Category Archives: Politically Incorrect

Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images

US President Donald Trump speaks as US Attorney General William Barr listens before signing an executive order on social media companies in the Oval Office on May 28.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeting social media companies on Thursday. The move came after Twitter fact-checked two of his tweets as containing "potentially misleading misinformation."

"Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias," the order reads. "Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politicians tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called Site Integrity has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets."

This will be a Big Day for Social Media and FAIRNESS! the president tweeted on Thursday morning before attacking by name the Twitter employee whom some conservatives have falsely claimed was responsible for adding the fact-check label to his tweets.

While signing the executive order on Thursday, the president said he would shut down Twitter if his lawyers found a way to do it. "I'd have to go through a legal process," he told reporters.

Trumps executive order will affect Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms like Facebook and Twitter from being held liable for content posted by their users. The 1996 law states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

US Attorney General William Barr said Thursday that the executive order will not revoke Section 230, but did not further explain how the order would impact it, only saying that social media companies have stretched the meaning of its original intention. The president argued on Thursday that once a platform like Twitter edits content, it "ceases to become a neutral public platform and becomes an editor with a viewpoint."

The president continued the feud late on Thursday night, tweeting, ".@Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is today criticizing Twitter. We have a different policy than Twitter on this. I believe strongly that Facebook shouldnt be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online. Did Twitter criticize Obama for his you can keep your Dr.?

On Thursday evening, Twitter released a statement in which the company said, "This EO is a reactionary and politicized approach to a landmark law. #Section230 protects American innovation and freedom of expression, and its underpinned by democratic values. Attempts to unilaterally erode it threaten the future of online speech and Internet freedoms."

Twitter slapped Trump on the wrist. Trump responds with an attempt to blow up the entire internet.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has dubbed Section 230 the one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression. Passed following two court decisions that forced early internet services to choose between moderating content and enjoying immunity from being sued over what users posted on them, Section 230 solved the "moderator's dilemma" by allowing internet services to both patrol user-generated content and sidestep lawsuits for content they hosted.

Although the Communications Decency Act was passed on a bipartisan basis, Jeff Kosseff, assistant professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy, told BuzzFeed News that Section 230 has been stuck for years in a political purgatory. You have one contingent saying there is too much moderation, he said, but then you have another contingent saying overall there is not enough moderation.

But legal experts said that regardless of whether the provision needed to be changed, Trump's action Thursday will add even more confusion to what responsibility platforms have about what is posted in their communities.

How [Trumps executive order] would work is very unclear. If there are effects, it will take a long time and be likely struck down by the courts, Katie Fallow, senior staff attorney at Columbia Universitys Knight First Amendment Institute, told BuzzFeed News. I believe the purpose of this is to put a burden on the social media companies.

Fallow said it was ironic that the executive order treats Twitter, a private company, as a public square where people have free speech rights protected by the First Amendment when conservatives historically have opposed government regulation of speech on private property.

The executive order is unlikely to have many tangible effects, according to Eric Goldman, a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law. It's largely atmospherics. It's largely performative, he told BuzzFeed News.

Twitter slapped Trump on the wrist, Goldman said. Trump responds with an attempt to blow up the entire internet.

President Donald Trump speaks before signing an executive order on social media companies in the Oval Office on May 28.

In advance of Trumps announcement, FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel released a statement on Thursday saying an order pulling the agency into Trumps spat with Twitter was a bad idea.

This does not work. Social media can be frustrating. But an Executive Order that would turn the Federal Communications Commission into the Presidents speech police is not the answer. Its time for those in Washington to speak up for the First Amendment. History wont be kind to silence, Rosenworcel said.

In his remarks, the president made it clear that the order was retaliation for Twitter fact-checking his tweets. The executive order says that the "Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order."

Attorney General Bill Barr has been exploring options to change Section 230 for months. In a December speech, Barr said the Justice Department had started thinking critically about the issue, describing social media companies relative immunity as staggering.

I think the leaked order is trolling all these legal scholars.

But the Department of Justices focus, according to Barrs speeches, has been less about political bias and more about whether or not social media companies are doing enough to make the internet safe. In February, the Department of Justice held a workshop on the future of Section 230. Barr said in his opening remarks that the threat of lawsuits could force social media companies to do more to limit speech that facilitated terrorism and human trafficking; the issue of whether Twitter and other platforms were targeting conservative speech barely came up, according to coverage of the workshop by the Verge.

Mary Anne Franks, the president of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative and a member of Twitter's Trust and Safety Council, criticized Trumps order, saying it would "reinforce the baseless claim that conservatives are being discriminated against on social media, she told BuzzFeed News.

Franks also took issue with the way the executive order was announced: first by press secretary Kayleigh McEnany to reporters on a flight back to Washington on Wednesday night and then leaked later that evening.

I think the leaked order is trolling all these legal scholars, Franks said.

Franks didnt think the executive order would change much in the law, but it would influence how online platforms carry out their fact-checks and moderate content.

It's meant to have a cultural impact, not a legal impact, she said. All they did was slap a tiny label on something that will probably not have any real effect except make him angry. It's really a shame this really modest step in that direction has set this off.

Ahead of the executive orders signing on Thursday morning, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg differentiated his company from Twitter, saying during a Fox News interview that Facebook should not be an arbiter of truth.

Private companies probably shouldn't be, especially these platform companies, shouldn't be in the position of doing that, he said, adding, In general, I think a government choosing to censor a platform because they're worried about censorship doesn't exactly strike me as the right reflex there.

In a statement late on Thursday, Facebook spokesperson Liz Bourgeois said that repealing or limiting Section 230 would "restrict more speech online, not less."

The Trump fact-check on Twitter infuriated Republicans and set off waves of abuse at an employee incorrectly believed to be responsible for applying the label.

On Wednesday evening, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey defended the Trump fact-check, tweeting, "Fact check: there is someone ultimately accountable for our actions as a company, and thats me. Please leave our employees out of this. Well continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally. And we will admit to and own any mistakes we make."

The dispute between Trump and Twitter also included members of Congress.

The law still protects social media companies like @Twitter because they are considered forums not publishers, Sen. Marco Rubio tweeted on Tuesday. But if they have now decided to exercise an editorial role like a publisher then they should no longer be shielded from liability & treated as publishers under the law.

On Wednesday, Sen. Josh Hawley shared an open letter to Dorsey.

.@jack a few questions for you below, he wrote. Bottom line: Why should @twitter continue to get special treatment from government as a mere distributor of other peoples content if you are going to editorialize and comment like a publisher? Shouldnt you be treated like publisher?

Last year, Hawley introduced legislation to amend Section 230 to revoke what he called the immunity big tech companies receive ... unless they submit to an external audit that proves by clear and convincing evidence that their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral.

He said on Tuesday that he plans to introduce similar legislation again.

At the time of its passage, the liability shield was not tied to an expectation that platforms would act in a neutral manner toward political speech that they hosted. The law's text makes no such requirement either. But conservatives like Hawley have recently attempted to tie the two together, arguing that platforms should only enjoy immunity from lawsuits if they act in a politically neutral fashion.

President Donald Trump speaks before signing an executive order on social media companies in the Oval Office on May 28.

In a statement last June, Hawley said, With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship. Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, who drafted Section 230 along with former Republican Rep. Chris Cox, said in an interview with BuzzFeed News Thursday that he thinks its clear Trump is targeting the provision in his order because it protects private businesses right not to have to play host to his lying.

The bottom line is, I have warned for years the administration was threatening 230 in order to chill speech, bully, you know, companies Facebook and YouTube and Twitter into giving him favorable treatment, and today he proved that that take was right, Wyden said.

In February of last year, Barr argued that [t]echnology has changed in ways that no one, including the drafters of Section 230, could have imagined. But Wyden said he thinks Barrs argument is less about the changing landscape of the internet and more about his personal agenda.

I think Barrs agenda has been really clear from the beginning. What he has been interested in is a speech control program, because he, like the president, feels that any coverage that isnt favorable to him is somehow a crime, he said.

The attack on Section 230 is also antithetical to conservative principles, the senator argued.

And the idea that these conservative officials think that the government should take control of private companies and dictate exactly how they operate, that just turns on his head what you think conservative principles are all about, he said. Now, I understand these conservative politicians are upset that there are large corporations don't toe their party line, and then when they talk about it shout about it it's popular with their base. But theyre just plain wrong.

Wyden said hes particularly bothered by the argument some conservatives have made that Section 230 requires platforms to be neutral, something the law itself, he noted, doesnt say at all. He also said hes disturbed by the idea of a panel deciding what constitutes neutrality or discrimination against conservative ideas.

Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Stanford Law School, told BuzzFeed News that Trumps executive order is the first missive in a larger battle over whether Section 230 is a special privilege that's given to internet platforms or whether it's a core extension of the First Amendment.

Persily said an attack on Section 230 was bound to happen, whether from the right or left.

This reads like a stream of consciousness tweetstorm that some poor staffer had to turn into the form of an executive order.

In January, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden told the New York Times he also wanted to revoke Section 230, saying, "The idea that its a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one."

On Thursday, Biden for President Spokesperson Bill Russo told BuzzFeed News that the executive order was an "extreme abuse of power."

"It will not be the position of any future Biden Administration or any other administration that is aware of our basic constitutional structure that the First Amendment means private companies must provide a venue for, and amplification of, the President's falsehoods, lest they become the subject of coordinated retaliation by the federal government. Joe Biden understands that no President should use Executive Orders as menus to abuse the power of the presidency," he said.

Russo added that "Vice President Biden believes that social media companies should be held accountable for disseminating content they know to be false, just as any other private company would be."

Regardless of what comes of the executive order, Trump's action is already being celebrated in right-wing media and among his base online.

Daphne Keller, director of the program on platform regulation for Stanfords Cyber Policy Center, told BuzzFeed News that the executive order was political theater. This reads like a stream of consciousness tweetstorm that some poor staffer had to turn into the form of an executive order, she said.

Keller said that an informed public debate about the power of platforms over public discourse was important. But thats not what this executive order had led to.

This is a distraction, she said. We have only ourselves to blame if it makes us avert our gaze from the crises that are right in front of us: 100,000 Americans dead in a profoundly mismanaged pandemic, for example, or the potential failure of democratic process in the 2020 elections.

Addy Baird and Zoe Tillman contributed reporting to this story.

The rest is here:
Its Unclear What Trumps Section 230 Executive Order Will Do Beyond Bully Social Media Companies - BuzzFeed News

"Is Soros Behind the War on Hydroxychloroquine?" So queried a headlineon the U.S. evangelicals-orientedBreaking Israel Newssiteearlier this week. Thepiece suggests that George Soros, the Hungarian-born American billionaire philanthropist, is set to benefitboth financiallyfrom the coronavirus pandemic,andpolitically byundermining President Donald Trump.

The U.S.president has been pushing use of hydroxychloroquine as an antidote to,or preventative measure against,the virus andlast week announcedthat he was taking it himself.

"A bit of research into the separate elements shows some disturbing connections, indicating the media war against hydroxychloroquine may be backed by some nefarious forces," the piece opens.

There is, to be clear, no war on hydroxychloroquine, but rather a plethora of warnings of itsserious side effectsincluding ahigher risk of heart problems and even death. The World Health Organizaton has halted clinical trials for the drug, and France has just banned its use in COVID-19 cases, citing patient safety concerns.

The somewhat obscure Breaking News Israel is hardly alone in fingering Soros as the hidden hand behind COVID-19: the theory is all over pro-Trump hard right social media and right-wing news platforms with soft spots for conspiracy theories from Gateway Pundit to Trumps newest best friend, One America Network.

How should we understand this latest iteration of the storied and ever-versatile anti-Soros smear campaign, which invariably paint himasringleader ofaglobalconspiratorial plot?

Most clearly,the Soros as hydroxychloroquine antagonist conspiracy theory has something in common with many a Soros conspiracy theory.

We've got more newsletters we think you'll find interesting.

Please try again later.

The email address you have provided is already registered.

While Soros himself, as a financier, Jew and donor to liberal causes, is the initial target, "Soros" has also become a metonym for any opposition to the worldview not just of full-time conspiracy theorists, but also of more mainstream and powerful politicians and commentators. Soros conspiracies are thus also a tool to delegitimize that opposition.

Soroshimselfis, of course, the most obvious target.

Today, as protesters across the United States take to the streets against police brutality, the name George Soros trends on Twitter;right-wingersassert that these protesters are notgenuinely expressinggrief and anger about the continued killing of black Americans by police officers, but aredemonstratingbecause they were put up to it by Soros. Some prominent conservatives areeven sayingSoros should be arrested.

Nor is this a wholly 2020 phenomenon. In 2018, ahead ofthe U.S.midterms,Soros was blamed for everything-from protests against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to a migrant caravan threatening to "invade" Americas southern border.

Cesar Sayoc mailed Soros, among other high-profile and liberal-leaning figures, a pipe bomb; his social media accounts were full of anti-Semitic and pro-Trump memes, one of which described Soros as a "Judeo-plutocratic Bolshevik Zionist."The Pittsburgh synagogue shooter claimed Soros was secretly behindthe migrant caravan. He killed 11 Jews in prayer whom he blamed for participating in the plot.

That same year, citing "an increasingly repressive political and legal environment in Hungary," Open Society Foundations, Soross philanthropic operation,announceditsinternational operations would move from Budapest to Berlin.Clearly, Soros himself is a key subject of these conspiracy theories and they directlyimpact himand his philanthropic work.

But Soros, whose net worth is estimated to be $8.3 billion, is not the only victim. There are many otherswho dont have billions and who are alsodamagedby Soros conspiracy theories.

To take thehydroxychloroquinecoronavirus example: Its not just Soros whos being attacked. Its also an attemptto delegitimize scienceitself(as being contaminated by "Soros")while boosting a right-wing political force.

Insinuating a Soros plot is adeliberatedistraction fromthe 100,000 (and counting)Americandead. It is an excuse not to take responsibility, a pivot bya president who refused to take the virus seriouslyatfirst, and now recommendspoppinga miracle pill that could kill them.

Back in2018,theNew York Postjumped on the "Soros connection" oftwo women who confrontedthen-SenatorJeff Flake over the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, accused of attempted sexual assault. "Look who was behind the Jeff Flake elevator setup," the headlineread, the implication being that Soros pushed the two women to confront the senator.

That the centerthat employed the protestorsreceived money from Open Society was a fact. But the idea that Soros was behind that particular confrontation,and the protests more generally,was not only untrue, but insulting toa substantial number ofpeople, some themselves survivors of sexual assault, whofreely chose to speakup against Kavanaughsspeedyconfirmation.The Soros tropewas more than insulting; it was delegitimizing.

The same goes for Rudy Giulianis unhinged attack on SorossJewishness late last year. After accusing Soros of controlling U.S. diplomats, he declared, "Soros is hardly a Jew. Im more of a Jew than Soros is. He doesnt belong to a synagogue, he doesnt support Israel, hes an enemy of Israel. Hes a horrible human being." Giuliani was talking about Soros the individual, and handily pointing out his Jewish origins for an appreciative hard right but he wasalsousing "Soros" to slur and delegitimize Democrat-voting U.S. Jews(some 80 percent of American Jews in the 2018 midterms).

Its no accident that Donald Trump used the same tack of trying to police and demean his Jewish political opponents a few months earlier, announcing that voting for a Democrat means, "you're being disloyal to Jewish people and you're being very disloyal to Israel."

The United States is hardly alone inpushing conspiracy theories that smearSoros, yes, butalso push the people supported by his philanthropy further into the margins.

TheHungarianparliament(which has alreadypassedthe "Stop Soros" law criminalizing assistance to undocumented immigrants) recently ratified legislation(ostensibly due to the coronavirus pandemic) whichgavePrime Minister Viktor Orbn unchecked power. Orbnsaidon state radio that those critical of the move were part of a network led by Soroswhose tentacles reached deep into the Brussels bureacracy.

Like Orbansprevious attacks on Soros, thisconspiracy theory smacks of anti-Semitism, with its whispers of a Jewish financier controlling politicians all over the world, and the nefarious intention to turn nation-states more "cosmopolitan," or (((globalist.))) Butit does something else, too: it renders moot any criticism and any critics of Orbns parliamentary power grab.

It was in Budapest, incidentally, that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus son, Yair Netanyahu, said that "radical" Soros organizations were "destroying Israel from the insideworking day and night with an unlimited budget to rob the country of its Jewish identity."

Thats a conscious insult aimed at Soros.But more significantly, it is also aboutdelegitimizingthose causes Soros and Open Society support in Israeland the Palestinian territories, such as providingscholarships forPalestinianstudents in the West Bank and Gazaandfunding human rights groups usingthejudicial systemto challenge discrimination. If Soross efforts are destructive, the thinking goes, then thesePalestinianstudents andIsraeliactivists are, too.

And while the right wingprovides themostnotoriousexamples of blaming the meta-Soros-for dissent and to strip activists of agency, there are offenders on the left, too.

When, for example, Max Blumenthal goes on The Jimmy Dore Show toallegethat Soros is funding regime change in Venezuela and Hong Kong, hereduces those protesting,at great personal risk,to mere pawns.

Thousands in Hong Kong have taken to the streets to protest national security lawsimposedby Beijing. To say that they are Soros stooges(or shills) removes their individual capacity and volition to think, choose, and take sides. It also acts to whitewash and legitimize the authoritarian regimes against whom theyre protesting.

Conspiracy theories about Soros, ubiquitous though they are,must bedisputed, andnot only because they are factually incorrect, or because they are unfair to one man. They arealsounfair tothemany men and women whom these conspiracy theoriespatronize,delegitimizeand, often, furthermarginalize.

These theories arent only about increasingly vicious political partisanship, but about the attempt to strip political agency from those with dissenting views, to subvert their standing and, sometimes, even to endanger them.

Those pushing theSorosconspiracy theoriesare well aware of their malign power.The rest of us need tobe, too.

Emily Tamkin is the U.S.editor at the New Statesman and the author of the forthcoming book,The Influence of Soros: Politics, Power, and the Struggle for an Open Society. Twitter:@emilyctamkin

This op-ed was updated on 31 May 2020 to reflect the expansion of the Soros conspiracy theory to include protests following George Floyds death

More:
COVID-19 to George Floyd to caravans: Is Soros now the worlds most versatile, dangerous conspiracy theory? - Haaretz

When talking with the British tabloid Daily Star, the members of The Fizz say that their winning performance would be too politically incorrect in todays contest. They also have different views on if United Kingdom should take part in the contest or not.

As Bucks Fizz, the trio, Cheryl Baker, Jay Aston and Mike Nolan, along with former member Bobby G, won the Eurovision Song Contest 1981. Back in 2011, the group got into a legal conflict with Bobby G and later started performing under the name The Fizz.

At the interview, Mike Nolan reckons that the skirt-ripping routine would be too much for the contest today.

It would be too politically incorrect to rip the skirts off todaythe crap they come out with. I think the whole thing has got out of hand now. You cant even tell Englishman, Irishman, Scotsman jokes any more. Get a life! Get in the real world.

Jay Aston also feels some of the best British qualities are being ruined by the political correctness culture. She says that the British sense of humour is what makes this country great.

The three members of the group share different views on if United Kingdom should still take part in the contest. Mike says that the country should pull out of the contest.

Pull out it, it costs us a flaming fortune to enter to come down the bottom. Even if we have the best song, well never win because they just dont vote for you.

The two women of the group disagree and believe that the country should put on a good show to win the contest again. Jay says that instead of sending someone who stands there with a mic, they should do something very radical, put a show on.

Next year it has been 40 years since the group won the Eurovision Song Contest with the song Making Your Mind Up. Cheryl Baker says that they are planning some big things for the anniversary.

Next year is 40 years since we won so we are planning big things. We should go back to Eurovision as guests or to sing.

Would you like to see The Fizz back in the contest? Let us know below or on social media @ESCXTRA!

Excerpt from:
The Fizz think their 1981 performance would be "too politically incorrect" in 2020 - ESCXTRA.com

Bonner County Daily Bee - Entertainment, week roars with lots of great fun, entertainment '); $(this).addClass('expanded'); $(this).animate({ height: imgHeight + 'px' }); } } }); }); function closeExpand(element) { $(element).parent('.expand-ad').animate({ height: '30px' }, function () { $(element).parent('.expand-ad').removeClass('expanded'); $(element).remove(); }); } function runExpandableAd() { setTimeout(function() { $('.expand-ad').animate({ height: $('.expand-ad img').height() + 'px' }); }, 2000); setTimeout(function() { $('.expand-ad').animate({ height: '30px' }); }, 4000); } function customPencilSize(size) { var ratio = 960/size; var screenWidth = $('body').width(); if (screenWidth > 960) screenWidth = 960; $('.expand-ad__holder').parent('.ad').css('padding-bottom', (screenWidth / ratio) + 'px'); $('.expand-ad__holder').css({ height: (screenWidth / ratio) + 'px' }); $('.expand-ad').css({ height: (screenWidth / ratio) + 'px' }); $('.expand-ad img').css('height', 'auto'); $('.expand-ad embed').css('height', 'auto'); $('.expand-ad embed').css('width', '100%'); $('.expand-ad embed').css('max-width', '960px'); } function customSize(size, id) { var element = jQuery('script#' + id).siblings('a').children('img'); if (element.length 960) screenWidth = 960; element.css('height', (screenWidth / ratio) + 'px'); } (function () { window.addEventListener('message', function (event) { $(document).ready(function() { var expand = event.data.expand; if (expand == 'false') { $('.expand-ad__holder').removeClass('expand-ad__holder'); $('.expand-ad').removeClass('expand-ad'); } }); }, false); function loadIframe(size, id) { $('.ad').each(function () { var iframeId = $(this).children('ins').children('iframe').attr('name'); var element = $(this).children('ins').children('iframe'); if (element.length > 0) { var ratio = 960 / size; var screenWidth = $('body').width(); if (screenWidth > 960) screenWidth = 960; element.css('height', (screenWidth / ratio) + 'px'); } }); } })();

Read more here:
week roars with lots of great fun, entertainment - Bonner County Daily Bee

Educators do deserve better, and heres how

I am not an educator but my daughter earned two degrees in education and is a National Board Certified Teacher in elementary in Kentucky.

When educators lament their jobs are not from 7:30 to 2:30, they are absolutely right! They grade papers, prepare lesson plans, provide data for report cards, attend meetings and have professional development criteria that is required. These are AFTER school hours and sometimes in summer recess. Many times I tease my daughter about all the overtime/bonus pay she will earn. Sure, right!

Teaching can be rewarding but is also demanding, unsupported and stressful, more so than yesteryear. Many retire around age 55 and too many quit within five years. Others say Not for me after student teaching. When they want decent pay raises the taxpayers clamor. Their raises typically run from 0 to 2 percent, and too often 0 percent. The UAW won great concessions from their vehicle manufacturers. So who do you think pays for those? The buyer, of course these are buried in the vehicles costs. But folks pay and go on.

Besides teaching the mandated subjects, teachers bring much more to the classroom. They instill respect, politeness, patriotism, confidence, controlling behavior, compassion, dont give up, anything is possible, following rules/instructions and much, much more. These are worthy virtues that will follow one through life. These were not college courses, but values the teachers learned from their parents and teachers. Most teachers are parents, too, and want their students to also succeed.

Standardized tests: Too frequent and ever changing. Select one and use it several years to collect data and see the trends. The SAT/ACT tests have been around for decades and have masses of data. Refine if necessary, but not replace (If it aint broke, dont fix it!). When the line marker keeps moving, no one can ascertain good comparisons. And the tests should NOT be tied to educators performances. Too many variables. Kids are not equal in abilities or home environments. And not everyone is a good test taker. Tests can be mind-numbing with loss of concentration. Let teachers teach and NOT teach to tests.

Educators can find hidden abilities or talents which may make a difference in ones life. They fascinate, intrigue, and hone. I fondly remember my teachers and always respected them. One was an 8th grade science teacher who intrigued me in the science of chemistry. As a result, I earned a degree and had a 46 year career in chemical engineering.

Educators are due the respect of students, parents and the taxpayers. And those who control the purse strings need to loosen the strings more. A recent MSN online commentary by Gabrielle Olya is titled, Dont Waste Your Money on These 26 College degrees 7 of which are education related! [It is] based on mid-career salaries with 10+ years experience (extracted from PayScales College Salary Report).

My son and daughter were educated in the NAFCS. I was always pleased and had the utmost respect of their teachers. Both were well prepared for their studies at Purdue.

Teachers do make a difference and deserve better!

Robert Tylick

New Albany

I am as politically incorrect as anyone I know, to which this article will attest. The founding fathers clearly intended that service in the House or Senate be of a temporary nature; whereby an elected official would serve a term or two and then return to their private line of work. His or her time in office would be dedicated to ideas or bills that benefit the constituents back home, as well as the Nation as a whole.

Instead, our system has created a new occupation, that of a professional politician. Instead of serving a limited period of time and returning to private life, a person can at present spend 30, 35 or 40 years in government, preventing new people with new ideas from presenting them for that entire period.

Almost everyone I have contacted believes in term limits for both houses of Congress; even the president is limited to two terms, why should Congress be any different? Trying to get a bill through Congress in favor of a constitutional amendment would be hopeless, for obvious reasons; therefore the matter can only be solved by the people in an election. That is why I suggest the issue be put on the ballot in the form of a referendum in a national election. The terms could be worked out later if necessary. Failing this, and perhaps a better idea, is an amendment eliminating the retirement system for congressman, and putting them on Social Security, which would in effect ensure term limits, as most of them would want to go back to their professions in order to build up their earned retirement.

No other temporary job that I know of provides for ones retirement. Whoever heard of retiring from a temporary job.

John Kettler

Greenville

See the article here:
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR | Opinion - Evening News and Tribune

The problem with Jack London has always been that while he was a compelling storyteller with a vivid imagination, he was also a racist, or at least a writer who embraced racial ideas about the superiority of Anglo Saxons and the inferiority of African Americans, Asians and Latinos. Most of the racism thats embedded in The Call of the Wild, Londons 1903 best selling novel, has been expunged from the latest cinematic version starring Harrison Ford as John Thornton, the prospector in the Yukon who cares more for the wilderness and dogs than he does for gold.

Indeed, the 2020 film, which has a computer-generated canine hero, is as politically correct in its own way, as Londons story is politically incorrect at least by todays standards. Still, no criticism of the movie will prevent London fans from watching it and raving about it, flaws and all. To the faithful, London can do no wrong. He might have clay feet, but hes still their god.

I saw the movie in Sonoma, California, where London is a local hero and can do no wrong. Not many members of the audience had read The Call of the Wild. Also, they dont know much about London himself, but they think they know that he was a great writer.

This is not the first time that The Call of the Wild has been transposed from the page to the big screen. The 1935 version stars Clark Gable, Loretta Young and Jack Oakie. The 1973 remark features Charlton Heston. The 1996 version has a voice over by Richard Dreyfus and stars Rutger Hauer. Each movie carves out a territory of its own, and reflects the era in which it was made. None are true to Londons Weltanschauung, which he forged from his own rough-and-tumble life in Oakland and from his reading Nietzsche, Darwin and Marx.

The latest version offers a fairy-tale for our own era of global warming and environmental disaster. It describes a world with near pristine wilderness, the abundance of wild species, and little if any degradation of the natural world. Its unreal. In the Yukon in 1898, London witnessed the wanton destruction of the landscape by mining and miners digging, tearing and scouring the face of nature. At the same time, London argued that the Yukon offered unparalleled opportunities for capital and labor to work together to create wealth and jobs.

Screenwriter Michael Green and director Chris Sanders are two savvy moviemakers. While their version is a remake, its also a critique of The Call of the Wild.In the novel, Indians kill the prospector, John Thornton. In revenge, Buck kills some of Indianshes an Indian killerand enjoys the slaughter. Monsieur Perrault, the French Canadian mail courier, has been turned into a jolly African-American. His female companion on the trail looks like she might be a Native American, or at least a half-breed, as London would have called her.

In 50 books, London never created an African-American character, though an African-American ex-slave raised him and he called himself a white pickaninny. He was cheeky.

On screen, Harrison Ford looks and acts like an old explorer. Hes no longer a youthful voyager in outer space, nor an intrepid archeologist. As John Thornton, he plays everyones favorite uncle who spouts words of wisdom. Youre not my pet, he tells Buck. Do what your want.

Teddy Roosevelt, who was no fan of Londons work, would probably be bored out of his mind with the latest movie. More than a century ago, he accused London of faking it as a nature writer. London took the bait, rose to the occasion and defended the veracity of The Call of the Wild and White Fang.

I endeavored to make my stories in line with the facts of evolution, he insisted. I hewed them to the mark set by scientific research. While he staked his career to pseudo-science, he also touted empire and fumed about the savages of the colonial world. Mark Twain and William Dean Howells, formed The Anti-Imperialist League. London never joined. Others founded the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). London insisted that colored people had never advanced, that African Americans were closer to apes than humans. 1903, the year that saw the publication of The Call of the Wild, also saw the publication of The Souls of Black Folk in which the author, W.E.B. Du Bois, observed, The problem of the twentieth-century is the problem of the color-line.

Ironically, though London is best known for his embrace of the wild, he lived like a highly civilized country squire with servants and field workers on a vast estate he called Beauty Ranch where he ruled the roost paternalistically. In an essay titled The House Beautiful, he argued that he had to have servantsthey were a necessity but that their rooms would have light and fresh air and not be dens and holes. He added, It will be a happy houseor else Ill burn it down. It burned down, anyway, either by accident or arson. By the age of 40, London had burned himself up, but not before he made a fortune as a writer and became world famous on the back of the dog, Buck.

No twentieth-century American fiction writer poured out prose more beautiful than London, and no writer was more attached to the notion that someone had to be the top dog. No wonder that his own daughter, Joan, thought that if he had lived into the 1920s he would have become an admirer of Mussolini. The London faithful will have none of it.

Screenwriter Green and director Sanders have made a beautiful movie, and, though its not true to Londons political and social ideas, it does honor the spirit of adventure that pushed him to the Arctic and the South Seas. Moviegoers might enjoy the scenery and the special effects that make Buck look and sound like a real dog almost.

(Jonah Raskin is the editor of The Radical Jack London: Writings on War and Revolution, and of For The Hell of It: The Life and Times of Abbie Hoffman and American Scream: Allen Ginsbergs Howl and the Making of the Beat Generation.)

Read the rest here:
The Call of the Mild - Anderson Valley

The Fizz have insisted that their 1981 Eurovision routine would not go down well with today's audience.

The successful band insist that they would not be allowed to perform their risqu set today, due to the fact it would be too politically incorrect.

The British pop music group formed in 2004 as a spin-off from the original group, Bucks Fizz.

The core group members, Cheryl Baker, Mike Nolan and Jay Aston, put on one hell of a show at the 1981 Eurovision awards, and ended up coming back to the UK with the winning title.

With the hit 'Making Up Your Mind', the trio left audiences across the world with their jaws on the floor as their rather raunchy performance raised a few eyebrows.

In the middle of the set, Mike and Bobby tore off Cheryl and Jays maxi skirts to reveal much shorter and sexier versions underneath.

Speaking to The Daily Star, Mike admitted that whipping off a girls skirt on stage in today's society would be taken seriously.

"It would be too politically incorrect to rip the skirts off todaythe cr*p they come out with".

The singer insisted that 'things have gotten out of hand' in this day and age, and jokes are no longer tolerable as there's always one individual that takes offense.

"I think the whole thing has got out of hand now. You cant even tell Englishman, Irishman, Scotsman jokes any ore. Get a life! Get in the real world."

Jay also feels that people today take life way too seriously, and are simply waiting for a reason to be offended by something

She tells the publication: "People are scared to say things in case it offends someone. Its eroded our humour."

The line-up of the group has changed a number of times over the years, most famously when Jay Aston quit the group in 1985 and was replaced by Shelley Preston.

The Fizz - now perform under that name after a legal wrangle with original member Bobby G - are back with a whole new album Smoke & Mirrors which is out on Friday.

Today, two versions of the group exist: a version which includes original member Bobby G, and a version comprising the other three original members - Cheryl Baker, Mike Nolan and Jay Aston under the name The Fizz.

The group went on to have a successful career around the world, although they were commercially unsuccessful in the United States, but the UK remained their biggest market.

Bucks Fizz had three No.1 singles with Making Your Mind Up, The Land Of Make Believe and My Camera Never Dies.

They quickly became one of the top-selling groups of the 1980s.

They talented group also had UK Top 10 hits with Now Those Days Are Gone and When We Were Young.

Bucks Fizz have sold over 15 million records worldwide.

The group are eagerly awaiting this years UK performance in the Eurovision as James Newman heads on a quest to win the title with his track My Last Breath

The United Kingdom hasnt had much luck at Eurovision in recent years, with 2019s entry Michael Rice coming dead last with his song Bigger Than Us.

See the original post:
The Fizz insist their 1981 Eurovision routine would be too risqu for today's audience - Irish Mirror

Is it wrong, that for me, the Dodgers' last World Series Championship seems like yesterday? Well, it doesn't. I'm a Giants fan.

But, in 1988, I saw a film that couldn't have possibly been released 32-years ago. And maybe that's why most of my dental co-workers and youngster patients under fifty don't know what I'm talking about when I reference Hannah and Her Sisters. These days, I tend to minimize writer/director/actor Woody Allen because he's done some questionable stuff off the screen for the past three decades or so (although today, it wouldn't necessarily disqualify his hypothetical presidency.)

Anyway, in Hannah, Woody's hypochondriac character (Mickey) goes in for a routine medical exam, volunteers a history of occasional ringing in one ear, and winds up experiencing every conceivable clinical test short of exploratory surgery. Leading up to medical judgment day, Mickey's convinced he has a brain tumorbut the news is good. The favorable diagnosis leads to celebration, then a mortality accounting, and finally the pursuit of a religion with the best afterlife option.

The romantic comedy is complex; it deals with every combination and permutation of infidelity involving three sisters and their families during the span of consecutive Thanksgivings; the movie questions relationships and life itself. But when all is said and done, Mickey takes his favorite niece to the movies and a revival showing of the Marx Brothers in the farcical film, Duck Soup. Mickey has a breakthrough. While sharing the laughs and appreciating Groucho and his brothers, Mickey discovers the meaning of it all. Life is to be enjoyed, not understood.

And, what does all this Hannah stuff have to do with me? Everythingbut with no infidelity and only a few medical tests.

The past year has been a challenge. Still not Grand Marshall of the Camelia Parade; but there's more. I went to renegade USC. And I own a small business. Hear me whine. And it's confounding that even when you love your family and love serving people you see as family, life can still get in the way, cause distraction, and inspire reflection (for me, very hard work.)

Because my own family and aunts and uncles are no longer with me and even though my co-workers didn't apply for the job, my dental team is my family. Two of my family (who combine for about 40-adoption years) have been missing in action for around 70% of the time over the last 15-months; we've missed 'em.

And then there's the outside stuff and the usual suspects. Because of a lesson my dad taught me about saying something good or nothing at all, I won't identify our property manager. Underwriters regrettably remain part of my life. VP Pence is the new Epidemiologist in-Chief, but he believes in shock therapy, not science. And a viral plague is killing people, investments, and maybe even economies (btw, the masks are for sick people.) I've seen every recent movie except Little Women. Sometimes the stuff you can't control can get you a little down. Saturday morning, I took a call from my ace dental assistant; and on hello, she wondered if I was doing okay.

Does anyone else out there ever have an occasional It's a Wonderful Life George Bailey moment?

But, last night, an exceptional woman next door (no nieces) and I toured Downtown LA on foot, enjoyed a meal, and joined a full house that was roaring with laughter at the Ahmanson, watching the hilarious and totally politically incorrect Book of Mormon (coulda been Duck Soup.)

I've been an oral health care provider for a few decades; I do know a few things. I appreciate smiles are a gift and I realize laughter is powerful medicine. And our practice's purpose will always be making dentistry funno matter the usual suspects.

And yeah, life is meant to be enjoyed, not understood.

See the article here:
Saved by the Book - Patch.com

Working-class white men supported Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton by 71 percent to 23 percent Why?

Robert D. Francis, Him, Not Her: Why Working-Class White Men Reluctant About Trump Still Made Him President of the United States in Socius journal, 2018

Theres an underappreciated voting bloc that could help to unseat Donald Trump in November: white working-class men. Many white male voters chose Trump in 2016 because they believed his campaign promises to revive the coal industry and to jumpstart U.S. manufacturing. Once in office, he broke both of those promises.

These men are still on the outside looking in their noses pressed against the bakery window of the American dream betrayed, watching as one-percenters gorge themselves on tax-break goodies. Are they beginning to realize that theyve been scammed?

Although there are millions of these men to reach out to, theres a, well, elephant in the room. Progressive activists, so quick to empathize with the struggles other groups of voters, usually fail to include working-class white men, callously generalizing that men dont have problems; they are the problem, as journalist and historian Andrew Yarrow has said. We cannot afford to leave these men on the outside for another day.

When the modern-day antisexist mens movement (composed of mainly privileged white men) began working to transform men and manhood four decades ago, many began by acknowledging reluctantly at first that conventional masculinity unfairly advantaged men. When it came to men who liked their masculinity just-as-it-is-thank you, we had a huge blind spot. While we began rejecting our own male socialization, we were intolerant, arrogantly characterizing these men as unenlightened. Indifferent to their struggles, we were self-righteousness and judgmental more than empathetic and compassionate.

Dont get me wrong. Men who stubbornly refuse to give up unearned privilege must be challenged. At the same time, if we cede hurting males to the mens rights movement then these men will likely continue to vote against their own self-interest. It has always been important to reach out to these men; in 2020 its imperative.

Years ago I led groups for men acting abusively in their relationships. Our philosophy was based on compassionate confrontation yes, we would hold you accountable for your behavior toward your partner, and yes, we would treat you humanely as a person. No shaming; no humiliating. If we write off 2020s alienated working-class men, we are missing an opportunity to connect with their humanity. We can simultaneously demand more of these men and empathize with their reality especially the emotional toll the economic strain theyre under has taken, especially on those unable to adequately provide for their families.

White working-class men deserve a place in the tent of the marginalized. Once inside its possible they will become part of a grassroots movement working for the disadvantaged. They can simultaneously be empathized with and challenged.

Yarrow wrote:

Helping all people in physical, socioeconomic, and psychological distress should be a defining characteristic of a humane, caring, and democratic society. However, in our bitterly divided times, these foundational goals have been politicized: Many on the right have drawn attention to mens problems, some thoughtfully but more often to bash feminism and women, while many on the left are silent because they are implausibly unaware of such issues or, more likely, that highlighting them would be deemed politically incorrect. This failure of liberals is not only morally wrong, but it also hurts their own prospects of winning broader support among men.

While many white working-class male voters still condone Trumps unethical, illegal actions, is their support for him unshakable? It is possible that as more revelations of his malfeasance come to light not to mention being reminded of how he abandoned them some may begin to desert him. And their numbers could snowball.

In Chinese there is no equivalent for the word crisis. Rather, there are two symbols, one above the other. The top symbol means danger; the bottom opportunity. In considering the plight of white working-class men, we have to recognize the danger inherent in leaving these men outside the big tent of change, and the opportunity if we invite them in.

Rob Okun (rob@voicemalemagazine.org), syndicated by PeaceVoice, is editor of Voice Male magazine and of the anthology, VOICE MALE: The Untold Story of the Profeminist Mens Movement.

Original post:
White Working-class Men May Be Just The Voting Bloc To Help Defeat Trump | Rob Okun - Bainbridge Island Review

The day after Bernie Sanderss big win in Nevada, Joe Lockhart, Bill Clintons former press secretary, expressed the fear gripping the Democratic establishment: I dont believe the country is prepared to support a Democratic socialist, and I agree with the theory that Sanders would lose in a matchup against Trump.

Lockart, like the rest of the Democratic establishment, is viewing American politics through obsolete lenses of left versus right, with Bernie on the extreme left and Trump on the far right. Moderates like Bloomberg and Buttigieg supposedly occupy the center, appealing to a broader swath of the electorate.

This may have been the correct frame for politics decades ago when America still had a growing middle class, but its obsolete today. As wealth and power have moved to the top and the middle class has shrunk, more Americans feel politically dis-empowered and economically insecure. Todays main divide isnt right versus left. Its establishment versus anti-establishment.

Some background. In the fall of 2015 I visited Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri, and North Carolina, researching the changing nature of work. I spoke with many of the same people I had met twenty years before when I was secretary of labor, as well as some of their grown children. I asked them about their jobs and their views about the economy. I was most interested in their sense of the system as a whole and how they were faring in it.

What I heard surprised me. Twenty years before, most said theyd been working hard and were frustrated they werent doing better. Now they were angry at their employers, the government, and Wall Street; angry that they hadnt been able to save for their retirement, and that their children werent doing any better than they did. Several had lost jobs, savings, or homes in the Great Recession. By the time I spoke with them, most were employed but the jobs paid no more than they had two decades before.

I heard the term rigged system so often I began asking people what they meant by it. They spoke about the bailout of Wall Street, political payoffs, insider deals, CEO pay, and crony capitalism. These came from self-identified Republicans, Democrats, and Independents; white, black, and Latino; union households and non-union. Their only common characteristic was they were middle class and below.

With the 2016 primaries looming, I asked which candidates they found most attractive. At the time, party leaders favored Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush. But the people I spoke with repeatedly mentioned Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. They said Sanders or Trump would shake things up, make the system work again, stop the corruption, or end the rigging.

In the following year, Sanders a 74-year-old Jew from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist and wasnt even a Democrat until the 2016 presidential primary came within a whisker of beating Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucus, routed her in the New Hampshire primary, garnered over 47 percent of the caucus-goers in Nevada, and ended up with 46 percent of the pledged delegates from Democratic primaries and caucuses.

Trump, a 69-year-old ego-maniacal billionaire reality TV star who had never held elective office or had anything to do with the Republican Party, and lied compulsively about almost everything won the Republican primaries and then went on to beat Clinton, one of the most experienced and well-connected politicians in modern America (granted, he didnt win the popular vote, and had some help from the Kremlin).

Something very big happened, and it wasnt because of Sanderss magnetism or Trumps likeability. It was a rebellion against the establishment. Clinton and Bush had all the advantages funders, political advisors, name recognition but neither could credibly convince voters they werent part of the system.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

Get our best delivered to your inbox.

A direct line connected four decades of stagnant wages, the financial crisis of 2008, the bailout of Wall Street, the rise of the Tea Party and the Occupy movement, and the emergence of Sanders and Trump in 2016. The people I spoke with no longer felt they had a fair chance to make it. National polls told much the same story. According to the Pew Research Center, the percentage of Americans who felt most people could get ahead through hard work dropped by 13 points between 2000 and 2015. In 2006, 59 percent of Americans thought government corruption was widespread; by 2013, 79 percent did.

Trump galvanized millions of blue-collar voters living in places that never recovered from the tidal wave of factory closings. He promised to bring back jobs, revive manufacturing, and get tough on trade and immigration. We cant continue to allow China to rape our country, and thats what theyre doing, he roared. In five, ten years from now, youre going to have a workers party. A party of people that havent had a real wage increase in eighteen years, that are angry. He blasted politicians and financiers who had betrayed Americans by taking away from the people their means of making a living and supporting their families.

Trumps pose as an anti-establishment populist was one of the biggest cons in American political history. Since elected hes given the denizens of C-suites and the Street everything theyve wanted and hasnt markedly improved the lives of his working-class supporters, even if his politically-incorrect, damn-the-torpedos politics continues to make them feel as if hes taking on the system.

The frustrations today are larger than they were four years ago. Even though corporate profits and executive pay have soared, the typical workers pay has barely risen, jobs are less secure, and health care less affordable.

The best way for Democrats to defeat Trumps fake anti-establishment populism is with the real thing, coupled with an agenda of systemic reform. This is what Bernie Sanders offers. For the same reason, he has the best chance of generating energy and enthusiasm to flip at least three senate seats to the Democratic Party (the minimum needed to recapture the Senate, using the vice president as tie-breaker).

Hell need a coalition of young voters, people of color, and the working class. He seems on his way. So far in the primaries he leads among white voters, has a massive edge among Latinos, dominates with both women and men, and has done best among both college and non-college graduates. And hes narrowing Bidens edge with older voters and African Americans.

The socialism moniker doesnt seem to have bruised him, although it hasnt been tested outside a Democratic primary or caucus. Perhaps voters wont care, just as they many dont care about Trumps chronic lies.

Worries about a McGovern-like blowout in 2020 appear far-fetched. In 1972 the American middle class was expanding, not contracting. Besides, every national and swing state poll now shows Sanders tied with or beating Trump. A Quinnipiac Poll last week shows Sanders beating Trump in Michigan and Pennsylvania. A CBS News/YouGov poll has Sanders beating Trump nationally. A Texas Lyceum poll has Sanders doing better against Trump in Texas than any Democrat, losing by just three points.

Instead of the Democratic establishment worrying that Sanders is unelectable, maybe it should worry that a so-called moderate Democrat might be nominated instead.

View original post here:
It's Not Bernie But the So-Called "Moderates" That the Democratic Establishment Should Be Freaking Out About - Common Dreams