who will perform Saturday at Northern Quest Resort & Casino, takes the stage, its just him, a glass of Scotch and a cigar. Comedy is great because theres no overhead, White said. I write all of my material. Its all me. Ive asked these guys in rock bands with all the 17-wheelers driving to the venue how they make money. I just dont understand it. But I dont understand a lot of things.

Expect a caustic and hilarious night when White performs at Northern Quest, since he could care less who he offends. A good comic doesnt care about pleasing people, White said. But then again, I dont know any other way to be. I have to tell it like it is.

Original post:
Ron White doesn't care who he offends at Northern Quest, or anywhere for that matter - The Spokesman Review

I went to the O2 on Sunday night to see the comedians Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock. Chappelle, who survived an attempt to cancel him last year, didnt disappoint, delivering some hilarious, politically incorrect jokes, and Rock was equally seditious, although his set went on for too long. But the rest of the evening was pretty painful.

The effort it takes to get to this relic of the New Labour era is truly Herculean. Indeed, Rock made a joke about it, claiming hed set off from his hotel on Wednesday morning and only just arrived. The Tube station is North Greenwich, one beyond Canary Wharf, and your only hope of getting there in less than 90 minutes from west London is via jet ski along the Thames.

Once you arrive at the hideous carbuncle, youre herded to your gate like a pig being shown to its pen, and if you feel like a beer or a snack you have to queue for 45 minutes. Thats a recipe for boredom, not least because your mobile phone is placed in a sealed pouch the moment you arrive. If you still have an appetite by the time you get to the serving hatch, a hamburger and chips will cost you 16.50, and a pint of Budweiser the only draft lager available is 7.65. Ive had cheaper meals at Michelin-starred restaurants, and this was on top of the 150 Id paid for two tickets. If you have any goodwill left by the time you take your seat, youre a better person than me.

Needless to say, the build-up to the headline acts was interminable, made worse by an American MC whose name I have mercifully forgotten. His worst bit was an extended routine about the Queen and Prince Philip which began by reminding the audience that Meghan Markle had accused the royal family of being racist. Thank you, detective Markle, he said, the gag being that the allegation is so obviously true its hardly worth making. I mean, the Queen has colonised half the world, right? he said.

I immediately leaned over to my son Ludo and pedantically pointed out that, in fact, Britain had given up nearly all of its remaining colonies in the past 75 years. (Its a joke, Dad, he whispered.) The comedian then went on to describe a sex act between our 96-year-old monarch and her late husband which, to my horror, had the audience howling with mirth. I was so appalled I was tempted to walk out.

This was a turn-up for the books. I had come to see two comedians who are hated by left-wing puritans for making offensive jokes about people who cannot hit back, e.g. the LGBT community. Yet here I was, pursing my lips in disapproval because their warm-up man was targeting a woman who cant defend herself.

I regard myself as pretty broad-minded and dont think Ive ever been genuinely offended by a joke before, but I got an inkling of what it must be like to be a social justice warrior watching a Netflix special by a comedian you disapprove of. It wasnt just that the joke was in appalling taste, but the fact that others found it funny which was so upsetting. How dare you? I wanted to say to the person doubled over with laughter in front of me.

The revealing thing about the audiences reaction was that they clearly werent there because they regard Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle as heroes of the anti-woke movement. If they were, they wouldnt have laughed at a joke which involved taking it for granted that the Queen is racist. Later, they were equally appreciative of a gag by Rock ridiculing Markle for thinking it was racist of an unnamed member of the royal family to speculate about the colour of her and Harrys unborn child. Black people have the exact same conversations, he said. When I heard her say that, thats when I knew she didnt know any black people.

I loved that bit obviously, not least because this morsel of court gossip was the sole piece of evidence Meghan produced to back up her claim that the entire royal family is racist. But Rock didnt join the dots, so the audience were perfectly happy to laugh at this joke as well as the earlier one which essentially regurgitated Meghans baseless accusation. My conclusion is that Rock and Chappelle are clever enough to appeal to anti-woke warriors like me which is the reason they have been catapulted to the forefront of the culture wars without alienating their core audience, who arent really political.

On balance, Im glad I saw these two comics and I dont begrudge them the 150 (although I wont set foot in the O2 again). But it was a useful reminder that for most of their fans theyre not standard-bearers for free speech. Just a couple of funny guys.

See the rest here:
Ive finally been offended by a joke - The Spectator

Investing to support social or political causes is as old as investing itself, but what we now know as Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) investing began in the 1960s as socially responsible investing.

In 2005, Who Cares Wins stated that embedding environmental, social and governance factors in capital markets makes good business sense and leads to more sustainable markets and better outcomes for societies. In 2006, the Principles for Responsible Investment were launched at the New York Stock Exchange, and the Sustainable Stock Exchange Initiative (SSEI) launched in 2007. (RELATED: SHEPARD: Nasdaqs Discriminatory Board-Quota Rule Should Be Defeated In Court)

ESG was planted in business and spreads left-wing policies and ideologies outside of the democratic process. They thought their sustainability talking points would carry substantial weight, but then they went up against the state that stands as a bulwark for liberty.

The idea of boycotting the boycotters started with legislation in the Texas capitol. If a company wants to boycott an industry vital to Texas economy, then Texas would in turn boycott that company. With Comptroller Glenn Hegars release of the list of financial institutions that may be boycotted by Texas our leaders have taken the next step to protect all Texans.

Energy is essential to everything we do. Nothing drives that home more than the energy crisis being experienced all over the globe because of the lack of fossil fuels. Sri Lanka committed to Net-Zero, and the result was crushing. The ban on nitrogen-based fertilizers has resulted in soaring poverty with nearly nine out of 10 families skipping meals.

Food production dropped 40% and prices have increased 80%. Europes skyrocketing energy prices and scramble to turn on shuttered coal, natural gas and nuclear plants proves that 100% renewable isnt doable.

Recently added to the Texas blacklist, BlackRock has publicly endorsed the anti-fossil fuel, climate alarmist narrative, and are forcing businesses to comply. Financial News London said that BlackRock and others are practically, having ones ESG cake and eating it too one day youre shouting about how green you are, and the next they are having to expose that they invest in the fossil fuels industry to try to keep their business with the state of Texas.

BlackRock even said that the list made Texas anti-competitive, but Texans know that the list is us waving our battle flag. Texans will not tolerate woke companies pushing their ideologies on us while using our tax and pension dollars to do so.

Texas carries a lot of weight, state and local pension systems comprise more than $300 billion in assets money that should be stewarded with the utmost caution and respect. Our public servants teachers, peace officers, firefighters, paramedics, and others will depend on their pensions one day for survival.

They deserve to know that their money is being managed well, with the goal being the biggest return on investment not the loudest applause for virtue signaling.

So, when Texas fights back, its a wake-up call to Wall Street firms colluding to deny capital or otherwise change the course of businesses they deem politically incorrect. Texas isnt alone in its move to protect its citizens. In August, Florida banned ESG consideration from pension funds.

Arizonas attorney general has stated that he is committed to ending ESG practices and focusing public funds on financial returns. West Virginia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Kentucky have passed laws, and Utahs Marlo Oaks, West Virginias Riley Moore, and Nebraskas John Murante are all state treasurers making moves to protect tax and pension dollars.

America has a fossil fuel industry that can make us an energy superpower once again while lifting the world out of poverty and oppression, and the states fighting ESG are moving the needle in that direction.

The Honorable Jason Isaac is Director of Life:Powered, a national initiative of the Texas Public Policy Foundation to raise Americas energy IQ. He previously served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Read more:
ISAAC: Here's One State That Has The Guts To Burst The Woke Bubble - Daily Caller

British journalist makes an old-school feminist case about changing the way we view sex in modern society

Culture writer Louise Perry released her book The Case Against the Sexual Revolution earlier this year in England, where she works on both sides of the aisle with major bylines in The Daily Wire and The New Statesman. The late August U.S. release of The Case Against the Sexual Revolution comes out in quite a different contextin the wake of the Dobbs decision allowing for local abortion bans. Here, Perrys argument holds quite a different tone. We take it for granted that women have a right to their own bodies and their own sexuality. Yet Perry suggests that just because women can have sex with whoever they want, doesnt mean that they should, and that the sexual revolution has been much more forceful on the latter point than the former.

Perrys thesis is fairly simple. She posits that sex drive is an essential difference between men and women. Men tend to want more of it than women, with distributions of these populations existing on a bell curve, so there are outliers. Perry roots this difference in evolutionary biology. Men can impregnate women with far less effort than a woman needs to expend to bring a single child to term. Consequently, pair bonding is much more important for women in regards to reproduction because they would prefer to have a coparent for the very labor-intensive process of raising a kid. While a man can go for quantity children over quality children, women dont really have that option, and miserable single mothers with miserable children tend not to be very fit.

Perry means this in the literal sense rather than the moral sense. Single parents tend to have worse outcomes. But issues of single parenthood, much like any other issue adjacent to the sexual revolution, has become an issue largely detached from material analysis. Perry quotes a lot of statistics in the book, nearly all of them uncontroversial and not the kind of thing anyone would think to argue against except for ideological reasons.

Yet virtually all of them are quite politically incorrect. Take the chapter which deals with sexual violence. Not explicitly criminal sexual violence, but in a BDSM context. If that very juxtaposition sounds very oxymoronic, well, thats pretty much Perrys point. The media portrays an image of the typical BDSM practitioner as strong, empowered, sexually dynamic woman ordering a consenting man to do her bidding while wearing fetish gear and probably stepping on him. They might exchange money, but the media mostly portrays BDSM acts as empowering for women.

But the reality of BDSM in practice is a vastly different story. The huge majority of doms are men, not women. A lot of what they do isnt kinky and harmless-looking, but actually the kind of behavior that could result in the sub going to the hospital. Perry has found a disturbing number of cases where male defendants have successfully contested rape and even murder charges, claiming that their partners were literally asking for it, because they were into that kind of thing. Yet outside of relationships with men, women writ large show almost no masturbatory interest in, say, choking during sex, suggesting a dubious notion of consent in even the best circumstances.

From its big mainstream debut in Fifty Shades of Grey, the image of BDSM has softened considerably in the last decade, and pornography has increasingly likewise emerged as an empowering personal choice that we shouldnt judge. So it shouldnt surprise anyone to learn that men watch a lot more porn than they used to, that porn contains a lot more violence than it used to (mainly choking), and that the typical young woman on the bell curve who experiences this is more than a little alarmed by its prevalence.

Perry gives this same basic treatment to a wide variety of subjects. Sex work is another major one, with Perry noting that the relatively well-off minority that can charge $200 an hour and be choosy about clients dominates the field of sex-work activism. But most sex workers charge $20 an hour, have drug problems, and are often runaway minors. With any other kind of work, liberals would at least claim to prioritize the interests of the more vulnerable group, yet the abstract idea of prostitution is of greater importance than the living conditions of prostitutes. Were not even supposed to use the word prostitute anymore, the stigma of the word itself being of greater concern than the fact that people, again overwhelmingly women, end up doing work thats quite dangerous physically and mentally.

Perry deals more with reality than image, leading to a lot of uncomfortable, counterintuitive truths. Take how birth control pills appear to have caused a massive spike in pregnancies to unmarried women, who arent generally trying to become pregnant. But combine the fact that birth control pills have never been as foolproof as people like to pretend with the simple logic of their existence making it harder for women to put off an eager partner, and its no surprise at all how that happened.

The obvious counter to this argument, that before the pill women were trapped in loveless marriages, is actually really misandrist, since it implies that men writ large are and always have been unstoppable rapists. Contrary to popular belief, such all men are rapists rhetoric has never been essential to feminist movements. Perry notes how first-wave feminists, who did far more social work with the poor than the more academic waves that proceeded them, had this sloganvotes for women, chastity for men. Once upon a time, people commonly believed that men could control themselves, but that society conditioned them into violent behavior. Theres even an academic term for this, toxic masculinity, which almost no one uses correctly, as we increasingly see maleness as an inherent trait that we cant change or influence.

Perrys book has drawn surprisingly little controversy or attention. Only right-wing websites have featured it, and left-wing ones havent seen fit to rebut her. Part of this is because of the strength of her argument. Her statistics are rock solid. Theres also the awkwardness, which Perry discusses at length, of how #MeToo and other anti-rape movements awkwardly exist alongside a feminist discourse of encouraging everyone to have as much sex as possible. Then theres just the sorry state of feminist discourse in general, which revolves so much around LGBT issues that people barely discuss anything else.

Another interesting statistic from Perrys booklesbians are far more likely to form family units with children than gay men are. This isnt meant attack anyone. Acknowledging and negotiating the differences between people used to be, and should be, what feminism is all about. Instead we have a gross, Victorias Secret-esque distortion of the idea, where women are literally the same as men, but whose lives in general and sex lives in particular appear to suffer dramatically when they actually try to act like it.

The Case Against the Sexual Revolution isnt some polemic with clearly-defined bad guys. The book is a serious, thoughtful discussion of cause and effect thats a lot more romantic than it sounds just because it emphasizes that women want romance, yet make themselves miserable chasing orgasms. Not all of them, obviously. Its just youd never know that if all you read or watch is media prioritizing womens sexual liberation as a theme.

Read the original post:
'The Case Against The Sexual Revolution' - Book and Film Globe

A group of American tourists once approached the Queen as she was out walking near her Balmoral estate. Not recognising the unassuming woman in a headscarf, they asked if she lived nearby. She answered quite non-committally that yes, she had a house quite close by, says the writer Karen Dolby, recounting a talk given by Richard Griffin, the Queens former protection officer. They asked if shed ever met the Queen, and without missing a beat she replied no but pointed at Richard Griffin, and said, but he has. And then they walked on, none the wiser. I think her sense of irony and lightness of touch reflected her humour very obviously.

The Queens sense of humour was not always obvious in public, but those who knew her or met her privately would often remark on it. Speaking in 2012, Rowan Williams, the then archbishop of Canterbury, said: I found, in the Queen, someone who can be friendly, who can be informal, who can be extremely funny in private. Not everybody appreciates just how funny she can be. Who is quite prepared to tease and to be teased.

In his memoir, Sir Elton John wrote that the Queen could be hilarious. During an event, she asked her nephew Viscount Linley to go and check on his mother her sister, Princess Margaret. When he repeatedly tried to fob her off, wrote the musician, the Queen lightly slapped him across the face, saying, Dont SLAP argue SLAP with SLAP me SLAP I SLAP am SLAP THE QUEEN! As he left, she saw me staring at her, gave me a wink and walked off.

Her public face was one of duty and seriousness, not only influenced by her position but because she was also from a generation that shied away from showing emotion in public. This could have an unintended effect. Richard Crossman, the leftwing intellectual and politician, noted after meeting the Queen in the 1960s: She laughs with her whole face and she cannot just assume a mere smile because shes really a very spontaneous person. Godfrey Agnew [clerk of the privy council] was right when he said to me that she finds it difficult to suppress her emotion. When she is deeply moved and tries to control it, she looks like an angry thundercloud. So, very often when shes been deeply touched by the plaudits of the crowd, she merely looks terribly bad-tempered.

Humour, says Dolby, who compiled The Wicked Wit of Queen Elizabeth II a collection of some of the monarchs humorous remarks and sense of fun was a key part of her character but certainly, in the earlier part of her reign, she was very aware of the need to be dignified. Whereas other members of the royal family might have been more open, Prince Philip in particular, her humour was more apparent in private.

The historian and royal biographer Robert Lacey says: She had a wonderful wry and dry sense of humour, and it was a very important ingredient of her identity. I would say that her sense of humour and her religious faith were two of the personal elements that kept her so much on track.

Her famous annus horribilis speech of 1992 the year in which three of her childrens marriages publicly broke down, and a fire wrecked part of Windsor castle was a classic example, says Lacey. That phrase annus horribilis has been taken seriously, an expression of the Queens anguish, but Lacey points out it was a wry joke. Its not correct Latin. Classical scholars regard it as a joke on the expression annus mirabilis. This was her joke that she opens the proceedings with, and suddenly everybodys on her side, shes acknowledged the problem, but shes moved on.

There is something inherently ridiculous about the monarchy, says Lacey, who believes her sense of humour was an acknowledgment of that. This goes right way back to the fact she wasnt born into the succession. She was the Princess Beatrice of her day: she was the elder daughter of the Duke of York, she wasnt destined for this job. On her uncles abdication she was suddenly in line to the throne. So its a pure lottery that cast her into it. She could see the funny side of that.

Humour, says Dolby, has been important to the whole family, from the joke presents exchanged each Christmas at Sandringham to their informal barbecues and picnics. They have nicknames for one another, and quite a lot of teasing goes on, says Dolby. They dont let anyone take themselves too seriously, or have an overinflated sense of their own importance. I think teasing, jokes and nicknames are all part of the whole family ethos.

Humour also defined the Queens relationship with her husband. I dont think anyone without a sense of humour would have been so happy, or forge such a successful partnership, with a man like Prince Philip, says Dolby. What people forgot, says Lacey, when they talked about Prince Philip, his gaffes and his dreadful politically incorrect sense of humour, that the main person that was designed for was the Queen.

In public, particularly in later years, the Queen was prepared to poke fun at herself, whether in her starring role in a James Bond sketch for the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony, or in a video with Prince Harry before his Invictus Games. She could also turn a witty remark, and would use humour to defuse a tricky situation. Making a speech after being confronted by anti-monarchist, egg-pelting protesters on a visit to New Zealand in 1986, she said: I myself prefer my New Zealand eggs for breakfast. In the US, in 2007, after President George W Bush said the Queen had helped celebrate the US bicentennial in 1776, when he meant 1976, she began her speech with a smile and said I wondered whether I should start this toast by saying, When I was here in 1776 to roars of laughter.

During a visit to the Chelsea flower show in 2016, the gardener Jekka McVicar explained to the Queen that lily of the valley was once used as a poison. The Queen, according to McVicar, quipped: Ive been given two bunches this week. Perhaps they want me dead.

Behind the scenes, staff have reported a warm relationship with their boss, in which humour played an important part. The royal yacht, Britannia, was one of the places she could be off-duty and the atmosphere was informal, where crew members were reportedly recruited for their sense of humour.

In her book, The Other Side of the Coin, Angela Kelly, the Queens dresser, wrote that whenever she was overcome with emotion, particularly when helping the Queen into robe and crown for state occasions, the Queen rolls her eyes and playfully tuts at me. Once, on a royal tour of Australia in 2006, Kelly bought a toy kookaburra and put it on the Queens balcony. The Queen, thinking it was real, was very excited to see it. When she realised it was a joke, she had, writes Kelly, only two words for me: Youre sacked!. Kelly has previously said the Queen was a talented mimic, and liked to imitate her Liverpudlian accent. As Dolby writes:Her repertoire is said to include politicians like Tony Benn and Tony Blair, familiar TV characters and a very convincing Russian president Boris Yeltsin, along with several US presidents.

In the later decades of her reign, the Queen seemed more willing to show a lighthearted public face. It was partly being completely confident in her own position, says Dolby, but there was a change after Dianas death, when I think the royal family realised they needed to be more human. For the Queen, that meant a broad smile, a ready laugh and a reminder that under the heavy sense of duty was a woman who could see the funny side.

Continued here:
We are amused: how the Queen saw the funny side - The Guardian

In the first 6 months of 2022, 419,000 people emigrated from Russia, RBC news agency reports, citing data from the Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat). This is twice as much as in the same period last year.

Among those who left Russia during this period, 368,000 went to CIS countries, and 294,000 returned. A little more than 50,000 people left for non-CIS countries, and 27,000 returned. Thats a net loss of 22,000 people, compared to a net growth of 2,500 people in the first half of 2022.

After February 24, when Russia launched a full-scale war in Ukraine, many Russians decided to leave the country. For some, this is a temporary solution. Others realize that they may never return to the country. In general, Russian emigrants can be divided into several groups.

The first is big businessmen and apolitical stars who would like to wait out the turbulent times abroad. There is every reason to believe that many of them will return, since their source of income is in Russia, where either their assets or fans are.

The second group is childrens emigration. Parents take their children away in order to enroll them in Western schools, without political indoctrination and patriotic education and without the prospect of serving in the Russian army.

The third group is high-tech emigration. Workers at IT companies can quickly find employment in other countries. Such a brain drain seriously worries the Russian authorities. This is why they have exempted IT employees from military service, and provided tax benefits to the companies in which they work. Whether this will be enough, considering that IT specialists need not only economic relief, but also a free environment with the ability to travel around the world is a big question.

The fourth and main group is political emigration: journalists, politicians and cultural figures. Some of them used to work in structures declared to be foreign agents. Others used to work for media, which were closed after Russians full-scale invasion. Still others participated in opposition protests.

Their return in the foreseeable future looks unlikely. Many people understand that as soon as they set foot on their native land, they can instantly find themselves behind bars on charges of discrediting the Russian army. After all, in todays Russia, a person can be deprived of freedom even for an anti-war position or a politically incorrect statement on social networks.

There is now the specter of a new Iron Curtain dropping. In the USSR, it was believed that in order to maintain stability, it was necessary to keep the border closed so that labor resources remained inside the country. At the same time, allowing emigration can be used to mitigate social contradictions. After all, citizens who disagree with the regime can be the instigators of social unrest or even revolutions.

While the prospect of a new Iron Curtain may run counter to logic and common sense, one must not underestimate the role emotions play in domestic political reasoning. As the Western world rapidly shuts Russia out, Russia, in turn, will also be closing in on itself. It remains to be seen to what extent.

Excerpt from:
Twice as Many People Left Russia in the First Half of 2022 as in the First Half of 2021 - Kyiv Post

Writing for Grimsby Live, Ivana said: "I struggled to laugh along, there was an awkward silence from my end so loud that you could probably hear crickets. I strongly questioned why people were labelling him "hilarious" as I just couldn't see past the racist, sexist and homophobic material in his so-called 'jokes'.

"You could argue that he fits the mould of a popular comedian with a very distinctive laugh who, like Jimmy Carr, takes jokes to a limit where people could be offended. Jimmy himself has previously been called out for taking some content from his show "too far" especially in his newest Netflix show 'His Dark Materials'.

"Despite the controversy with Carr, I believe the pair are completely incomparable. What Brown would call a 'joke' is describing ethnic minorities' facial features and mimicking them which has never been funny, now or in the past.

"He is very much of an era when his attitudes were seen as slightly more palatable, although I'm aware that Brown wasn't really welcome on television at the time either which allows me to breathe a little sigh of relief."

Go here to read the rest:
Roy Chubby Brown's gig slated as 'racist, sexist and homophobic' in review - Express

Remember when we had a healthy middle class and good-paying jobs with benefits? Company presidents made a very good living. Fast forward to today with huge corporations worth billions run by CEOs who make millions.

Remember Ronald Reagan and his trickle down theory? The Right still claims it works, but we know better. Republicans did away with unions, resulting in lower wages and fewer benefits. The Supreme Court in 2008 overturned key campaign finance rules and sided with a conservative advocacy group, Citizens United. For the first time, corporations had a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political races. Super PACs and front groups, like Citizens United, ran attack ads against candidates hostile to corporate interests. Those groups spent nearly $3 billion on attack ads in the 2020 electiona very good reason not to just depend on TV ads to determine who to vote for.

People are also reading

Corporations and the super-rich have an enormous influence on our elected officials. They threaten to spend millions to oppose anyone who stands up to corporations, so nothing has gotten done on climate change and prescription drug costs until Democrats recently passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes both issues and more. Not one Republican voted for it.

Last year was a great year for the 0.0002 percent of Americans who are billionaires (724 ultra-elites). Elon Musks personal fortune rose to $340 billion in 2021 while people worldwide struggled to survive. Jeff Bezos net worth rose to $197 billion last year. This year, Bezos commissioned the worlds largest superyacht, costing half a billion dollars. However, its too tall to go under a bridge and he cant get it out of the Dutch port where it was built.

As a former resident of the wonderful town of Tekamah, I still read the Plaindealer as often as I can.

Recent letters to you have been interesting to say the least, and I would like to add a few options to what has been said, being mindful that I havent been able to read all of the opinions sent into you.

Ive seen several letters from Donnette Jackson and have read them with an open mind and have considered a lot of what she has said.

The thing that I find so crazy and anymore, its just typical of the Democratic/liberals, to accuse the Right side of the aisle of spreading lies and conspiracy theories, yet they can never just reply back with any factual information.

So here is my opinion on some of this.

Mrs. Jackson made a 150 percent true comparison of the current administration and the one under President Trump. Under Trump, inflation was the second lowest since World War II; under President Biden its the second highest in history, and thats consumer and wholesale inflation. Where is the lie and conspiracy theory in that?

When President Biden came to office we were energy independent and were, in fact, a net exporter of crude oil, now (at one time) we have had record gas and diesel prices, which effects absolutely everything. Wheres the lies and conspiracy theories in that? Its all true and we are all living proof of it.

Does the Left think this country runs on magical fairy dust? Apparently they do.

Supply chain issues, where does one even start on that one? The proof is in the shortages on our stores shelves and not just grocery stores, it affects everything including the cars we try to drive.

A stock market that keeps falling and making people lose money and my favorite subject is an absolutely horrible domestic policy that includes a wide open Southern border. By the time this poser in the Oval Office gets done, we will have over 6 million undocumented illegal immigrants in this country. I ask the Left side, how is that even a thing that you people support? What will you do when we have another terrorist attack on this country, who will you blame? Let me guess--Trump, yet he had record low immigration. Prove me wrong.

And another great one is his foreign policy. Isnt it great being on the precipice of the chances of major wars in the world? No one respects us under this current administration. Does anyone remember the last time a member of Congress visited Twain? China got all puffed up, but Bill Clinton had the courage to basically park two carrier battle groups in the area. What happened now? Biden said nothing, and we have watched China flex their muscles. Under President Trump, China was under control and North Korea stopped launching missiles; now they are getting ready for another underground nuclear test.

Russia threatens the use of nuclear weapons. I guarantee that would have never happened under Trump.

We had a politically incorrect President called Trump. He said things, and I believe he did it just to make the liberals and the media go nuts, but he loves this country and was putting America first here and on the foreign stage.

May God bless this great country, the United States of America.

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

Go here to read the rest:
Letters to the Editor | Community | fremonttribune.com - Fremont Tribune