Category Archives: Politically Incorrect

Brian Kemp has been through the wringer.

The first-term governor and University of Georgia alum has caught flak from all sides. Liberals and leftists have derided him since day one for trying to make Georgia 19th century again, whether that be in terms of abortion or voting rights. But surprisingly, the Trump loyalists of the state have been ready to sic the dogs on Kemp, too. To them, he had not gone far enough to essentially steal the Democrat victory in 2020 for former president Donald Trump.

Kemp may need a public image retool to have a shot to keep his office in 2022, so leave it to the self-proclaimed politically incorrect conservative to resort back to what put him on the map in the first place in 2018: xenophobia.

It would be one thing if Brian Kemp just brought his truck back out and revived his promise to round up criminal illegals. Frankly, this rhetoric around the border is boiler-plate for the new wave of Republicans, so it wouldn't be out of place. But if hes going to spew anti-migrant bile, Kemp might as well be consistent.

In order to understand Kemps pick-and-choose logic about immigration, we have to look at the nexus of migrant and refugee crises that we find ourselves in as a nation and a state. Just in recent months, there has been a surge of Haitians crossing our southern border after a torrential hurricane and political instability; the fallout of our deadly follies in nation-building in Afghanistan; and the ongoing abuse and terror committed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on asylum seekers from various parts of the world.

The Department of Homeland Security and ICE, under Barack Obama, Trump and now Joe Biden, has caged human beings, ripped children from their families, blown up native burial sites for the border wall and is now potentially carrying out what could be the largest mass expulsion of would-be asylum-seekers in recent American history. We used to try government officials at The Hague for such deliberate disregard for the value of humanity. No party has clean hands here.

In fact, Biden has cited COVID-19 concerns to turn away this wave of migrants, but NBC News has reported that they are not using the surplus of testing kits at the governments disposal. Trump used this same tactic.

The policy has changed, said Kemp on Fox News on Sept. 22. He refers to some stark difference in border policy between a hawkish Trump and an open-borders Biden that just isnt there. Trumps senior policy advisor Stephen Miller came up with claiming public health concerns to blanket deny migrants in the first place in 2020. Bidens DHS is actively appealing court decisions to continue his predecessors policy. On this issue, the policy is the same.

On Afghanistan, Kemp fares no better. In a statement on Aug. 17, the governor panned Bidens lack of preparation for the Taliban takeover, and signaled possible support of resettlement, albeit over an extended period of time with a thorough vetting process. Even this middle-of-the-road endorsement is an empty one, since such a process is the federal governments burden.

For a 20-year-long conflict to end that poorly, Trump was likely bound to fare the same, if not worse. Kemp never gave a statement decrying Trump's intended withdrawal, which would have removed troops months earlier than Biden. Time and time again, the plight of people trying to escape danger are interpreted differently depending on who's in charge.

Conservatives won the presidency in 2016 and the governorship in Georgia in 2018, and no small part of that was built on a foundation of scapegoating immigrants for the disenchantment many Americans and Georgians felt and still feel.

Now with Biden in office, Kemp is all at once trying to backpedal to a more centrist stance while still being cynically critical of the president. When Biden does something Trump might have done, it's a disaster. In the moments where Biden is tough on immigration, it's not enough.

Of course, little of this will matter in Kemps attempt to keep his job. His political career appears to be completely subject to Trumps will. The former president got closer to endorsing Stacey Abrams than giving Kemp any compliments at his packed rally in Perry, Georgia on Sept. 25.

For now, Brian Kemps time in the wringer continues. The more time Trump spends taking jabs at him to his Georgia faithful, the longer Kemp will have his work cut out for him.

Read the original post:
OPINION: Kemp's hypocrisy disregards the humanity of migrants - Red and Black

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

A women paddle boards along Lake Ontario in the extreme heat in Toronto on July 19, 2019.

Nathan Denette/The Canadian Press

Re Canada Falling Behind On Promised Climate Goals, Report Says (Oct. 6): It comes as no surprise to me that Canada is on pace to fall well short of its emissions goals.

The promises made by our federal government remind me of the magical thinking of childrens stories such as Peter Pan and The Little Engine that Could, thinking that goes something like, If we think positive thoughts, we can achieve wonders. I stopped believing in fairy tales long ago.

Story continues below advertisement

What I want to see from our government is a reality-based plan to fight climate change. Specifically, I want to see a sectoral carbon budget with annual reporting and clear, science-based steps for how emission reductions will be achieved. I also want to see independent monitoring and public reporting of our progress. Is that really too much to ask?

Liz Addison Toronto

Re Airbus A220 Success In France Is Built On Canadian Failure (Report on Business, Oct. 6): The sale of Bombardiers C Series jet to Airbus for US$1, after burning through almost $2-billion in government funding, reminded me of the words of my father: Nothing happens until somebody sells something.

Once again, Canadian innovation and conscientious technology has been lost because of a failure to make the sale. The results look like a blinding glimpse of the obvious when government is committed to taxing the most successful leaders until they leave, regulating industries until they choke and hurting international trade deals through arrogance and constant lecturing about moral superiority.

I believe energy, agriculture, manufacturing and technology are all operating at less than full potential because of government ideological imperatives. We cannot borrow our way to prosperity; we should get out there to sell our products and capitalize on our assets.

George Brookman ICD.D, CM; Calgary

Re Health Care Conversation (Letters, Oct. 4): The 11 per cent of GDP figure commonly cited for Canadian health care spending includes private care, among the highest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and reflects a narrow range of public benefits and low coverage of prescription drug costs.

Story continues below advertisement

According to OECD data, Canada spends 7.6 per cent of GDP on public care; 4.9 per cent is specifically spent on public hospital and physician care (the two core components of medicare). On a per capita basis among comparably wealthy countries, Canadas spending on universal care is below average and spending on hospitals virtually the lowest.

Despite resource constraints and wait-time issues (not unique to Canada), the country compares well overall in OECD measures of health care quality and outcomes, including among the highest cancer survival rates.

We dont excel in everything, but neither does any other country. What might we accomplish with a better-resourced public system?

Sandra Macpherson Victoria

Re Canada And The U.S. Must Secure Critical Minerals (Oct. 4): Citing unexploited Canadian and U.S. reserves of elements from cobalt to praseodymium, contributor David Jacobson calls for the creation of a North American-based supply chain in these materials and the products that come from them. Without referring directly to China and its potential to disrupt supply, he clearly wants us to collaborate in guarding North Americas security and economic prospects against attack from our principal adversary.

The former U.S. ambassadors proposals sound actionable. They are also within our power to accomplish. In developing our own views on them, we ought to talk to Mexicans as well as Americans about the adverse local consequences, as well as the continental benefits, of critical mineral mining.

Story continues below advertisement

Franklyn Griffiths Toronto

Re The Supreme Court Rules (Editorial Cartoon, Oct. 4): Cartoonist David Parkins rightly ridicules the Supreme Courts verdict upholding Ontarios unilateral slashing of Torontos city council in the midst of its last municipal election. It was indeed a reckless wrecking blow to local democracy.

However, it should be noted that not all Supreme Court judges endorsed the decision. The ruling passed by the slenderest of margins, a 5-4 decision. It was a squeaker verdict.

Toronto came within one vote of establishing a precedent of autonomy from provincial tutelage for all municipalities in Canada. The tide is turning toward greater local self-rule.

What the Supreme Court would not set free, the public can. Its now up to voters to elect provincial and municipal leaders who most value local democracy.

Myer Siemiatycki Toronto

Story continues below advertisement

Re How This Company Is Using Data-driven Drug Discovery To Fight Disease (Report on Business, Oct. 6): Cyclica president Naheed Kurji has given us hope that one day there will be something available to help children suffering from CDKL5 Deficiency Disorder, a condition so rare that many have not heard of it.

Having a granddaughter with this condition, it is devastating to see the terrible seizures and know that they affect brain development. Families need all the support they can get to help cope with this genetic mutation.

My thanks for highlighting this condition.

Ada Hallett Ottawa

Re Eliminating Gifted Programs Deprives Talented Students (Oct. 4): Another benefit of now politically incorrect gifted programs: I refer to the taunts and worse inflicted on above-average nerds like myself and my friends, and how grades 11A, 12A and 13A were my happiest school years as I felt challenged, recognized and, most important, at ease among my peers.

Steven Diener Toronto

Story continues below advertisement

Re Cosmo The Cat Ran Our Lives (First Person, Oct. 5): Cat lovers will recognize the joys and challenges of living with a semi-feral feline. They will roam when and where their cat fancies takes them.

When I was in grade school, our cat Daniel decided to live with the priest at the end of our street. I would get off the school bus and see him sunning on the presbytery balcony. He never came home.

My friends cat Puss would disappear for days at a time. His family assumed she was a skilled survivalist. One day his mom went to pick up Puss off the sidewalk. Suddenly a woman came barrelling toward her. What are you doing with my Minou!

Unbeknownst to the two women, they had shared the same cat for 10 years, assuming she belonged to them. Cats belong to no one. There are some who believe that if they were bigger, they might want to kill us!

Roxanne Davies North Vancouver

Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com

Continued here:
Oct. 7: What I want to see from our government is a reality-based plan to fight climate change is that really too much to ask? Canada on pace to fall...

The Birmingham Comedy Festival sees venues across the city hosting comedy acts old and new, from the sell-out soloist Russel Brand to up-and-coming Brummie podcast, Tea with the Devil. Amongst this dazzling line-up, including many free events, I was drawn to the double-bill performance of the Scottish Falsetto Sock Puppet Theatre at the atmospheric Old Joint Stock. Billed as the Earths Funniest Footwear, and having performed at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, I was ready to laugh my socks off (could not resist).

The reviewer faces a difficult task with this sock duo whether to describe the performance as edgy musical comedy, pantomime, improvisation, or pure farce. The answer has to be that it had elements of all three, and was all the better for it. From the very start, Kev F. Sutherland was able to create two distinct, completely convincing sock characters, who bantered and battled with each other throughout. Slick costume changes and intelligent comedy made this set more Sesame Street than trashy Punch & Judy, making a prominent addition to the puppet show repertoire.

Slick costume changes and intelligent comedy made this set more Sesame Street than trashy Punch & Judy

The first hour-long set, Fingers Crossed, showcased a range of pieces that the Socks have produced during isolation, including highlights of their Zoom performances. This made for some clever topical comedy, such as the song We Can See Inside Your Zoom, documenting the pitfalls of online comedy sets (where interrupting dogs and dodgy outfits are among the annoyances). Their opening song, Im A Sock, was delightfully simple and introduced us to several of the shows classic props, from a paper piano to a guitar that magically plays itself.

Interaction with the audience was quick-witted without being cutting, and the Socks made the most of the local audience: this is Birmingham. When they laugh, theyre being ironic. Moments of more risqu humour were well-timed and carefully selected, so as not to overwhelm the relatively tame viewers.

One of my favourite moments of this set was the Johnny Cash song, where the pair satirised the country singer with a guitar track that perpetually increased in key. Very on-brand, this hilariously falsetto tune revealed an advanced understanding of musical comedy.

Certain parts of the show fell a bit flat, such as the oddly abrupt Shakespeare sequence (which did, however, don the Socks in two adorable ruffs), and the slightly confusing tale of St Patrick. Having said that, it seemed that each member of the audience had their own side-splitting moment, which for me had to be the rendition of Earth Song. Holding up placards, the Socks poked fun at Michael Jacksons indecipherable lyrics, in a hilarious you-had-to-be-there number.

Moments of more risqu humour were well-timed and carefully selected

After an impressive magic trick (which voiced the classic line youll notice theres nothing up my sleeve), and a bashful light-sabre battle with plastic straws, the Socks closed their first set. Returning after 30 minutes, they brought us their award-winning show Superheroes, complete with countless costume changes, and even more songs.

Superheroes began by surveying the audience for our favourite action heroes, resulting in hysterical impressions from the Socks. Their first musical number, What A Wonderful Film, satirised the generic tropes of superheroes, revealing Sutherlands inside knowledge as a comic-strip creator. Several catchy phrases (my favourite being, The Guardians of the Deep-Fried Galaxy Bar), brought us to the main part of the set, where we were treated with figures like Batman, the Joker, Thor and even a fist-only cameo from the Hulk.

Among this predominantly male cast, the female superheroes did have their own special moment, with Poison Ivy and Harlequin performing their own number about the Bechdel test. With hilarious lines that asked us, is it woke? Or is the film just full of blokes?, a topical issue about representation was handled well.

The Socks were consistently engaging and metatheatrical, combining fast reactions with an evident passion for puppetry

While not as fresh-feeling as the first set, this second show managed to entertain the audience for another full hour. The lowlights, such as the Your Brothers A Racist song that did not quite live up to the ironic humour of its predecessor from Avenue Q, were balanced out with uproarious tracks like Supermans own number that saw him rapidly taking his glasses disguise on and off in a delightful farce.

The Socks were consistently engaging and metatheatrical, combining fast reactions with an evident passion for puppetry. As part of the Birmingham Comedy Festival, this offered something refreshingly different to politically incorrect stand-up, and I hope that the Socks (and Sutherland) will come back to Birmingham again soon.

Enjoyed This? Read Our Latest Culture articles here!

Theatre Review: The Cat and the Canary

Royal Academy Summer Exhibition 2021

Audio Drama Review: This Little Relic

See more here:
Theatre Review: The Scottish Falsetto Sock Puppet Theatre - Redbrick

Two household names, Julian Clary and Matthew Kelly, unite in this touching play which sees

Clary as Norman, the loyal dresser to Kellys ageing Shakespearian actor, Sir.

Despite being a beautiful study of decline, there are many wonderfully funny lines, not to mention some very politically incorrect ones, as The Dresser fights to get a confused Sir on stage as King Lear.

Written by Ronald Harwood (perhaps best known as the writer of the hit movie The Pianist) in 1980, it is set in the early 1940s and examines the relationship between the two men, as well as those with the actors wife, her Ladyship (Emma Amos), and the devoted stage manager Madge (Rebecca Charles).

Clary brings all his charisma to the part, playing it with many of his own well known mannerisms, while Kelly dominates as the elderly thespian who is, at one moment, all booming voice and vain ego and, the next, simply a befuddled pensioner.

Its quite a claustrophobic piece, set backstage in a ramshackled theatre as wartime bombs continue to drop, but succeeds as a thorough investigation of friendship and of those wonderful rep actors who simply dont exist any more.

The play continues until Saturday.

Sarah Hardy

Read the original:
Julian Clary and Matthew Kelly appear in The Dresser - Lynn News

When Germans went to the polls last week, voters in Berlin faced an unusual candidate on their ballot sheet: A Jewish, gay ex-IDF soldier.

However, Marcel Goldhammer was not running for any of the mainstream center-right or center-left parties between whom power traditionally fluctuates in Germany, or even for the insurgent Greens: the kippah-wearing contender belonged to the radical right, fiercely xenophobic Alternative for Germany.

Emerging out of a wider climate of Euroscepticism in 2013, the AfD soon radicalized and, tapping an anti-immigrant wave, became the strongest opposition party following the 2017 elections, with the third largest bloc in the Bundestag. Last weeks Federal election saw AfDs support slip in western Germany, but it was able to win around a quarter of votes in parts of the formerly Communist east.

The AfD is largely ostracized by mainstream politicians, and has been consistently opposed by the organized Germany Jewish community. Its extremism led the countrys domestic intelligence service to place it under surveillance earlier this year, on suspicion of trying to undermine Germany's democratic constitution, a move that was later suspended before the recent elections.

So why would Marcel Goldhammer find a political home there?

The AfD is part of an emerging trend across Europe of radical right parties which declare that their anti-Muslim and anti-migrant stances actually benefit Jews by combatting the antisemitism that, they claim, has risen in tandem with the Islamist invasion of the continent.

Thus the radical right which, at least in the case of Germany and Austria, has won endorsements from neo-Nazi elements for its commitment to nationalism and xenophobia, proclaims it is protecting Jews. In Goldhammers words: "Only the policies of the AfD protect Jewish life in Germany."

The AfD have tried to institutionalize this claim by formally welcoming Jews into the party. It launched a Jewish branch in October 2018. The attendees, though, were outnumbered 20 to one by a counter-rally held by an unprecedentedly unified German Jewish community, led by the Jewish Student Union of Germany.

The communitys representative body, the Central Council of Jews in Germany, declared, that, "The AfD is not a party for JewsThe AfD is a party in which hatred of the Jews and the denial of the Holocaust have a home. The AfD is antidemocratic, inhumane and, in many parts, right-wing extremist."

However, the Jews in the AfD branch soon found success, with the election of Dimitri Schulz to the Hesse state parliament. Despite wearing a kippah during a trip by German parliamentarians to Israel, Israeli government officials refused to meet with him, abiding by its boycott of the party.

The then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus son, Yair, didnt consider the boycott binding when he engaged warmly with a leading AfD legislator on Twitter, echoing AfD language by calling for Europe to be rid of the "evil, globalist" EU and return to being "free, democratic and Christian."

Goldhammer is the latest in this string of Jewish AfD candidates, a fervent right-winger who pushes his Jewish identity for maximum shock value and effect.

His kippah and Hebrew phrases are given prominent positioning on his election-posters, a transparent attempt to present AfD as a Jew-friendly party, while he burnishes his rightist credentials by backing Donald Trump, Orbn's Hungary, alt-right media favorite Breitbart News, and appearing on YouTube with German far right conspiracy theorist Oliver Flesch.

During the campaign, Goldhammer tweaked the AfD's election slogan, "Germany. But normal" to "Jews. But normal," attempting to position himself as therealrepresentative of the Jewish community. That was an attempt to grandstand an unusual pre-election public statement by 60 Jewish representative organizations against the AfD who declared they were united in their "conviction that the AfD is a danger to our country."

Goldhammer responded aggressively, deriding the AfD's Jewish opponents as "government-funded 'professional Jews,'" language some consider resonant of antisemitic conspiracy theories as well as an accusation of self-serving betrayal.

Goldhammer did not win enough votes to sit in the Bundestag. However, his candidacy is symbolic of attempts by the AfD, and other radical right parties, to instrumentalize Jewish identity and lived experiences to their advantage.

And there is another instrumentalizing dynamic the radical right uses in relation to the Jewish community: the issue of Israel. Goldhammer himself claimed the AfD would "stand by Israel" and that he himself had "defended Jews [by serving] in the IDF."

Over-emphasis of support for the Israeli state is utilized to deflect accusations of racism. In the same way, Brazils hard right President Jair Bolsonaro waves the Israeli flag at his rallies (and is intensifying his relationship with the AfD); UK anti-Muslimagitator Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, also known as Tommy Robinson, attended a pro-Israel rally during this summers Israel-Hamas conflict, using the same tactic to present as philosemitic.

Pro-Israel radical right sentiment is based on an essentialized conception of Israel as the resolute last frontier of Europe against a perceived homogenous, hostile, violent, repressive Muslim and Arab world. This fragile friendship likely rests on support for right-wing Israeli administrations and their policy agendas and does not represent an endorsement of Jewish self-determination across the breadth of Zionist expression.

For Jews in the AfD like Goldhammer, the adoption of this view represents a reprioritization of different elements of their Jewish identity where pro-Israel collective identities overpower others. Its a process that sociologist David Snow calls identity salience hierarchy.

One cause of a new Jewish-far right partnership is the deliberate misrepresentation of the sources of antisemitism, attempting to marry anti-antisemitism with Islamophobia.

Clearly the issue of antisemitism is problem for Jews enamored of the far right, and so a solution is found: To declare that todays antisemites are exclusively Muslims. That requires a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts (antisemitism is present across the political spectrum) but also an ideological commitment to marrying the fight against antisemitism with Islamophobia.

Not only that, Jews are extremely useful for the far right as unimpeachable talking heads who can openly blame Muslims for bigotry, thus justifying a wider hostility towards and exclusion of Muslims as party policy. The open letter signed by German Jewish community institutions correctly identified that, "In the AfD's program, Jews serve solely to express the party's anti-Muslim resentment," whereby Jews who express liberal or anti-racist values are cast aside or condemned as illegitimate.

This stems from a fundamental reimagining of Jewishness, where Jews are perceived to be a pro-Israel, white, anti-Muslim, assimilated, right-wing monolith and can thus be welcomed as members of their perceived "in-group."

That goes hand-in-hand with the construction of a European "Judeo-Christian" culture to explicitly exclude Muslims and migrants, ignoring the existence of non-European or immigrant Jews, negating the centuries of antisemitism perpetrated by the Church.

The radical right does not like Jews for what theyare; they like Jews for their idea of who theywantthem to be.

While Jews in the AfD remain a small fringe group, and Goldhammer ultimately was unsuccessful, the ways in which Jewish causes have been instrumentalized in a national election, and the fielding of a Jewish radical right candidate for the Bundestag, highlight the potential salience of their narratives on a national scale.

If hed succeeded, Goldhammer could have been the only Jewish lawmaker in the Bundestag, thereby claiming to "represent Jews" at the highest levels of German democracy.

A pro-Israel candidate may be attractive to some Jewish voters, but it is vital that communities understand how Jewish issues are being misrepresented and abused to promote insidious anti-Muslim and anti-democratic values.

The far-right in Germany has changed; they no longer look like they did in the 1940s, or even the 1990s. The stereotype of skinheads, brown uniforms and steel-toed boots are few and far between, and while swastikas and Hitler salutes are still practised by overtly neo-Nazi groups they are no longer the rallying cries of parliamentary racists and fascists.

Todays radical right plays a highly stylized, carefully constructed PR game, casting out unfashionably explicit antisemitism in favor of more widely-accepted Islamophobia.

However, antisemitism continues to pervade the AfD and similar parties, evidenced in the employment of "Great Replacement" conspiracy theories, the idea that a cabal of powerful Jewish influencers and funders are masterminding a non-white, non-Christian demographic invasion of Europe, in which anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish narratives are united.

The Jewish community cannot be fooled into thinking that these people are allies or merely politically incorrect friends that Jewish communities can politely ignore.

The future of Muslim, and Jewish, life in Europe, rests on robust, principled and astute opposition to the demagoguery and incitement of the far right, whether the perpetrators are neo-Nazi street gangs, political leaders, or even members of our own community.

Ruben Gerczikow is a Jewish reporter and columnist based in Germany, researching far-right extremism, antisemitism and conspiracy ideologies, including the past years anti-vaxxer protests in Berlin. Twitter:@RubenGerczi

Hannah Rose is a Research Fellow at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at Kings College London, where she is pursuing her PhD on far-right extremism and antisemitism. She is an Associate Fellow at the Institute for Freedom of Faith and Security in Europe. Twitter: @hannah1_rose

Go here to read the rest:
Why Jews join the German far right - Haaretz

Rugby league legend Peter Sterling had an emotional send-off in his final appearance on the Sunday Footy Show, as he wraps up his media duties at Nine following the NRL grand final on Sunday night.

After 30 years on Australian televisions following a successful playing career with the Parramatta Eels, Sterling is hanging up the mic and stepping down from his role at Nine.

LIVE GRAND FINAL UPDATES: SBW explains what sets Penrith apart

The NRL analyst who made famous the line, "If we freeze play here", reflected on his impressive media career.

"It's been a great time because it's never felt like work," Sterling said after viewing the best moments from his time on The Footy Show and commentating for Nine.

"When you look at that [highlights reel], it's just ridiculous stuff and really enjoyable with good people.

"I've got to thank this network, they took a punt on me 30 years ago and I don't think either of us thought it would last that long - but here we are."

READ MORE: Everything you need to know about 2021 NRL grand final

Sterling revealed that it took him a while to warm up to the role in front of the camera, but once he got there he relished the experience.

"I wasn't a big fan early on because I liked the more serious side of things but it was one in, all in," he said.

"There's not a favourite moment. It was just something different every week.

"Fatty (Paul Vautin) was fantastic. Fatty was The Footy Show and I loved being alongside him.

"I look back at things now and you just wouldn't get away with half the stuff. It was politically incorrect in so many different ways.

"Fatty was great and working alongside Ray Warren as well. I did work probably my first six weeks concussed because when Rabs goes for the binoculars the elbows flare up and I didn't realise that for a while. So after a while you'd know he was going for the binoculars you'd duck and weave."

Sterling gave a heartfelt thanks to the many people who supported him in the last three decades which left the panel of Erin Molan, Brad Fittler and Ruan Sims on the verge of tears.

"I need to take an opportunity to thank the network, and everybody behind the scenes," he said.

"Everybody whose job it is to make us look and sound good, thank you so much for all of the years. I hope you never felt unappreciated because it's certainly never been that way.

"I want to thank the players, coaches and teams over the years for being so accessible. If you have been beaten on a Friday or Saturday, the last thing you want is to come and talk about it on a Sunday morning, but they make themselves available to us.

"Most importantly the people at home who let us into their lounge rooms on a Sunday, thank you for making us so welcome. I hope we've provided you good conduit to the game and appreciation and enjoyment for what has been so good to us.

"I'll miss you all, but I'll be watching from a distance."

For a daily dose of the best of the breaking news and exclusive content from Wide World of Sports, subscribe to our newsletter by clicking here!

Read the original here:
Peter Sterling shares emotional message as 30-year TV career comes to an end - Wide World of Sports

In 2007, religion reporter Cathleen Falsani sat down with a U.S. Senator who would announce his presidential candidacy the following month, Barack Obama. Writing for theChicago Sun-Times, she had interviewed the rising Illinois politician before and spoken with him about his personal Christian faith. Noticing how much Obama invoked God and his religious convictions in political speeches, this time Falsani asked if he considered himself an evangelical.

Gosh, Im not sure if labels are helpful here because the definition of an evangelical is so loose and subject to so many different interpretations, Obamaresponded. I came to Christianity through the Black church tradition where the line between evangelical and non-evangelical is completely blurred. Nobody knows exactly what it means. Does it mean that you feel youve got a personal relationship with Christ the savior? Then thats directly part of the Black church experience.

During the campaign and his presidency, Obama clearlytalkedabout his personal faith, his salvation experience, and Jesus in historically evangelical ways. By evangelical in the classic sense, we lean on the work of historian David Bebbington who identifiedfour key characteristicsof evangelicalism:conversionism(the necessity of a born-again experience),activism(a commitment to sharing ones faith with others),biblicism(basing ones faith on the authority of the Bible), andcrucicentrism (a focus on the death of Jesus on the cross).

(Josue Michel/Unsplash)

But Obama avoided the evangelical label less on theological grounds than because of the cultural connotations that came with it. Fourteen years later, Obamas observation seems even more prescient. Despite this historic religious meaning of the label evangelical, new research released last week confirms that the term comes with even more political baggage than when that senator from Illinois shied away from it.

In this issue ofA Public Witness, we take a look at two new survey reports on White evangelicals and Donald Trump to consider what they tell us together about the label evangelical. We also join the chorus of voices searching for new religious identifiers.

On Wednesday (Sept. 15), the Pew Research Centerreleased analysisfrom their American Trends Panel in which they interviewed people right after the 2016 and 2020 elections. Looking at data from those individuals included in both surveys, Pew saw some interesting and we think alarming shifts about who identifies as an evangelical.

On the surface, the number of White evangelicals grew as a percentage of the U.S. population from 25% in 2016 to 29% in 2020. But the comparative data by Pew shows whats going on. While 2% of White Americans who identified as evangelical in 2016 no longer used that label in 2020, another 6% who didnt identify as evangelical in 2016 adopted the label by 2020. Its not just that more people are identifying as evangelical, but there is some shifting in both directions.

Was there a large revival of born-again conversions that slipped the attention of the media? No. At least not in the historic evangelical understanding. Pew discovered a key variable among the 6% who adopted the term evangelical during the Trump presidency: expressing a warm view of Trump.

Heres how Gregory Smith, associate director of research for Pew, explained the finding: Between 2016 and 2020, White Americans with warm views toward Trump were far more likely than those with less favorable views of the former president to begin identifying as born-again/evangelical Protestants, perhaps reflecting the strong association between Trumps political movement and the evangelical religious label.

That is, many admirers of Trump who didnt call themselves evangelical in 2016 then embraced that label by 2020. But was this a new-found religious identity or just a new way of expressing their political identity? This would seem to support what writer Sarah Posnerrecognizedback in 2016: Trumpvangelicals are the new evangelicals.

This shift helps explain why Trumps support among White evangelicals increased in 2020 over the already-high level in 2016. While Pew found that Trump won a higher percentage in 2020 of those who identified as evangelical in both surveys, his 2020 level of evangelical support was also boosted by the new converts to the label. More Trump supporters adopted the evangelical label, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that evangelicals support Trump. Thus, in the Pew dataset, Trumps evangelical support rose from 77% in 2016 to 84% in 2020.

Dont miss the next issue ofA Public Witness. Sign up now for this e-newsletter on faith, culture, and politics!

On the same day Pew released their findings, PRRIreleased new poll dataon who Americans believe hold a lot of responsibility for the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. That survey adds to our understanding of the politicization of the evangelical label.

Among all Americans, 59% blame White Supremacist groups, 56% blame Donald Trump, and 55% blame conservative media that spread conspiracies theories and misinformation about the election. Further down the list, only 41% blame Republican leaders, 38% blame liberal activists like Antifa, and 29% blame White conservative Christian groups.

When looking at religious respondents, nearly every single faith group blamed the same top three culprits. Catholics, Hispanic and Black Protestants, Latter-day Saints, Jews, those of other religions, and the religiously unaffiliated all blame White Supremacists, Trump, and conservative media the most (though in different orders and at different levels). White non-evangelical Protestants also nearly line up with the norm as they mostly blame White Supremacists (49%) and conservative media (45%), but then have a few more who accuse liberal activists (44%) than Trump (43%).

But theres one religious demographic that sits as a radical outlier to all the others. You guessed it.

A whopping 57% of White evangelicals blame liberal activists. Even though and we feel we must emphasize this point given that percentage the evidence is overwhelming and clear that the claims that Antifa conducted the insurrection as a false flag operation arefalse. This was a mob of Trump supporters.

But a majority of White evangelicals buy into conspiracy theories and misinformation from the same media outlets that spread conspiracy theories and misinformation about the election that helped fuel the rage we saw on Jan. 6. Thus, only 37% of White evangelicals blame White Supremacists for the insurrection, making White evangelicals the only religious demographic where fewer than half blame those who carried Confederate flags and wore shirts cheering the Holocaust as they stormed our nations Capitol. And only 34% of White evangelicals blame conservative media, with even fewer accusing Trump (26%).

That order of blame (mostly liberals, followed way behind by White Supremacists, conservative media, and Trump) matches the pattern of some other groups in PRRIs survey: those who hold a favorable opinion of Trump, those who think the 2020 election was stolen, and those who believe QAnon conspiracies. It shouldnt be surprising (butisfrustrating) that PRRI also found White evangelicals were the only religious group among whom a majority believes the election was stolen. A full 61% had bought into this debunked lost cause of Trump. And 25% of White evangelicals believe in QAnon conspiracies, outpacing the national rate of 17%.

Perhaps the alignment of the label evangelical with Trumpism, as seen in the Pew report, helps explain the Trumpian attitude of self-identified White evangelicals in the PRRI poll. And this spiraling cycle can accelerate as people leave or adopt the label evangelical as it becomes synonymous with Trumpism, Jan. 6, and political conspiracy theories.

Get cutting-edge analysis and commentary like this in your inbox every week by subscribing today!

Jesuswarnedus that if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. The same can be true of words.

Words change in meaning over time. We must pay attention to such semantic shifts, lest we miscommunicate. Egregious originally meant really good, but now means shockingly bad. It would be an, well, egregious mistake to insist on using the original meaning today as people would make inaccurate judgements about what you think is good and bad. Or consider the shift in the word nice, which hundreds of years ago meant foolish or what we might today call silly. But silly back then meant blessed. But it wouldnt be nice today to call a blessed person silly!

The term evangelical is undergoing a similar transformation. Rather than a religious label describing key spiritual beliefs and experiences, it increasingly signifies ones political tribe.

To throw in one more poll finding from earlier this year, consider some analysis by Ryan Burge, an American Baptist pastor who teaches political science at Eastern Illinois University. Henotedthat in 2008, 58.6% of self-identified evangelicals reported attending church weekly or more, but that number fell to 49.9% in 2020. Meanwhile, those who called themselves evangelical but also reported never or seldom even attending church rose from 16.1% in 2008 to 26.7% in 2020.That is, more and more evangelicals dont even go to church.

Digging deeper into the data, Burgediscovered that the never-attending evangelicals are 10 percentage points more likely to be a Republican today than in 2008 while those who attend weekly or more are actually 5 percentage points less likely to be Republican today than 12 years earlier. (It should be noted that the data still shows more regular church attendance correlated with Republican support regardless of year.)

Even more evidence here that evangelical is not a religious term anymore, Burgeconcluded.

That means, when someone uses the label evangelical, they might signal a political message to others rather than a religious one. Thus, Baylor University historian Thomas Kidd, author ofWho is an Evangelical?,toldChristianity Todayin response to the new Pew report that pastors in particular should realize that the meaning they attach to evangelical may not be the same as that of some in their congregation. I suspect most pastors would not want to inadvertently signal to their congregations that they are effectively branch offices of Donald Trumps GOP, simply by making undefined use of the term evangelical.

Help sustain the ministry ofWord&Wayby subscribing toA Public Witness!

We askedDavid Gushee, an ethicist at Mercer University and the author ofAfter Evangelicalism, about the Pew report and what this means for the evangelical label.

It looks to me as if the older religious meaning of the identity evangelical weakened and its political meaning strengthened under the impact of the Trump phenomenon, Gushee responded. The older religious meaning of evangelicalism used to mean commitments like the authority of scripture, evangelism, missions, personal morality, and a godly witness in public life. Now that older meaning has been superseded by commitment to Donald Trump and Trumpism.

Trump supporters or those of any politician are free to define themselves as they deem fit. The critique is not that co-optation of language is inherently wrong but that this shift in the political realm has important consequences for American Christianity that have yet to be sorted out. And as Gushee added, this linguistic transformation necessitates a critique of the evangelical movement overall.

It certainly looks to me like Donald Trump has evangelized the evangelicals with his own toxic politics, he explained to us. But as many observers, including myself, have pointed out, the fact that the evangelicals were willing to be evangelized says more about them than about Trump.

To that point, Anthea Butler, a religious studies and Africana studies professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author ofWhite Evangelical Racism,arguedin an MSBNC column after the Pew report, Now that those who dont know the theological beliefs of evangelicalism are identifying themselves as such, there should be no confusion about what evangelicalism really is in America: a full-fledged religious political movement whose allegiance is to the Republican partys issues and to whiteness.

Embracing the term evangelical without appreciating its evolving meaning could be a way of unintentionally adding more credence to a dangerous political ideology that preaches conspiracies about stolen elections, Jan. 6 liberal insurrectionists, and QAnon heroes. We must not only reject the dying label but also stand against the political heresy taking over so many in our churches.

A Baptist Missions food pantry with pro-Trump signs in June 2021 in Wright City, Missouri. (Brian Kaylor/Word&Way)

In this moment, we have clarity about what is lost. A term that used to signify something important no longer carries the same meaning. Our politics, with the help of many professed Christians, has warped and disfigured the Churchs language. The American Churchs witness is damaged by ongoing corruption of its language. The rescue effort cannot wait.

As Robert P. Jones, CEO of PRRI,reflected in his own Substack e-newsletterabout the new poll his organization released: The time for benefits of the doubt has expired. We must face the disheartening reality before us and act to excise the cancer of White Christian extremism from our body politic and our churches. If we have any hope of preventing it from further metastasizing, we will need the courage and voice of every White Christian, lay and clergy alike, to say a collective no to this debasement of Christian theology that is eroding the foundations of our democracy.

To that, we raise our voices of support as non-evangelical evangelists.

As a public witness,

Brian Kaylor & Beau Underwood

See original here:
Politically Incorrect Evangelical - Word and Way

It was over before he knew it. Bill Maher, host of the hit show Politically Incorrect on ABC, was canceled by the network's parent company, Disney, with no real explanation back in June 2002. It wasn't the ratings. Maher's show was many thingsraw, outrageous, ridiculous, interesting and irritatingbut it was never boring. Indeed, it was an extremely entertaining show, and conversations happened on his set that didn't happen anywhere on television. For better or worse.

The idea of the show was simple: bring people from all walks of American life and culture togethersports, politics and entertainmentand let the guests go at it on the topics of the day. Better still, Maher worked hard to include diverse viewpoints too and regularly included up-and-coming conservative stars like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and others.

Disney, it turns out, handed Maher his death sentence for comments he made on his show on September 17, 2001. On the set that fateful and fatal night was conservative author Dinesh D'Souza, who responded to President George W. Bush's contention that the terrorists responsible for the carnage were "cowards." D'Souza disagreed. "One of the themes we hear constantly is that the people who did this are cowards," explained D'Souza. "Not true. You have a whole bunch of guys who were willing to give their life. None of 'em backed out. All of them slammed themselves into pieces of concrete."

Maher agreed with D'Souza's point, and what he said next unleashed the firestorm that would end his show. "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away," Maher said. "That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the buildingsay what you want about it, it's not cowardly."

Maher's words were soon everywhere. It didn't help matters that they were taken out of context, as many punditsespecially in the conservative mediaimplied that he'd called our soldiers cowardly.

A contrite Maher issued an apology. "In no way was I intending to say, nor have I ever thought, that the men and women who defend our nation in uniform are anything but courageous and valiant, and I offer my apologies to anyone who took it wrong," he said in a statement.

His apology didn't change anyone's mind. Conservative media pushed for boycotts of his show's sponsors. Sears dropped the show, citing an outpouring of outrage from angry customers. FedEx and others joined the exodus.

Just months later, Maher was canceled, his career in tatters. And all over a comment he could have made differently, one he didn't plan. A comment that, if he'd made it a year later, would have passed unnoticed.

Worse, anyone who followed Maher's career knew how he felt about radical Islamists. Indeed, Maher has been one of the few voices in the mainstream media willing to differentiate between the majority of peaceful Muslims in the world and those with views so extreme that they're a danger not just to America and the Western world but to Muslims too. Especially in places like the Middle East, Far East and Africa.

None of that mattered to those Republicans after Maher's head. And it wasn't the conservative media alone that was leading the charge. These were the words from press secretary Ari Fleischer on September 26, responding to a question about Maher's comments by a reporter: "It's a terrible thing to say, and it was unfortunate. They're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."

Luckily for America, the appetite on the right to do such things sputtered out. Robust dissent over Bush's foreign policy didn't merely return; it came back with an intensity not seen since Vietnam. Some of that dissent came from the right.

For anyone watching Maher's recent attacks on the entrenched assault on free speech by the progressive left, his experience with boycotts and cancellations is worth telling. Because what's been consistent in Maher's old and new shows is his hatred of dogmatic extremism, including the religious variety. Maher's principles on this fundamental issue, it turns out, are more important to him than his political and partisan preferences. And more important even than adulation from his liberal brethren. It is, dare I say, a deeply principled stand.

On his HBO show, Real Time With Bill Maher, last week, he talked about the heat he's been taking from progressives for challenging the far left's nearly religious devotion to its orthodoxies and dogma. "To me, when people say to me sometimes, like, 'Boy, you know, you go after the left a lot these days. Why?' Because you're embarrassing me," he said.

Perhaps Maher's best monologue on the subject happened last spring during his "New Rules" segment on Real Time. It began with a graphic of the word progressophobia, a phrase Harvard anthropologist Steven Pinker made up to describe, as Maher noted, "a brain disorder that strikes liberals and makes them incapable of recognizing progress." Maher then ran through a litany of titanic cultural shifts in America to prove his point.

"Before 2012, gay marriage was put before state voters and lost 35 times in a row. Now, it's the law of the land in every state, and even half of Republicans are for it," he said. "That's progress, and acknowledging progress isn't saying we're done and we don't need more. And being gloomier doesn't make you a better person."

Maher then moved to the subject of race. "In 1958, only 4 percent of Americans approved of interracial marriage," he said. "Now, Gallup doesn't even bother asking. The last time they did, in 2013, 87 percent approved. That is a sea change from when I was a kid."

Maher then took aim at fellow comedian and Hollywood star Kevin Hart and something he told The New York Times. "You're witnessing white power and white privilege at an all-time high," Hart told the reporter about the current state of race relations in America.

"This is one of the big problems with wokeness," Maher countered, challenging Hart's claim. "What you say doesn't have to make sense or jibe with the facts, or ever be challenged, lest the challenge itself be conflated with racism."

Maher went on to prove the absurdity of Hart's claim. "But saying that white power and privilege is at an all-time high is just ridiculous. Higher than a century ago, the year of the Tulsa race massacre?" he asked rhetorically. "Higher than the years when the Ku Klux Klan rode unchecked and Jim Crow went unchallenged? Higher than the 1960s, when the Supremes and Willie Mays still couldn't stay in the same hotel as the white people they were working with?"

Maher then came in for the kill. "Racism is simply no longer everywhere. It's not in my home. It probably isn't in yours, if I read my audience right, and I think I do. For most of the country, the most unhip thing you could ever be today is a racist."

Maher pinned much of the blame on millennials, many of whom came of age during the rise of safe spaces and trigger warnings, and the educators who created and engendered such nonsense.

"We date human events with A.D. and B.C., but we need a third marker for millennials: B.Y. Before you," Maher joked. The studio audience, filled with young fans, erupted with applause.

Maher then closed his monologue with this parting thought about his country: "It's not a sinand it's certainly not inaccurateto say, We've come a long way, baby. Not mission accomplished. Just a long way."

Maher's monologue went viral, with conservatives cheering what they mistakenly believed was his move to the right. Progressive critics mistakenly believed he'd moved to the right because he was getting applause from Republicans.

What his critics on the left didn't understand is that many traditional liberal Democrats believe the same things. Indeed, a silent majority of Americans dislike the radical ideas being peddled by Marxist progressives (white privilege, critical race theory and radical wealth redistribution among them) but are afraid to speak up. And afraid because those same progressives who talk endlessly about inclusion use bullying tactics to stifle dissent. And cancellation to kill it.

Indeed, America's repulsion for the tactics of the cancel culture crosses generations. A poll conducted by Morning Consult revealed some startling numbers. "Overall, no one liked it," wrote Daniel Roman of the Association of Mature American Citizens. "The only group for whom more respondents viewed it positively (19%) or neutrally (22%) than negatively (36%) was millennials. Predictably, more members of Gen X (1965-1980) and Boomers (1946-64) viewed it negatively (46% for Gen X, 50% for Boomers) than positively or neutrally (29% for Gen X, 27% for Boomers)."

But the real shock, Roman reported, came from the generation born between 1997 and 2008: Generation Z. Only 8% of that cohort viewed cancel culture favorably, while 55% had a negative view.

The fact is, Maher is saying what a majority of Americans are thinking. Moreover, he is doing his best to protect liberalism from a far-left wing minority hell-bent on purging this country of honest and open debate about matters of race, inequality, justice and freedom.

More and more liberals and Democrats are starting to side with Maher on these points and openly challenge this left-wing brand of McCarthyism.

If only more liberals and Democratsincluding leaders in our public schools, universities and mediawould join him.

Visit link:
Bill Maher, Once Canceled by the Right, Takes Aim at the Left's Cancel Culture - Newsweek

Bill Maher, a comedian and political satire, hosts Real Time with Bill Maher, a weekly HBO discussion programme that airs once a week. Real-Time, like his earlier Comedy Central and ABC series Politically Incorrect, featured a panel of guests who analyse current events in politics and the media. Unlike the previous programme, visitors are typically more knowledgeable about the subject: the panel includes more specialists, such as journalists, academics, and politicians, and fewer actors and celebrities.

Real-Time is a weekly hour-long programme that airs live on Friday nights at 10:00 p.m. ET and features a studio audience. It comes from Los Angeles Television Citys Studio 33 (The Bob Barker Studio). In addition, a 10- to 15-minute Overtime section on YouTube (Live Streams) immediately follows the broadcast, answering questions sub.

From the April 3, 2020 show until the August 23, 2020 episode, Real Time with Bill Maher was recorded from Mahers home in Beverly Hills, with guests appearing remotely due to the COVID-19 epidemic. On August 28, 2020, Bill Maher and his production team returned to their regular studio for the first time since March 2020. mitted by fans through HBOs online page for the show.

For the return to the studio, changes to the production were made, including social distancing of the crew and interviews with guests via the internet/satellite connections, the use of a fake laugh track and archive clips of audiences applauding and laughing during Mahers opening monologue, and the use of a fake laugh track and archive clips of audiences applauding and laughing during Mahers opening monologue. Regular audience members who have tested negative for COVID-19 have been permitted in the studio from February 5, 2021.

HBO announced in September 2020 that the programme had been extended for two more seasons, keeping it on the air until 2022. On January 15, 2021, the shows nineteenth season started. HBO announced in September 2021 that the programme had been extended for two more seasons, keeping it on the air until 2024.

The shows structure generally starts with current affairs or political sketches, then the credits and a comedic monologue. Maher then conducts a satellite or in-studio interview with a prominent individual before sitting down with the panellists for a lengthy discussion. Halfway through the panel, Maher performs a comedic sketch, which generally parodies current events.

Following the comedic routine, Maher does a satellite or in-studio interview with another person. The format changes depending on whether there are two or three individuals on the panel. Maher adds that the format isnt set in stone and that live interviews are preferred over satellite ones. Maher has a piece called New Rules towards the end of each show that acts as a funny commentary on popular culture and American politics. The last New Rule is followed by Mahers editorial monologue.

Because the show airs on HBO, the participants are not required to limit their language in order to comply with the broadcast rules that applied to Politically Incorrect. Additionally, photographs featured on New Rules may contain nudity or images that have not been filtered.

Paul F. Tompkins appeared as a correspondent in the first season. Furthermore, each show would conclude with a stand-up comic, none of whom were political satirists. After the eleventh episode, the portions with Tompkins and comedians were discontinued. In the first season, viewers could phone into the live broadcast and offer questions over the air; however, this was also dropped.

Audio-only episodes were made available as a free podcast via the iTunes Store and as a raw RSS feed starting with episode 67 in February 2006. The podcasts also include material from the programme that was removed from the final version but filmed during the studio practice, such as New Rules, which was not shown in the final version.

From 2005 through 2014, the show was nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Variety Series every year, and in 2016 and 2017, it was nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Variety Talk Series.

I just love such shows, what about you? I am sure after reading all about Real-Time with Bill Maher, you have also become of real-time shows. If this is true, comment below, and we will see it as a token of appreciation.

Continued here:
Everything You Should Know About Real Time with Bill Maher | MichiganSportsZone.com - Michigan Sports Zone

Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus were both at the height of their powers (and popularity) when they suffered shocking losses in Ryder Cup matches.

Sports Illustrated

As Ryder Cup week approaches, a look at perhaps the two greatest upsets in Ryder Cup history is in order. Interestingly, Arnold Palmer played a pivotal role in each of the two singles losses.

The first involved Englands Peter Alliss and Palmer, with a cameo from Tony Lema. And, as part of the story, we get to examine the provenance of one of the more snide, sexist and politically incorrect sayings in golf.

Peter Alliss: Passed away a year ago at 89, but is remembered by most Americans as a smooth, mellifluous and portly Brit, and the successor to Englands Henry Longhurst as The Voice of Golf. Alliss is a member of the World Golf Hall of Fame in the Lifetime Achievement category, but he was also a heck of a player. Son of the famous British golfer, Percy Alliss, Peter Alliss won 20 professional tournaments, including three British PGA Championships. He had five top-10 finishes in the British Open, and made only two appearances in the U.S. to play majors missing the cut both times at the Masters.

Alliss played on eight Ryder Cup teams between 1953 and 1969, going 10-15-5. He and his father Percy were the first father-son combo to both participate in and win the Ryder Cup.

Tony Lema: At the peak of his game in 1963, Lema was known as "Champagne Tony" and was perhaps second only to Palmer in fan popularity. As a youngster in Oakland, Calif., he had been sponsored by wealthy car dealer Eddie Lowery (who did the same for Ken Venturi). Lowery had been the 10-year-old caddie for Francis Ouimet when Ouimet famously became the second American, and first amateur, to win the U.S. Open in 1913.

In 1963, Lema finished second in the Masters, and a year later he won the British Open. He died in a plane crash in 1966 at just 32-years old.

Alliss later wrote that Lemas swing (which, according to journalist Bill Fields in 2014, was much admired by a young Johnny Miller especially when Miller wanted to hit a draw) was an "elegant swing of rare beauty. ... On the course he always seemed tense and nervous, rather like Bobby Jones, but had the same grace under pressure."

Arnold Palmer: Still a presence in 1963, he had won six of his seven career majors. He was a fan favorite and a slasher a throw-caution-to-winds swashbuckler extraordinaire. Think Phil Mickelson on steroids, and the ladies flat-out swooned for Palmer, his magnetism and skill helping take golf to a new level.

Palmer played on six Ryder Cup teams, all winners, and captained a winning seventh team. An argument could be made that he was perhaps the greatest Ryder Cup player of all-time. He ended his career with Ryder Cup records for match wins, points won and winning percentage, and shared several others. Palmer still has the best-ever record 22-8-2, .719 among all Americans with at least 15 matches played.

Alliss and Palmer played a singles match during the 1961 Ryder Cup at Royal Lytham, and the match was halved, a surprising half-point for Alliss.

Palmer said this about that 1961 match:Peter was an elegant and accomplished player. As most of the British players did, he shaped his shots for control purposes, from left to right in a controlled fade. I greatly admired the way Peter played the game, with such precision and accuracy, which was almost nothing like my style. It says something about the mans quiet tenacity that I had to work my tail off simply to halve with him. Cordially shaking hands at the matchs conclusion, I think both of us knew wed been in a dogfight and would probably be in a few more before things were over.

Prescient words, indeed.

The 1963 Ryder Cup was in Atlanta. At the time, 16 singles matches were staged on the final day eight in the morning and eight in the afternoon.

Improbably, incredibly, Alliss defeated Palmer in the morning, 1-up. An upset for the ages. But Alliss was not done yet. In the afternoon singles, he halved with Tony Lema.

So, in three Ryder Cup matches over two years, twice against Palmer and once against Lema, Allis was 1-0-2. Spectacular stuff.

As Alliss reached the pinnacle of his career knocking off Arnold Palmer in the Ryder Cup he made another kind of history.

At one point in that match, Alliss, for whom putting was his weak suit, badly missed a 3-foot putt. Someone in the gallery yelled, Way to leave it short, Alliss! That moment landed, and the phrase transformed into the derogatory, inappropriate, manhood-demeaning and totally politically incorrect epiphet, Hit it, Alice when a gentleman leaves a putt short. And that is golf history.

Brian Barnes: An Englishman who passed away in 2019. Barnes played in six consecutive Ryder Cup matches from 1969 to 1979. He was one of the leading European Tour golfers in the early years after the tour was founded in 1972, and he placed between fourth and eighth on the Order of Merit each year from 1972 to 1980. He won nine events on the Tour between 1972 and 1981.

Barnes completed all four rounds of the British Open 16 successive years from 1967 to 1982 and had three top-10 finishes, the best being a tie for fifth in 1972. He never fared well in the U.S. he played in the Masters in 1972 and 1973 and, like Allis, missed the cut each time.

Barnes was a character and an entertainer, often smoking a pipe when playing and sometimes marking his ball on the green with a beer can. He and alcohol were no strangers, sadly, as that relationship eventually hastened the loss of his game. Barnes was also a married-in member of British golf royalty, as his wife was the daughter of Max Faulkner, winner of the 1951 British Open.

So, again we have an Englishman who was hardly a slouch, but most U.S. fans had never heard of him. He was no one to strike fear into the games elite.

And in 1975, there was no golfer more elite than Jack Nicklaus.

Jack Nicklaus: In 1975, Nicklaus was at the height of his game. The Golden Bear, 35, was the worlds unquestioned best player and had won 14 majors prior to the 1975 Ryder Cup (hed also finished runner-up nine additional times). In 1975 he won both the Masters and the PGA Championship and finished T-3 in the British Open and T-7 in the U.S. Open.

Arnold Palmer: At 46, he was still a force at times, having held the 36-hole lead at the 1974 U.S. Open at Winged Foot before finishing fifth. At this particular Ryder Cup at Laurel Valley, he was a non-playing captain. His relationship with Nicklaus had morphed over the years, starting as what can fairly be called rivals before evolving into frenemies as Palmer declined and Nicklaus became a superstar. Their relationship eventually became warm and respectful, friendly. The 1975 Ryder Cup took place in the frenemies period.

As in 1963, Ryder Cup Sunday featured singles matches both in the morning and the afternoon. Barnes and Nicklaus were paired in the morning round as the last match out. As Nicklaus recalls, We talked about fishing all morning. Whatever the conversation, it worked well for Barnes, as he crushed Nicklaus, 4 and 2.

At the lunch break Nicklaus, hardly a smack-talker, very uncharacteristically lobbied his captain, Palmer, for another shot at Barnes. Palmer acceded to the request and, again, Barnes and Nicklaus went out as the last match.

In the afternoon, Nicklaus opened with two birdies before Barnes fought back to win, 2 and 1.

Nicklaus said years later: To be honest, too much has been made of Barnesy beating me twice on Sunday at the 1975 Ryder Cup. Why? Because Brian Barnes was a tough competitor. Played in six straight Ryder Cups, won 20 times as a pro and enjoyed success on both sides of the pond before and after he turned 50.

This was Barnes' take as presented in his obituary in the "Guardian":

When we went to the press tent after the morning round everybody acted as if Id beaten Jesus Christ, Barnes said in a 2012 interview with "Todays Golfer." He was Jesus Christ as far as golf was concerned, but he was still beatable.

The Yanks only needed one or two more points to win and while I was still continuing with the interviews, Jack had gone to Arnold [Palmer, the U.S. captain] and said: Look, there is only one match the punters want to see, and thats Barnesy and I. That was the only time in the history of the Ryder Cup that the match order was changed at that late stage. While that was going on, I was asked Would you like the opportunity to play The Bear again this afternoon? I replied: Well, lightning doesnt strike the same place twice.

Except that it did. Palmer could not help himself from taking a little jab at Nicklaus while accepting the Samuel Ryder trophy as the winning teams captain.

The American team did a very outstanding job, even if Jack did lose two matches today to Brian Barnes. He doesnt mind, really, Palmer said.

Nicklaus shouted back, Oh, yes I do with a sheepish smile on his face.

One last common thread ties the 1963 and 1975 upsets. Both took place on American soil, but its not just the home turf advantage that Allis and Barnes needed to overcome it was also the ball. The Brits used a smaller golf ball until 1974, and since neither Alliss nor Barnes played golf in the U.S. with the larger ball, it was an even more impressive feat to produce the golf that they did.

Because golfers on both sides of the pond are so well-known today, it would be difficult to conjure up a major upset that would rival those aforementioned.

Go here to see the original:
The Two Greatest Ryder Cup Upsets That History Has (Almost) Forgotten - Sports Illustrated