Category Archives: Politically Incorrect

Climate change TCFD implementation

Fully implement the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). If necessary, disclose a timeline of at most three years for full implementation. Disclose whether you have set, or have committed to set, GHG emissions targets that are in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to well-below 2C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5C and to achieve net-zero emissions before 2050

The TCFD recommendations are already established as the primary framework for disclosure of information on the management of climate related risks and opportunities in main annual filings. Elevating disclosure of metrics relating to people, planet, prosperity and principles of governance into main annual filings is a key objective of this initiative and we therefore lend our full support to broader adoption of the TCFD recommendations. Additionally, we emphasize the importance of GHG emissions targets that are in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, Final Report. CDSB R01, R02, R03, R04 and R06; SASB 110

Read more here:
Measuring Stakeholder Capitalism - The World Economic Forum

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a protest against the Israeli government on April 6, 2022. Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images

By Jacob KornbluhOctober 16, 2022

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu writes in a new book that President Joe Biden pushed him last May to end the heavy airstrikes in the Gaza strip in response to 4,000 rockets fired at Israel because he was facing pressure from congressional Democrats. According to the Gaza health ministry, 243 Palestinians, including 66 children, and 12 Israelis were killed in the 11 days of intense fighting between Hamas and Israel.

Bibi, I gotta tell you, Im coming under a lot of pressure back here, Netanyahu quotes Biden as saying during one of the six phone calls the two leaders held that week that led to a ceasefire. The conversation, as reported by Netanyahu in his memoir, Bibi: My story, slated for publication on Tuesday, belies the presidents more recent dismissal of Democratic voices critical of Israel as relatively insignificant. An advanced copy of the book was obtained by the Forward.

This is not Scoop Jacksons Democratic Party, Biden reportedly continued, referring to the hawkish Democratic Senator from Washington who died in 1983. Im getting squeezed here to put an end to this as soon as possible.

Bidens aggressive attempts to reach a ceasefire underscored a generational divide on Israel among Democrats, with those on the left led by Reps. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley who formed The Squad after their election in 2018. Last year, eight Democrats voted against funding for the replenishment of Israels anti-missile Iron Dome defense system, though some supported it in a subsequent vote. And 16 opposed a resolution condemning the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel. A recent Pew Research survey showed that 53% of Americans who identify themselves as Democrats hold a negative view of Israel.

Earlier this year, in his first interview with the Israeli media ahead of his 10th trip to the Jewish state, Biden said he is not worried about anti-Israel sentiment in Congress. Theres no possibility, I think, of the Democratic Party or even a significant portion of the Republican Party, walking away from Israel, he said.

Netanyahu had a stronger relationship with former President Donald Trump than with his Democratic predecessors, but the relationship frayed Israeli ties with Democrats.

But the book also shares behind-the-scenes details of an episode in which Netanyahu risked Democratic support for Israel well before the rise of The Squad.

At the height of tensions with former President Barack Obama over the Iran nuclear deal in March 2015, the prime minister accepted an invitation from then-Republican House Speaker John Boehner to address a joint session of Congress. Sixty members boycotted the speech. No Obama administration officials attended.

Netanyahu writes that he needed a majority in Congress to oppose the deal, and would not be dissuaded from making the address, despite stern warnings from Jewish Democrats and senior cabinet members about rupturing relations with Israels most important ally. A longtime friend, Mort Zuckerman, then publisher of U.S. News & World Report, advised him to at least be as respectful as possible to Obama. Youre going into a political tinderbox, Zuckerman told the prime minister. Democratic sensibilities are at their height. Ive never seen anything like this tension.

Netanyahu writes that he took that advice and it served him well. Sen. Chuck Schumer, then Senate minority leader and an opponent of the deal, approached him after the speech and said it moved six Democrats to support a Republican-led bill that would give Congress a role to review and eventually vote on the deal. I was relieved, Netanyahu writes.

The deal, however, eventually passed Congress: 98-1 in the Senate and 400-25 in the House.

Even if Democrats couldnt derail the speech, Netanyahu worried that his own sinuses would. He reveals that the night before he couldnt fall asleep, thanks to a severe cold. During a practice run, he couldnt make it through a sentence. I cant believe this is happening to me, he told his wife Sara. The most important speech of my life and Im going to be foiled by this? The various remedies he tried all failed. But the next morning as he entered the Capitol, the miracle of miracles happened, he writes. His sinuses cleared.

During the speech, Netanyahu continued, he noticed that Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House leader, turned her back on him. When speakers spot indifferent or hostile members in an audience, they often get dejected, he writes. Not me. Nothing energizes me more.

Back in the hotel, I was drained of energy, like a boxer after a bruising fight, he added.

Netanyahu dedicates several chapters to his strained relationship with Obama, including a detailed description of their first White House meeting, in which Obama told him to relinquish settlements in the occupied West Bank. He writes that his clash with Obama was not personal but ideological. And he criticizes Obama officials who attacked him as narrow-minded, describing them as people who never risked their lives on a battlefield.

The book claims that Obama refused to commit to vetoing a United Nations Security Council resolution against Israel six years before the U.S. abstained on UNSC 2334 that condemned Israeli settlements. It was after the May 31, 2010 IDF raid on the Mavi Marmara flotilla from Turkey in which nine Turkish passengers, including one U.S. citizen, were killed in clashes with Israeli commandos as the ship attempted to break Israels maritime blockade of Gaza. If I do that, America will be isolated, Obama told Netanyahu, who asked the U.S. to use its veto power if the UN body rushes to judgment against Israel. The veto was not needed after U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon promised to appoint an impartial commission that later confirmed the blockade was legal.

Though the pair frequently feuded in public over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Netanyahu writes that in late 2009 he privately sought to ease the tension with the president by agreeing to impose a 10-month freeze on settlements, and that he later proposed a peace summit at Camp David. The strategy was to buy more time to develop Israels military capabilities and to ease international pressure in the wake of a strike on Irans nuclear facilities.

But his attempt to get the U.S. to greenlight military action failed. In a 2012 Oval Office meeting, Obama warned Netanyahu that the Israeli move would be a mistake and result in the collapse of the sanctions regime against Iran. He later dispatched a number of administration officials to frustrate Israeli preparations for an attack.

During Obamas visit to Israel in 2013, Netanyahu met even greater resistance as he lobbied for a U.S. strike on Iran. Nobody likes Goliath, Obama said, according to Netanyahu. I dont want to be an eight-hundred-pound gorilla strutting on the world stage. For too long we acted that way.

Years later, at the start of his first meeting with Trump at the White House, the new president asked Netanyahu, Why didnt you bomb them? Netanyahu said he replied, Because I didnt have the votes at the time. But its still an option.

When Trump was elected, Netanyahu saw great opportunity, and set four goals for the American presidents first term: Move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, recognize Israels control over the Golan Heights, withdraw from the Iran deal and make peace with the Arab world. All four of them, Netanyahu writes, were accomplished before Trump left office.

Despite bumps in the road, our years together were the best ever for the Israeli-American alliance, Netanyahu writes at the conclusion of his memoir, calling Trump a true trailblazer.

But the start of the Trump-Netanyahu relationship was not auspicious. Netanyahu was dejected by an early call from Jared Kushner, Trumps son-in-law and point person on Middle East peace, to Israels Ambassador Ron Dermer, suggesting Israel should freeze construction in the settlements for a couple of years to pave the way for a peace deal. Normally, I dont give in to despondency. But I did now, Netanyahu writes about his reaction at the time. Pointing to the pressure he got from former President Bill Clinton and Obama, Netanyahu asks, Was I now condemned to another four years of this nonsense?

Netanyahu also blamed Ron Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress and a longtime friend and adviser to Trump, for driving a wedge between him and the U.S. president. Lauder badmouthed him, he writes, and pushed his own peace deal with the Palestinians. In a recent book, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman revealed that Lauder had pitched a Middle East peace plan built on the two-state solution that Trump was enthusiastic about.

When Trump visited Israel later that year, he complained to President Reuven Rivlin that Bibi doesnt want peace. In response, Netanyahu and U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman produced a video which showed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas calling for the destruction of Israel and glorifying terrorists in Arabic. They hoped Trump would adjust his thinking about the Palestinian leader. I could see that the video registered with Trump, at least momentarily, Netanyahu writes.

He also showed Trump a slide presentation that compared the distance between Tel Aviv and the occupied West Bank, to the distance between Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue and the George Washington Bridge. Mr. President, I said, would you let a regime that wants to annihilate you set up a state at the George Washington Bridge? Of course not. Neither would we, Netanyahu writes.

Netanyahu also posits that without interference from Lauder though he doesnt mention him explicitly by name the Abraham Accords would have been signed at the beginning of Trumps term rather than the end.

In Netanyahus first term as prime minister, 1996-1999, Lauder secretly negotiated a peace deal on behalf of Netanyahu with then-Syrian President Hafez al-Assad.

Netanyahu disputes Kushners account that Trump was caught off guard when the prime minister indicated at the January 2020 rollout event for the Mideast peace plan that the U.S. backed his intention to annex Israeli settlements in the West Bank. According to the former prime minister, Trump agreed in a letter he sent the day before the ceremony to immediately recognize Israeli control over 30% of the West Bank, in exchange for a written commitment from Netanyahu that he would allow the creation of a Palestinian state over the rest of the territory. But following Netanyahus declaration, the White House pressured him to retract his declaration and worked to foil the plan.

What transpired to bring about this change is still unclear, Netanyahu writes, wondering whether Kushner and Friedman didnt fully explain to the president what the commitment entailed. Whatever the reason, it was inappropriate and cost me a great deal.

Following the election of Biden, Netanyahu tweeted his congratulations to the president-elect while Trump was still contesting the results, though he waited for weeks for a return call after Biden entered office. In the book, Netanyahu doesnt respond to Trumps profane remarks about the prime ministers outreach to the president-elect as detailed in a recent book by Israeli journalist Barak Ravid but acknowledges that it elicited the ire of President Trump, who to this day believes that he was the first foreign leader to do so.

Netanyahu writes that despite a fraught relationship with Obama he enjoyed a close friendship with then-Vice President Biden and appreciated his frankness. Biden often repeated a line he once told Netanyahu: Bibi, I dont agree with a damn thing you had to say, but I love you.

On many occasions the feeling was mutual, Netanyahu writes.

The Biden-Netanyahu relationship is nearly 40 years old, beginning when Netanyahu first visited Washington in the early 1980s. On Bidens recent Israel trip, during the welcome ceremony at Ben-Gurion International Airport, Netanyahu was the first dignitary Biden shook hands with after his fist bumps with other Israeli leaders, despite the White Houses earlier assertion that Biden wouldnt shake hands with anyone because of a spike in coronavirus cases. You know I love you, Biden told Netanyahu, comments which were aired live on Israeli television.

At the start of the Obama administration, as Netanyahu was facing pressure to endorse a two-state solution and resume negotiations with the Palestinians, Biden told Netanyahu he would serve as his backchannel ally. You dont have too many friends here, buddy, Biden told Netanyahu during a meeting at the official vice presidents residence at the U.S. Naval Observatory, Netanyahu writes of the conversation. Im the one friend you do have. So call me when you need to.

A year later, as Biden visited Israel to ease tensions between Obama and Netanyahu, the then-vice president was blindsided by a plan to build 1,600 units for Jews in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood in East Jerusalem. Netanyahu, who immediately expressed regret about the move, writes that before departing Israel Biden told him in a phone call that there had been much pushback in Washington against the announcement but he was glad they were able to put the matter to bed.

Thanks for getting my chestnuts out of the fire, Netanyahu quoted Biden as saying.

Netanyahu accused the Obama administration of always judging him in the worse possible light.

Netanyahu writes that he may have struck too tough a tone with former President Bill Clinton at their first meeting in 1996. He was angry that Clinton had interfered in the Israeli election, sending his political advisers to help Netanyahus rival, Shimon Peres.

The American president bristled at what he considered Netanyahus lecturing.

But Clinton, Netanyahu writes, also seemed to know how to diffuse tensions between the two.

Bibi, Ive got to hand it to you, Netanyahu quotes Clinton telling him in their first phone call after his surprise upset. We did everything we could to bring you down, but you beat us fair and square.

Netanyahu writes that he was charmed by Clintons honesty. He was refreshingly politically incorrect.

Original post:
Netanyahu memoir: Dems feeling more leftist pressure on Israel than they publicly admit - Forward

Hate them as much as you like. Summon the choicest words to describe them unintelligent, ill-informed, mean, malicious, bhakt, chamcha whatever but there is no way escaping them. In the age of social media, they wield extraordinary power as influencers. Without a mention to trolls, no observation of present-day democracy would be complete.

They are important drivers of news and opinion notice how social media reaction has become a must-have in news content and how they lead primetime conversation. They can alter perceptions, and destroy political players and private individuals in a jiffy. While social media are their stomping ground, their influence transcends from the virtual to the real world with certain seamlessness.

Social media posts, as we notice, can trigger violence, prompt police action and mobilise masses. The biggest tribute to their mighty presence is perhaps television anchors, other journalists and politicians imitating trolls. The language is similar, and so are the attitude and the craving to draw attention. One can add disdain for logical thinking and reasoned viewpoints.

Their most important self-assumed role however is that of enforcers of an arbitrary code of conduct. People can be trolled for dressing inappropriately, for words they utter, for the way they look, for what they think on issues, for politically incorrect positions they take, for the way they bring up kids and so on. We can have a legend like Sunil Gavaskar being trolled viciously for making an innocuous statement on Virat Kohli and Anushka Sharma, Shah Rukh Khan promoting a fairness cream while his daughter does not have a fair complexion, actors repeating a dress at a function, an IPL team captain losing a match and for just about everything. The usual targets are celebrities but that is not necessarily the rule. It can be anybody.

All this could be dismissed as indulgences of frivolous people with nothing meaningful to do in life, but at a deeper level it is far more serious its like being in a surveillance society where all your moves are watched and recorded. Trolls set invisible boundaries for social and moral behaviour that must not be crossed. Individuals must conform to standards set, and acts of defiance and deviance invite severe reprimand. In his iconic novel 1984 George Orwell depicts the extremes to which it can go.

ThinkPol monitored thought crime in Orwells dystopia Ocenea. The job of this secret police force involved keeping a hawk eye on proles, the vast ruled class, and reporting any action or word not in sync with the thoughts of the state. It operated through a vast army of informers, which included children who were encouraged to spy on their parents, and gadgets such as the telescreen and microphone placed everywhere. The elaborate surveillance mechanism ensured that no action of citizens went undetected. Those suspected to have committed thought crimes were dispatched to centres for reprogramming via brainwashing.

Trolls could well be the ThinkPol of our times. Orwells work carried a deep political connotation derived as it was from his experience with communists, but even without politics involved an army of invisible watchers carries eerie possibilities. Particularly in the areas of the right to privacy and freedom of expression.

In Orwells novel, however, ThinkPol or thought police was not the only way to force people to conform. The government had instruments for thought control such as Newspeak. It curtailed the English vocabulary to a bare minimum. Fewer words meant control over expression and imagination, and in general, the ability to think. The less creative with words and ideas the citizens are, the better it is for an oligarchic state. On social media platforms such as Twitter the limit on words ensures that communication has to be sharp and to the point. For maximum impact, the content has to be curt, direct and even offensive. In social media Newspeak nuances and subtilities of thought have little place to breathe. Imagine language without adjectives, you get the picture.

Trolls, of course, are not a unique product of the 21st century or advanced communication technology. Existing in the form of dissenters, closet rebels, grudge-holders and gossip-mongers, they go back as long as human civilisation. They represent negative sentiments born out of sense of deprivation, disprivilege, powerlessness, jealousy, inferiority complex and feeling of inadequacy. In fact, theres a troll in all humans, awaiting its opportunity to singe and sear real imagined enemies. Letting it out at times could even be healthy for the soul.

In fact, all societies allow it to some degree through popular culture. Yet there are controls and brakes to ensure that trolling does not become a disruptive force and threat to order and harmony at a wider level. Education and socialisation serve the purpose at the level of the individual and various norms of decorum in public behaviour at the level of collectivity.

The big difference between the present and the past is the mechanism of control appears to have collapsed. The aggrieved, much better networked and organised, much assured in numbers now, is out in full force to exact revenge. Any isolated, localised feeling of frustration, which would burn off in a few days and amid a burst of angry words earlier, could assume the national scale riding on the reach of social media. The fringe can be mainstream and revolting ideas can find validation through the sheer force of numbers.

Since theres no immediate remedy, technological or otherwise, to curb mob mentality born out of the urge to settle scores, we might soon find legitimisation of misogyny, racism, casteism, chauvinism, superstitious beliefs and all such beliefs held unacceptable to a civilised society so far. In short, the trend of trolling can undo what decades of democracy and have achieved so far.

Should we be worried? The answer is both yes and no. Yes because the presence of thought police and an unofficial surveillance system is a serious threat to the ideas of freedom and privacy. Trolls might turn our society into an Orwellian one. Also because the mob on social media is manipulable. They can be used by smart people to further agendas. No, because the excess on social media would at some point necessitate measures to rein in trolls there is a point up to which societies can take unruliness. Also because it puts sharp questions to old, ossified beliefs. Beyond the current chaos, there could be a more balanced world.

Hate them or love them, trolls are here to stay. Democracies, whatever shape they take, have to reckon with them as a force.

Go here to read the rest:
Living Among Trolls: It's Orwellian, But It's Real - odishabytes - OdishaBytes

Illustration by Abro

Former prime minister Imran Khan is notorious for utterances that are often lambasted by his critics for being delivered in bad taste.

Not only does he issue bombastic threats to police officers and judges, he also has a habit of mocking his opponents through crude rhetoric and mannerisms bordering on misogyny, sexism and bigotry.

The former US president Donald Trump used similar tactics, and so does Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.

The other common thing between the three men is that they are all considered to be populists.

To suit their political agendas, populists mobilise existing prejudices in society, which encourages transgressive behaviour by their supporters

According to the political scientist Pierre Ostiguy, populists rely on performing what is culturally referred to as coarse, misbehaved, and vulgar. Compared to the more mainstream politicians, populists are willing to bring into the public sphere rhetoric that is generally considered to be distasteful. They know theres an enthusiastic audience for it who will interpret it as honesty and straightforwardness.

The decorum of mainstream politics tends to have little room for the crude and coarse. But populism challenges this. According to the political scientist Cass Mudde, Populist leaders in general use simple and even vulgar language. This they do to disrupt the mainstream decorum and create a space for themselves as the voice of the people. It is done with such audacity that the opponents of the populists are compelled to target it. Populists relish the attention this brings.

To the political scientist Maria Casullo, populists have an antagonistic vision of society. They see society as being at loggerheads with an elite. The populists offer themselves as champions of the disgruntled. The articulation of this antagonistic vision is done in a performative manner, through dramatic rhetoric, gestures and theatrics. It is a performance that shapes the political persona of the populist.

Imran Khans performances include rallies that have a live soundtrack interjecting his speeches with bits of songs and music, chosen to suit his words. He mixes raw humour, bombastic claims and bursts of anger to express his antagonistic vision. This has moulded a perception of him as a person who is a straight talker and young at heart.

He also often quotes select bits from Islams holy scriptures. The frequently circulated images of him praying, and of him hobnobbing with Islamic evangelists, expands the perception. To his supporters, he is thus not only an honest man, but a very spiritual one as well, chosen by destiny as a saviour.

Various political scientists and sociologists have often used the word transgression to explain the function of bad language and manners in a populists armoury. This is one way with which populists disrupt mainstream norms, because they believe such norms are the domain of elites which the common people cannot relate to. This is a notion that populists carry and proliferate. Some even go to the extent of justifying their vulgar outbursts with the concept of free speech.

Trump mocked people with physical disabilities. He was transgressing the rules of a new norm in which the word cripple, for instance, was being replaced by more respectable terms such as differently abled, visually impaired, hard of hearing, etc. In Trumps mind, the new terms were part of a project of the liberal elite to transform the way common folk spoke. To him, it was an ideological project to weigh down common Americans with the guilt of being uncouth and politically incorrect.

Imran Khan often describes a nemesis of his, Maryam Nawaz, as a naani [grandmother], even though she is 48 and Khan is 70. Indeed, she is a grandmother. But Khan frames this fact in a rather misogynic manner, by more-than-alluding that she is a naani who dresses fashionably, and supposedly has had cosmetic surgery performed on her.

It is as if, to him, grandmothers, no matter what their age, should be plain and modest and certainly not in politics. He, on the other hand, can be 70, married thrice, and do all he can to look like the hunk he used to be decades ago. The hunk bit is vital to his performative populist appeal.

By speaking the way he does about Maryam, Khan is disputing the idea that women do not need to start looking old the moment they become mothers or grandmothers. He is doing this by re-enforcing the caricature of grandmothers with white hair and few teeth. In his mind, this is how common people imagine grandmothers to be (and thus, so should he). Therefore, the opposing and more evolved view in this respect becomes a Westernised construct that is to be negated.

But what is the impact of the transgressive rhetoric beyond instant applause and excitement among the followers of the populists? A May 2019 study, published in The European Journal of Political Research, posits that populists mobilise existing prejudices and divisions in a society. They undermine the idea of resolving these through more democratic and consensual means and, instead, encourage direct action. The opposing side is demonised and dehumanised so that their misfortunes can be celebrated and mocked without any guilt.

This is why physical attacks on minority groups in the US increased during the Trump presidency, and so have attacks against Muslims in Narendra Modis India. Existing prejudices were mobilised by Trump and Modi. Khan, on the other hand, intensified perceptions of his opponents being corrupt and then mobilised these perceptions. The result of this is frequent transgressive behaviour by his supporters on social media as well as in physical spaces where his opponents are present.

Two years ago, a good friend of mine, who is from Charsadda in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, told me about an elderly relative of his who was very concerned about Khans impact on young Pakhtuns. The relative lamented that young men had lost all respect for opposing views and were willing to physically assault anyone who disagreed with them. He added that a young man now would not even hesitate to slap his own father if he found him to be disagreeable.

The most disconcerting part of the story was that the relative worried that, even if Khan were to be ousted from politics, the transgressive behaviour that his rhetoric has normalised would remain, and may end up finding a new outlet for the youth in militant organisations.

To the relative, the damage was already done.

Published in Dawn, EOS, October 16th, 2022

Originally posted here:
SMOKERS' CORNER: THE POLITICS OF TRANSGRESSION - Newspaper - DAWN.COM - DAWN.com

One late fall evening, the tax collectors came to see Nathaniel Fernald about paying his taxes. Nathaniel explained he was short of money, but he could give them hay in trade, pointing across his fields to the huge haystack that was barely visible through the gloom. The tax collector agreed and the deal was sealed. And thats how Balance Rock came to be called Haystack. And, though the giant rock is actually in Camden, its been on Lincolnvilles tax rolls ever since. Or so the story goes.

Andy Young, the contractor in charge of restoring the Beach Schoolhouse, is perfect for the job, at least from my perspective. He cant set foot in the place without falling down the rabbit hole of his hometowns history.

We may start out discussing the window situation or when the fire escape will be reinstalled, but some photo or artifact thats lying around will set him off on a story, like how Balance Rock came to be called Haystack. Like so many of us, Andy grew up on the stories his elders told. But unlike most of us, he remembers them, retells them, perhaps embellishes them, which, by the way, I just did.

We live in a place where stories are told about the land we live on. I do it, and if youve lived here for awhile, I bet you do too. I entertain myself when driving around town on some errand by naming the people who live in each house I pass by. And who used to live there.

Certain spots evoke a memory of the woman who died when the car her daughter was driving hit a tree, of Joe Nickerson working in his garden 40 years ago, of a friend striding along the road as tears streamed down her face, of the last time Bill Munroe mowed his field. Though to be honest, I didnt see that, but rather remember the photo Will Brown took of it and posted.

Today is Indigenous Peoples Day in Maine, along with Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota and Vermont.In the rest of the states this is still evidently Columbus Day. In my hometown I think they used to dye the Chicago River pink in honor of Columbus Italian heritage (it was dyed green on St. Patricks Day).

According to a quick google search Columbus did not discover North America. He was the first European to sight the Bahamas archipelago and then the island later named Hispaniola, now split into Haiti and the Dominican Republic. As we are wont to do, we had to have a hero to hang the story of European discovery on, a story children could grow up on, brave Christopher Columbus and his dealings with Queen Isabella of Spain, etc. etc.

CALENDAR

MONDAY, Oct. 10

Town Office Closed, Indigenous Peoples Day

TUESDAY, Oct. 11

Library open, 3-6 p.m., 208 Main Street

Selectmen, 6 p.m., Town Office

Heart and Soul Team, 7 p.m., Community Building

WEDNESDAY, Oct. 12

Library open, 2-5 p.m., 208 Main Street

Planning Board, 7 p.m., Town Office

FRIDAY, Oct. 14

Library open, 9-noon, 208 Main Street

SATURDAY, Oct. 15

Pickleball Beginners Open Play, 8:30-9:30 a.m., Town Courts, LCS

Indoor Flea Market, 8 a.m. to noon, 18 Searsmont Road

Library open, 9-noon, 208 Main Street

LHS Open House, 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., 33 Beach Road

EVERY WEEK

AA meetings, Tuesdays & Fridays at noon, Community Building

Lincolnville Community Library, For information call 706-3896.

Schoolhouse Museum closed for the summer, 789-5987

Bayshore Baptist Church, Sunday School for all ages, 9:30 a.m., Worship Service at 11 a.m., Atlantic Highway

United Christian Church, Worship Service 9:30 a.m., 18 Searsmont Road or via Zoom

I was a grown woman before I learned the real story of his awful treatment of the native people he encountered. And now Maine, to its credit, has chosen to honor the people who were already living here when the Europeans arrived, looking for free land to exploit.

Russias brutal attempt to take land from the people who belong to it the Ukrainians seems a fitting parallel.

Yesterday in church, Indigenous Peoples Day, Chris Beach spoke of the Wabanaki as people who belonged to the land, unlike the white settlers who saw the land as belonging to them.

Such a simple phrase, yet such a deep concept. Are we 21st century human beings anything like the people who originally inhabited this coast? Or anything like a Nathaniel Fernald, tricking the tax collector about his property?

For that matter, what about the descendants of those indigenous people? They live among us and we share each others DNA. To be simplistic (and probably politically incorrect) about it, none of us are pure anything black, brown, red, yellow, white

Unlike the Europeans, the Africans, the Latinos, and Asians the Wabanaki (the People of the Dawn, by the way) truly stayed put. Though arguably they too originated somewhere else, probably across the Bering Strait into Asia, they are the first humans to inhabit this land.

And can make the claim, not that the land belongs to them, but that they belong to the land. On the other hand, latecomers that we are, and using quite dubious means, weve been here quite a while. Some of us, through our ancestors, can claim over two hundred years of staying put.

Belonging to the land or the land belonging to is a state of mind. A newcomer, fresh from a life of transient homes or anonymous suburban enclaves where no real ties to people or land are made, might immediately get it. That this is a place to belong to. Just as a long-time resident might vociferously cling to his ownership: I can do what I want with my land!

A small group of volunteers has been working all this past year to make the Lincolnville Historical Society relevant. After all, weve been given some $325,000 in just over a year of fund-raising, money mostly earmarked for the restoration and upkeep of a 170-year-old building.

But along with it has come a growing sense of obligation to tell the complete story of our town. The dramatic scouring of its hilly surface by a mile-thick glacier to the gradual immigration of the Paleo-Indians ancestors of the Wabanaki and then the Penobscots that followed, to the explorers from Europe who sailed by our coast, only to return years later as farmers looking for new land.

The next part of the story 1770 through about WW II has always been the focus, with the late19th and early 20th centuries the heart of the LHS. Most of our collection consists of photos and documents and memorabilia from that era.

Now were ready to look both way back to the very beginnings as well as ahead to the future. We want to let the land tell its own story of the animals, plants, and minerals that are its foundation.

And who are all these folks moving to our town? Where do they come from? Why are they coming here?

Its time we get to know each other and tell our stories.

School

Once again the Lynx,the schools newsletter, is full of interesting information about the doings at our K-8 school. sports news, science class, advice for parents, and lots more. This weeks issue includes a report from the recent school committee meeting.

Historical Society Open House

The community is invited to stop by the Lincolnville Historical Society, 33 Beach Road, this Saturday Oct. 15, 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., to see the progress thats been made restoring the old building. Since this is Lincolnville, there will be food!

We figure were about half way done with the intended improvements. Dont judge us by our exterior, as all the magic has happened inside. Structurally the building is now sound, the electrical system has been upgraded and new features have been added. Still to come: a new ADA bathroom, upgraded kitchen, refurbished upstairs, new chairlift (though the old one still works, so dont be daunted by the stairs; its easy to ride up), climate-controlled storage, exterior paint, new ramps, plantings, and improved parking.

Bring the family; kids always welcome.

FINAL FLEA MARKET OF THE SEASONThe Lincolnville Center Indoor Flea Market will be held on Saturday, October 15th from 8 a.m. to noon at the Community Building, 18 Searsmont Road, the final Flea Market of the season.This is a real sellers' and finders' emporium. New and returning vendors will be offering an interesting array of products including handcrafted wreaths, hand carved wooden utensils, up-cycled wool/cashmere mittens, artwork, antiques and vintage items, and holiday decorations.

The market will feature a collection of letterpress printing equipment to be sold to benefit the church, including an Adana Horizontal Quarto tabletop press, full cases of metal and wooden type, and a bookbinding sewingframe. UCC members will be selling sweet and savory baked goods, breakfast casserole, quiches, muffins, fruit breads and cookies, all packed for takeout.

The Lincolnville Center Indoor Flea Market is not an ordinary market. Come and see for yourself. Covid protocol will followed. Masks are recommended. The event is sponsored by the UnitedChristian Church (UCC).

Sympathy

Condolences to the friends and families of Paul Nizio and Kenneth Boody who each passed away in the past few weeks.

Thank You of the WeekTo Pat Putnam, who has been the administrator/manager/referee of the Lincolnville Bulletin Board since its beginning many (anyone know how many?) years ago. Shes always willing to help us out when we get tangled in the deep computer hole.

Its at times a thankless job, riding herd on all of us, keeping us to our stated rule of no politicking, no proselytizing. Pat isnt shy about calling us out if we start to stray over the edge. Thanks, Pat!

The rest is here:
This Week in Lincolnville: Do the People Belong to the Land - PenBayPilot.com

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have been dealt a blow as new polling suggests Americans would prefer Kate and Prince William as their King and Queen if they were subjects of the British monarchy. The exclusive polls by the Democracy Institute for Express.co.uk found 60 percent of respondents would want the Princess of Wales to be Queen and 57 percent backed the Prince of Wales as King.

In comparison, 26 percent said they would want the Duchess of Sussex as Queen and 11 percent picked the Duke of Sussex as King.

However, former Suits actress Meghan was more popular than Queen Consort Camilla, who was chosen by 14 percent of respondents.

Meanwhile, Harry came behind King Charles who received 31 percent of votes, but was in front of his disgraced uncle Prince Andrew on just one percent.

The findings come as the Sussexes are living in the US after quitting royal duties two years ago.

Commenting on the polls, director of the Democracy Institute, Patrick Basham, said: "Meghan Markle has in terms of her status as a royal, how Americans view her as part of the Royal Family, she has two groups of supporters.

"She has your patriotic Americans, she's American, it could be anyone who's American, they would say they prefer her as Queen, as we asked in the poll than Kate for example.

Mr Basham said the "larger group" of her supporters are younger Americans who are "woke".

He added: "They see her as something of the poster royal for that. The fact she's American is a bonus, but they would choose someone with that profile and those views she espouses and ascribes to over someone who is American who had politically incorrect views.

"So that's where her support comes from. But in a poll like this she loses quite handsomely because Kate appeals to a very different type of American and there are far more of those.

"Kate is the sort of quintessential what most Americans think of as a young English lady.

"They can see Kate continuing to become more and more central to the Royal Family in terms of its public profile."

It comes as the Sussexes are pursuing new lives of personal and financial freedom across the pond after stepping back as working royals in March 2020.

The couple have set up home in the celebrity enclave of Montecito with their two children.

Harry and Meghan's post-royal careers include lucrative deals with Netflix and Spotify.

Meanwhile, William and Kate are set to visit the US later this year as the heir to throne takes his Earthshot Prize to Boston in December.

A further poll by the Democracy Institute for Express.co.uk suggests Americans do not think Charles will be a better monarch than the late Queen.

Some 65 percent said no, 22 percent said yes and 13 percent were unsure.

The Democracy Institute polled 1,500 US voters from September 27 to 29.

See the rest here:
Meghan Markle and Harry blow as Americans back Kate and Prince William over Sussexes - Express

UNITED STATES

The most interesting aspect of Michael Brub and Jennifer Ruths Its Not Free Speech is not their proposal for still more committees charged with academic governance.

No matter how carefully their mandates are written, such committees will almost certainly fail to deal adequately with professors whose scholarship in their area, such as electrical engineering, is impeccable but who publish essays in newspapers saying that climate change is a hoax.

Nor is it clear to me how universities can ensure that a professor who is highly respected in his field but has written in a blog that vaccines cause autism could be kept off a committee judging another professor who has made insulting comments about minorities or women.

Staffing the committees Brub and Ruth call for could end up requiring still more committees to adjudge the membership of the first committee and on and on.

My scepticism about Brub and Ruths proposed solution aside, Its Not Free Speech is extremely valuable for a number of reasons, starting with its discussion of Critical Race Theory (CRT) which is signalled by its subtitle: Race, democracy, and the future of academic freedom.

They trace CRT from its beginnings in the 1970s, when it emerged from Critical Legal Theory, through the attacks on it in the 1990s (because it inspired the introduction of campus speech codes) and, most importantly, to the present.

In September 2020, in the waning days of the presidential election, then president Donald Trump issued an executive order banning CRT-inspired education from the federal government and characterised CRT as being divisive, un-American propaganda. Trumps attack was quickly parroted by officials in some 20 states that have legislated against CRT in their schools and universities.

In CRTs earliest days, white legal scholars objected to phenomenological differences between evidence first person narratives, allegory, storytelling, interdisciplinary treatment of the law and the traditional putatively disembodied voice of [legal] authority.

According to Professor Mari Matsuda, who teaches at the University of Hawaii at Manoas William S Richardson School of Law, CRT proposes a different phenomenology for the law by recognising that those who have experienced discrimination speak with a special voice to which we should listen and to which we should respond by ameliorating the situation.

Dr James Lindsay, one of many who is part of the cottage industry devoted to attacking CRT, lumps it in with post-colonialism, black feminism intersectional feminism, Critical Race (legal) Theory and Queer Theory.

This list, I hasten to add, seems at best eclectic and at worst indicative of profound ignorance of these theories and analytical schools.

Lindsay, who is not connected with any university, does, however, get one thing right: these theories and analytical approaches describe the world critically in order to change it. (Brub and Ruth missed a chance for some fun here, for whether Lindsay knows it or not, hes channelling his inner Karl Marx, for this is almost a direct quote from his 1845 attack on Ludwig Feuerbach and his philosophical attempt to describe the world.)

CRT does seek to change the world. Or, to put it another way, CRT shows precisely what its critics deny: that the law is shot through with structural racism and, as Brub and Ruth discuss (and we will see in a moment), so too is the marketplace (of ideas) defence of free speech.

Its well known that the person most responsible for turning CRT into political kryptonite whose arguments Republicans like Virginias new governor Glenn Youngkin seek to use to fatally weaken many Democrats is Christopher Rufo.

Within days of Rufo appearing on Tucker Carlson Tonight, Trump moved against CRT. What Brub and Ruth add to our knowledge of Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, is that such right-wing think tanks truck in some serious whackadoodlery, to borrow a term Brub and Ruth use to describe the McCarthyite Red Scare of the 1950s.

Among the beliefs that circulate in this eco-sphere are intelligent design, that climate change is a hoax and that neo-Nazi beliefs about race and intelligence are correct. As well, these think tanks are making a concerted effort to suppress knowledge of Americas history of racism.

Extramural speech

In the first part of their book, Brub and Ruth, both of whom have held senior positions in the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), tease out the difference between academic freedom and extramural speech.

In the United States, this second group of statements comes under the protection of the First Amendment to the Constitution; later they question, given the flourishing of hate speech both in the American political arena and on social media, whether an absolutist reading of the clause that Congress shall make no law abridging [limiting] freedom of speech is an unalloyed good.

Early in the book, however, they show that as late as the early 1960s, universities dismissed faculty members whose speech they deemed to have transgressed public morals or acceptable politics.

Their central example here is the firing of Professor Leo Koch in 1960 by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for writing an article in the student newspaper supporting sex before marriage and contraception.

Within a few years Kochs views would be unremarkable, while university administrators and the AAUP would still be wrestling with the question: What role does the university have when the professors extramural speech is about matters of public debate but has no relation to his or her expertise? (Koch, for the record, was a biology professor, so his views could have been construed as being informed by his academic specialty and, hence, what the university was paying him for).

In 1970, the AAUP reiterated its 1940 position that extramural speech occurs when the professors speak as citizens and, ipso facto, cannot be used as a cudgel against him or her.

State governments have begged to disagree. Citing the fact that they fund state colleges and universities, at various times legislators have argued that not only do they have the right to pressure administrators to crack down on extramural speech but, also, that they have the right to crack down on speech within classrooms.

This academic year will see, for example, Florida conduct its second survey of students and faculty opinions, and, assuming it passes this fall, Texas universities will be required to hold the teaching of CRT (even by tenured professors) as cause for being fired.

With their fine eyes for detail, Brub and Ruth note that state governments which exercise their oversight power zealously can end up producing some rather odd results.

Pennsylvania State University, which is often considered the ninth Ivy League school, receives approximately 4% of its operating revenue from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This contribution, critics of the university in the state legislature claim, buys the legislature the right to monitor and demand the cancellation of courses or schools of thought they, the legislators, find offensive.

What, then, is a firing offence today? Put another way, what kind of speech is not protected by academic freedom? One example, Brub and Ruth discuss concerns Dr James Tracy who, until he was fired in 2015, had been a professor in the school of communication and multimedia studies at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton.

Tracy claimed that the 20 children and six staff shot to death at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 was a false flag operation, an agit prop performance put on by supporters of gun control. Further, he harassed Veronique and Lenny Pozner, parents of one of the slain students, demanding, among other things, proof that Noah had once lived.

After being dismissed, Tracy sued FAU claiming it had abridged his First Amendment rights. FAU won the case. He remained dismissed but for the wrong reason, Brub and Ruth argue. FAU won the case on insubordination not on the grounds of intellectual unfitness and, hence, being unable to hold a position that includes academic freedom.

The failures of universities

More than once, Brub and Ruth argue that their former colleagues at the AAUP make serious category errors.

The discussion that begins Chapter 5 takes the AAUP to task for the policy document that says: An institution of higher learning fails to fulfil its mission if it asserts the power to proscribe ideas and racial or ethnic slurs, sexist epithets or homophobic insults almost always express ideas, however repugnant.

Why, Brub and Ruth ask, did the AAUP choose these examples, there being no value in dignifying [them] by calling them ideas.

No doubt wanting to get away from the philosophically messy question of how we could even understand phrases ethnic slur or sexist epithets unless they expressed some sort of an idea, Brub and Ruth emphasise that their analysis really turns on the sentence that comes after the word repugnant: Indeed, by proscribing any ideas, a university sets an example that profoundly disserves its academic mission.

In a nice turn of phrase, they write that this dogmatic proscription of proscription suffuses the document and leads to what they find to be an emblematically incorrect statement: A college or university sets a perilous course if it seeks to differentiate between high-value and low-value speech.

By contrast, they argue that higher educations primary function [is] to distinguish between high-value and low-value speech.

However contentious this might sound in a world drenched with populist rhetoric from the right and mushy reasoning on the left, Brub and Ruth make clear that this accords with the quotidian facts on the ground.

This is what professors do every time they grade student papers, write student recommendations, evaluate the work of their colleagues (especially for promotion and tenure), or participate in routine committee work. What is the intellectual mission of the university, we wonder, if it abandons the obligation to exercise critical judgement about the value of speech acts?

To the AAUPs statement that On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be banned or forbidden. No viewpoint or message can be deemed so hateful or disturbing that it may not be expressed, they undertake a thought experiment. In it, they propose a number of courses, including The Jews had it coming, Vaccines cause autism and Phrenology has much to teach us.

A few pages later, they cite Stanley Fish, who began his long career as a Milton scholar and ended it as a commentator on law for the New York Times, whom they paraphrase as saying, freedom of speech is not an academic (as opposed to political) value: accuracy of speech is an academic value.

A fraught metaphor

Pushed by the growth in right-wing speech and such events as the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in the first months of the Trump administration the one that led Trump to characterise the neo-Nazis as good people Brub and Ruth register a palpable loss of faith in the efficacy of free speech in the extramural world.

Somewhat elegiacally, they note that the traditional American defence of free speech works if, and only if, both sides are committed to its rules. The traditional American liberal defence of free speech is that more speech is needed to drive out bad speech, such as racist speech. Economists will recognise this account as being an inversion of Gresham's Law (about debased currency): Bad money drives out good.

But is this really true? Does defending the right of neo-Nazis or white supremacists to march do anything but flatter liberals belief in their own moral rectitude? they ask, quoting Ulrich Baer, professor of comparative literature and vice provost for faculty, arts, humanities and diversity at New York University.

Stunningly, Baer argues, some liberals claim that tolerating hate speech leaves everyone better off in the end and increases toleration generally.

Its hard not to see a hint of self-flagellation here or, to put it in sports terms, taking one for the team wearing the free speech jersey. Nowhere in this liberal defence is account taken of what Matsuda calls the psychic tax imposed on those least able to pay by hearing slurs, racial epithets and the like in the public sphere.

In a fascinating footnote, Brub and Ruth quote from Charles R Lawrence IIIs Words that Wound to show what his CRT analysis reveals; Lawrence is an emeritus professor at the University of Hawaii at Manoas William S Richardson School of Law. Put simply, the oft-touted good of the unregulated marketplace of ideas, where the best ideas are supposed to rise to the top and gain acceptance, is a fraught metaphor.

As Lawrence writes: The American marketplace of ideas was founded with the idea of racial inferiority of non-whites as one of its chief commodities, and ever since the market opened, racism has remained its most active item in trade.

It hardly needs be mentioned that this marketplace of ideas occupied exactly the same public space where countless slave auctions took place the ideas expressed in these sales being the same as those held about slavery by, among millions of others, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

The tilting of the First Amendment by the US Supreme Court towards big business and religious institutions in recent years is a further reason why, Brub and Ruth argue, the metaphor of the marketplace of ideas can no longer be invoked.

Turning their telescope around, they argue that some speech in this supposed free marketplace of ideas actually injures academic freedom.

Again, quoting Baer, they argue: The idea of organising society around the supremacy of the white race, or subordinating women to secondary status, does not merit debate on campus.

To debate the idea of racial superiority does not serve the universitys fundamental mission, or what the law calls its compelling interest, since it re-hashes a disproven theory which had once been popular, but, based on expert consensus, is now no different from other obsolete ideas of junk science.

Note how Baer, and hence Brub and Ruth, base the placing of these disproven theories in the dustbin of history based upon expert consensus which, we can safely assume, is reached via the functioning of the universitys normal standards of proof and argument.

Which side are you on?

Readers familiar with the debates about academic freedom and its place in American law will have encountered the 1957 decision in the case of Sweezy v New Hampshire written by US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter.

The details of this case are of less concern to Brub and Ruths argument than the words in the decision, which quickly became the classic statement of a universitys freedom from state interference and, because of the system of collegial governance, of the professors academic freedom.

The four essential freedoms of the university, Frankfurter wrote, are to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.

For decades this formulation was thought to be the justices. However, Brub and Ruth draw attention to a 2017 essay by Amherst College professor of law, jurisprudence, social thought and black studies, Adam Sitze, which shows that Frankfurter borrows heavily from the proceedings of a conference held by the University of Cape Town and the University of the Witwatersrand (Johannesburg, South Africa) held the very same year Sweezy was decided.

According to Sitze, the proceedings of the conference, The Open Universities in South Africa, which Frankfurter did not either quote or cite, make clear that academic apartheid and academic autonomy are mutually exclusive.

Frankfurters quotes, Brub and Ruth write, will lead many of his readers to conclude that the principle that academic institutions must remain politically neutral is central to academic freedom. Rather, they say, in fact, the South African universities defence of academic freedom rests on defiant opposition to a political act the bill brought in by the Nationalist Party to establish apartheid.

Academic freedom, thus, rests on professors answering the question posed by labour activists in a song written in 1937 by Florence Reece in support of a coal miners strike in Harlan County, West Virginia, and made famous in 1940 by American protest singer Pete Seeger, Which side are you on?

Read the original:
Which side are you on, anyway? Rethinking academic freedom - University World News

I was sitting on the edge of the bed, watching my wife, Beverly, who was looking at herself in the mirror. Since her birthday was not far off I asked what shed like to have for her birthday.

Id like to be eight again, she replied, still looking in the mirror.

On the morning of her Birthday, I arose early, made her a niceBig bowl of Coco Pops, and then took her to Adventure World theme park. What a day!I put her on every ride in the park; the Death Slide, the Wall of Fear, the Screaming Roller Coaster, everything there was.Five hours later we staggered out of the theme park. Her head was reeling and her stomach felt upside down

I then took her to a McDonalds and ordered her a Happy Meal with extra fries and a chocolate shake.

Then it was off to a movie, popcorn, a soda pop, and her favorite candy, M&Ms. What a fabulous adventure!

Finally, she wobbled home and collapsed into bed exhausted.

I leaned over my wife & with a big smile lovingly asked, Well Dear, what was it like being eight again?

Her eyes slowly opened and her expression suddenly changed. I meant my dress size, you idiot!!!!

Go here to read the rest:
Politically Incorrect Canadian

Gone are the American 'Mad', India's 'Diwana,' but our 'Unmad' is still going strong! Unmad is quite a popular magazine in Bangladesh, one that was inspired by American magazine 'Mad'.

And even before our 'Unmad', India's 'Diwana' drew inspiration from 'Mad'. The once-sensational 'Mad' and 'Diwana' may have faded from cultural consciousness somewhere along the way, but 'Unmad' still stands and makes us laugh with witty humour and subtle comedy.

Of course, we know that the larger-than-life characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) are inspired by comics. To say that these characters drew 'life' from the sketchbooks of cartoonists would be a serious understatement; these characters were always more than just sketches and cartoons.

In more than a few ways, these cartoons and drawings packed such vividness that they could easily go toe-to-toe with the present-day anime and animated serieses. With the advent of the internet, dark humour has become prevalent. But these orthodoxy-challenging memes, jokes, and comic strips do not have equal appeal to all audiences. Obviously, you will not find the same level of dark humour on a Bangladeshi Facebook group for jokes as you would on Reddit.

The 'politically incorrect' wave of comics took off in the US through 'Mad' several decades ago, in 1952. Exactly a decade after 'Mad', 'Diwana' came out and followed 'Mad's suit. Fast forward to 1978, Ahsan Habib launched 'Unmad'.

'Mad' laid down the basic framework of how 'Unmad' and 'Diwana' worked in Bangladesh and India. Interestingly, the term 'mad' was already in Unmad's very name.

'Mad'ness

The publisher of EC Comics suggested to his staff contributor Harvey Kurtzman in 1952 to launch a humour title. Thus began 'Mad's maddening journey. It first came as a comic book and then a magazine. 'Mad's first issue was titled 'Tails Circulated to Drive You Crazy'.

Harvey Kurtzman became the founding editor of 'Mad'. 'Mad' fathered this genre where the most serious issues were comically presented, even though that appeared a tad bit (or a lot) inappropriate, if not insensitive. This kind of humour also has earned itself a name in English, 'Aberrant Humour'.

'Mad' had a mascot Alfred E, Painted by Norman Mingo. Alfred E's comic activities were the source of the readers' hilarity. His gaping teeth, freckled face are known to every 'Mad'-reader.

'Mad's popularity in the United States was such that Newman was oftentimes recognised by many who had never even read 'Mad'. Just like how many of us can recognize many popular characters from Indian serials even if we do not watch any.

'Mad' became an iconic voice in the US counterculture movement. By the early 1970s 'Mad's circulation rose to over 2 million copies. Mockery of famous pop culture characters and political figures was the point of amusement for Mad's audience. Starting with the Vietnam War and Watergate to Rambo, none was immune from Alfred Newman's 'madness'.

But by the end of the 20th century, Mad's popularity began to decline. Thanks to the Internet, people had other sources of entertainment. Magazinesque satire began appearing in movies like 'The Naked Gun' and shows like 'Saturday Night Live'. Online satire media like 'The Onion' were born too. 'Mad' began losing to competition from many sides.

After a 67 year long run, in 2019, 'Mad' decided to ditch newsstands. Instead, the 'Mad' authority opted for comic shops and to mail the copies directly to subscribers. However, long standing 'Mad' fans would receive new Alfred E comedy no more. Old features and cartoons would reappear in the new method of publication, bringing nothing 'new' to the table.

Diwana, Bharat

In 1964, 'Diwana' arrived to drown Indian readers in humour. 'Diwana' too had its own mascot, named Chilli. Modelled after 'Mad', Diwana, a Delhi-based media outlet, was published in both Hindi and English languages. The magazine was published till 1986.

Initially released in Hindi, the English version of Diwana also came out in the early 70s. From the middle till the end of the 20th century, the best cartoonists and illustrators of India drew cartoons for this fun magazine. At the height of its popularity in the 60s, Diwana had a circulation of two lakhs a week. The English version was edited by theatre director Som Benegal.

Apart from 'Diwana', there were a few other comical magazines in India as well. 'Lotpaat' came out in 1969 and 'Madhu Muskan' in 1972. 'Wisecrack' was also there. All these magazines left their mark on Hindi pop-culture.

But as much as these magazines are known to people today, the opposite is the case with 'Diwana'. Diwanar has eroded from the memory of most Indians. The publishing house Tej did not preserve any copy of 'Diwana' and no trace of it could be found on the internet either.

The craze carries on

According to an interview of Ahsan Habib, he began publishing 'Unmad' in 1978 along with Kazi Khaled Ashraf and Ishtiaq Hossain. Although the naming was a clever one, it caused some problems for publishers. Because of their 'troublesome' name, it was hard to get advertisements, big companies did not want to advertise in Unmad.

Bangladeshi newspapers started publishing cartoons and comics regularly from the 90s onwards. 'Alpin', 'Bichchu', 'Adda', 'Khabor Ache', 'Therapy', 'Bhimrul', 'Durbeen', 'Ros+Alo', 'Penchal' and 'Ghorar Dim' are a famous few. But they came as supplements to the newspapers. 'Unmad' on the other hand came out as a standalone magazine.

Film producer Md Sifat Hasan read 'Unmad' since his childhood. "We kept an 'Unmad' subscription from 2007 to 2016. But before 'Unmad', we read 'Alpin' and sometimes 'Ros+Alo'. But there was always a distinct attraction towards 'Unmad'. 'Unmad' somehow managed to become a successful brand in its own right," said Sifat.

Kazi Sara Sadia Noor, who works in a media outlet, became acquainted with 'Unmad' long ago. "In 1994, I was studying in class six. We lived in a rural town. There was a shop where you could find 'Unmad'. Sometimes, my mother or other times my brother would buy 'Unmad' from that shop. My whole family loved reading 'Unmad'," she said. '

In an interview, Ahsan Habib said that the highest circulation of the magazine reached 30,000. 'Unmad' printed every kind of humour: comedy, jokes, comic strips. 'Unmad' did not have a uniform mascot like 'Mad' or 'Diwana'.

Ahsan Habib believes that Bangladeshi people are generally of comical nature. Yet, many could not bear Unmad's sharp criticisms. In the 1980s, a judge filed a multi-crore defamation case against Unmad. They somehow made it out of the case after apologising.

Also, Unmad used to satirise newly released movies. Once, a director and producer who could not bear Unmad satirising their movie, attacked its office!

In an interview with the BBC in 2018, Ahsan Habib said that doing political satire or cartoons has somewhat become difficult these days. Cartoonists draw political cartoons but editors no longer print them.

After our independence, West Bengal produced some veteran cartoonists. Notable among them are Shailanarayan Chakraborty, Debiprasad Roy Chowdhury, Kutti, Chondi Lahiri, Rebatibhushan Ghosh, Amal Chakraborty and others.

Their cartoons were printed in Bangalee dailies and periodicals such as the 'Lalita', 'Prabartak', 'Suchitra Shishir' and 'Bharatbarsho'. Political figures like Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah were present in these cartoons as well as cultural figures like Rabindranath.

'Diwana's art editor Ramesh Gupta said, "The attitude of Hindustani people was changing towards satire; perhaps other problems took its place." Professor Emeritus Lee Seizel of the University of Hawaii at Manoa cited the comments of Diwana's editor in his book 'Laughing Matters: Comic Traditions of India'.

The editor is believed to have been Som Benegal. The editor said, "The government now controls the media, and they have no sense of humour... You can print a joke or two without the eyes of the censor. But it is not possible to run an entire magazine anymore."

One of Mad's primary objectives was to scrutinise and criticise the system. 'Unmad' also published cartoons on political and social situations. Sara says, "There was political satire in 'Unmad', but it was presented artistically. Cartoons and writings were printed on the political situation and social crisis."

However, Sifat was not yet old enough to fully understand politics. He said, "I was too young to have political awareness when I read Unmad. I never saw it from that point of view. It was solely a fun magazine for me."

From 2006, Sara put down 'Unmad' for a while. Then from 2013 to 2016, she picked up the habit again. Why the break in the middle?

"Socio-economic and political situations of Bangladesh gave birth to 'Unmad' but at one point they lost that touch. From 2003 to 2008, Unmad failed to stir up much 'insanity'," she said.

'Unmad' has also lost prominence because of the internet. Along with other contemporary publishing and business models, 'Mad' had to fight for survival against the internet. Diwana's popularity declined after cinema and television became more accessible to the masses in India.

In Bangladesh, satire, jokes, memes and dark humour are available on social media now, especially on Facebook. 'Unmad' is not what it used to be. Also, a busy life no longer allows Sifat to read 'Unmad'. She also feels that it may have taken a backseat due to the prevalence of numerous humour-content on social media and also indicated that the custom of keeping newspapers at home has stopped these days.

'Unmad' used to feature a game of pictures on its last page, containing instructions as well. If the page was folded according to that instruction, a new image would appear. Sifat loved this puzzle as a child. But Sarah does not clearly remember the picture puzzle game. She vaguely remembers it as a 3D puzzle.

Did 'Unmad' then appear completely differently to 'Unmad' readers by age? Are today's meme-loving youth thinking of Unmad as 'old man's humour'? According to Sifat, Unmad's content was relatable to people of different ages.

"Cartoons are a great medium; in both artistic and satirical ways. Cartoons are often able to convey messages through simple drawings more effectively than a poem, a song, or even a story," Sara said.

Ahsan Habib is one of the artists behind establishing the cartoon industry in Bangladesh. Like Sifat, 'Unmad' was the childhood and adolescent entertainment of many Bangladeshis. 'Diwana' or 'Unmad' may have followed 'Mad', but never imitated it. Sara believes that there should be no barriers to artistic imitation.

Sources: Mental Floss, New Yorker, Polygon, Rolling Stone, Scroll Dots, Kishor Alo, BBC Bangla, Khola Kagaz, Shirish Dalpala, Inmad Facebook Page

This article first appeared on The Business Standard website. This is a translated version of the original Bangla article.

Translation by: Aziz Hakim

Read more from the original source:
Our Unmad lives - The Business Standard

Saudi Arabias Foreign Ministry threw U.S. President Joe Biden under the bus this week by revealing that Biden had suggested the Kingdom to postpone a decision by OPEC+ to cut oil production. Biden wanted OPEC to hold off until closer to the midterm elections, when a price spike would not drastically effect the fortunes of Biden and the Democrats at the ballot box. Saudi Arabia is the de facto leader of OPEC and OPEC+, which includes Russia.

In spite of the Biden suggestion that cuts be delayed, OPEC announced the cuts anyway last week at its meeting in Vienna, Austria. It has cut exports by 2 million barrels a day.

This week, Biden hit back at Saudi Arabia with a veiled threat, telling Jake Tapper on CNN that there would be consequences for what the Saudis have done in shutting off the valves.

Theres going to be some consequences for what theyve done, with Russia, Biden said. Im not going to get into what Id consider and what I have in mind. But there will be, there will be consequences. This is a president of the United States threatening another world leader in order to gain electoral advantage and its the kind of foreign-interference-in-election activity that the Democrat-led House of Representatives said President Donald Trump engaged in, which led to his first impeachment.

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan said the decision by OPEC+ was economic and was taken unanimously by its member states.

The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would first like to express its total rejection of these statements that are not based on facts, and which are based on portraying the OPEC+ decision out of its purely economic context, the Foreign Ministry said.

The White House doubled down on linking Saudi Arabia with Russia:

We believe by the decision that OPEC+ made last week, (Saudi Arabia is) certainly aligning themselves with Russia, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at a Tuesday press availability. And right now, this is not the time to bealigning with Russia, especially with this brutal, unprecedented war that they started in Ukraine.

The Saudi Arabia Ministry. of Foreign Affairs statement in full:

A statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the statements issued about the Kingdom following the OPEC+ decision

An official at the Foreign Ministry in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia stated that the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has viewed the statements issued about the Kingdom following the OPEC+ decision announced on October 5, 2022, which have described the decision as the Kingdom taking sides in international conflicts and that it was politically motived against the United States of America.

The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would first like to express its total rejection of these statements that are not based on facts, and which are based on portraying the OPEC+ decision out of its purely economic context. This decision was taken unanimously by all member states of the OPEC+ group.

The Kingdom affirms that the outcomes of the OPEC+ meetings are adopted through consensus among member states, and that they are not based on the unilateral decision by a single country. These outcomes are based purely on economic considerations that take into account maintaining balance of supply and demand in the oil markets, as well as aim to limit volatility that does not serve the interests of consumers and producers, as has been always the case within OPEC +.

The OPEC+ group makes its decisions independently in accordance with established independent practices followed by the international organizations.

The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would also like to clarify that based on its belief in the importance of dialogue and exchange of views with its allies and partners outside the OPEC + group regarding the situation in the oil markets, the Government of the Kingdom clarified through its continuous consultation with the US Administration that all economic analyses indicate that postponing the OPEC+ decision for a month, according to what has been suggested, would have had negative economic consequences.

The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia affirms that any attempts to distort the facts about the Kingdoms position regarding the crisis in Ukraine are unfortunate, and will not change the Kingdoms principled position, including its vote to support UN resolutions regarding the Russian-Ukrainian crisis, based on the Kingdoms position on the importance for all countries to adhere to the United Nations Charter, principles of international law, and the Kingdoms rejection of any infringement on the sovereignty of countries over their territories.

The Kingdom stresses that while it strives to preserve the strength of its relations with all friendly countries, it affirms its rejection of any dictates, actions, or efforts to distort its noble objectives to protect the global economy from oil market volatility.

Resolving economic challenges requires the establishment of a non-politicized constructive dialogue, and to wisely and rationally consider what serves the interests of all countries.

The Kingdom affirms that it view its relationship with the United States of America as a strategic one that serves the common interests of both countries. The Kingdom also stresses the importance of building on the solid pillars upon which the Saudi-US relationship had stood over the past eight decades. These pillars include mutual respect, enhancing common interests, actively contributing to preserve regional and international peace and security, countering terrorism and extremism, and achieving prosperity for the peoples of the region.

Like Loading...

Follow this link:
Biden threatens 'consequences' against Saudi Arabia over OPEC oil production cuts, links with Russia - Must Read Alaska