Category Archives: Politically Incorrect

Flag at a protest against Trump administration transgender policies in New York City in 2018.(Brendan McDermid/Reuters)We must not ignore cultural blind spots that put children at risk of abuse.

Editors Note: This article has been adapted from remarks delivered at a Heritage Foundation summit.

Ive been asked to talk about the origins of transgenderism and how it relates to children and their exploitation. But first, I would like to start with a little story.

Yesterday I was wandering around outside the Supreme Court chatting with some people who were there to support whats known as the LGBTQ+ community. I spoke with a lovely guy who identified as homosexual and then four teenage girls who identified as lesbian and queer. They asked me what I thought of the Human Rights Campaign, so I told them up front that I think its a force for tremendous harm in this country. Then, I asked them what they thought of Martin Luther Kings idea, the one about not defining people by irrelevant characteristics like their skin color, or in this case their sexual desires. They said it sounded like a very good idea.

Later, two men who were slightly less open-minded wanted to tell me about some horrible feminists called terfs who are apparently in cahoots with an even more horrible right-wing institution I probably hadnt heard of because Im Scottish. Its called the Heritage Foundation. So, if anyone knows anyone from there, just let me know, because I want to make sure I dont die by association.

The reason I mention this story, of course, is other than the Heritage Foundation being a symbol for all that is evil and far-right in American politics my experience with the LGBTQ+ community was that it wasnt really a community so much as it was a big mishmash of people who feel they belong to a certain cause for very different reasons. Yet they were all there at the end of the rainbow to claim their pot of gold, which they had been promised by the Human Rights Campaign.

Ive been asked to get to the origins of this movement, and Im going to try to do that. Of course, as you know, its just one stripe of the rainbow, and I couldnt possibly do it justice in ten minutes, but Ill do my absolute best. There are three things that I think have been changing since the mid-20th century. The first is in medicine, the second is what I like to call an ontology of desire, and the third is what I and others call the politicization of everything.

Lets start with medicine. When sex-change surgeries became surgically possible in the post-war period, it was understood to be something of a euphemism. Of course, a person couldnt literally change from one sex to the other, itd be more accurate to call it genital surgery, but people were trying to be euphemistic. These procedures were highly controversial, in part because they werent always that successful.

You mightve seen the movie The Danish Girl, and youre familiar with the Heritage Foundations Ryan Andersons book, in which he talks a lot about Paul McHugh, the psychiatrist who had to put an end to the surgeries in the 1970s at Johns Hopkins University, which he described as collaborating with madness. Thats how he called it. People who wanted to change their sex back then were called transsexuals. That was a term popularized by an endocrinologist, Harry Benjamin. Demand was fairly low; it was mostly males wanting to become females. Its complicated, but sexologists realized there were two types of male-to-female transsexuals.

There was the homosexual transsexual. Thats the person who feels inconspicuously feminine and uncomfortable as a man and is actually a deeply sympathetic figure, I think. Then theres the person with autogynophilia. Thats the person who finds the thought of themselves as a woman to be sexually exciting. Studies of interviews with such individuals, conducted by sexologists like Ray Blanchard or Anne Lawrence, suggest that its anything ranging from a man whos turned on from the check assistants calling him maam, to somebody who likes to urinate on sanitary pads and to pretend theyre menstruating, and many other things that I think many of us would find too unpleasant to dwell on so early in the morning.

In my friend Douglas Murrays new book, The Madness of Crowds, he explains that the struggle for defining things turned into this hardware versus software issue. So, intersex for instance, is very much a hardware issue. You cant exactly get concerned about somebody who has a hardware issue because thats not their fault. Of course, the reality with homosexuality is that its most likely some kind of combination of the two. People may be predisposed to certain proclivities, then theres environment and so forth, but in any case, like Martin Luther Kings point, dont define people by that.

This brings me to my second point, which was what Im calling the ontology of desire. Thats basically when in the 1990s, the definition of trans began to change. Transsexualism, specifically as a sexual fetish, as autogynephilia, had been known as a perversion. This was politically incorrect, so they changed it to paraphilia, which became politically incorrect and is now known as an identity. The broader term gender dysphoria (formerly gender identity disorder) is actually still listed in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, so its still a disorder in the DSM, but thatll likely change.

Transgenderism was widened, adopted, and celebrated in the academy, in large part thanks to people like Judith Butler, who thought that gender was a performance. This is where it gets really interesting in the contradictions. On the one hand, this is Murrays point, transgenderism is a hardware issue for trans people, but for everyone else gender is a software issue. So, if you think about it, the only people who are born women are trans women, which is rather an astonishing claim.

This is where the boys brain in a girls body stuff comes in, which turns out to be more of a metaphor. A more accurate metaphor might be that of a soul a gendered soul, the fundamental essence of a person. It goes back a very long way to the Gnostic heresies in Ancient times. The idea is that matter is less important and that its all about your spirit or your essence. The exploitation of language evolved so quickly that basically everybody calling a trans woman she initially that was meant to be a courtesy to accommodate people not to make somebody who has had a hard life have a harder life is now meant to signal our absolute uncontested belief in their femaleness, which it doesnt, because trans women are men. Not that there is anything wrong with being a man. Even if some people are uncomfortable being men. And fair enough.

The third point is the massive cultural and political tidal wave. The thing is, in the 1990s people might have been forgiven for thinking, This will never catch on. This is so outrageous. This is absurd. They would obviously be right, but the thing was the Internet and all these other things came into play. Society had just gotten used to defining whole sections of the population by their desires with regards to homosexuality, which was trying to correct genuine injustices that gay people faced in this country and still face across the world. They overcorrected and they became obsessed with identity. We moved further and further away from the sort of vision that Martin Luther King set out. We started to lose sight of all these different intricacies with regard to sexuality. Then, trans piggybacked onto gay rights, which had piggybacked onto civil rights.

A whole system of buzzwords popped up, like transphobia, transmisogyny, and conversion therapy, and all these buzz words that make people think, Gosh I dont want to be on the wrong side of history. I should say though, when I was at this thing yesterday with the LGBT crowd, when the police moved and we were walking down to the Supreme Court, it did kind of feel like it was this big angry mob chasing a bunch of women, which I have to say didnt really feel like being on the right side of history, but maybe Ill be proven wrong.

The point about civil rights is very important, which is perhaps why I dont get it as much, coming from a different country. In America, rightly, people are very sensitive about civil rights and their very embarrassing history in that area. They dont want to repeat that, and I think thats a good impulse and we should respect that impulse. But of course, its been used by people like the Human Rights Campaign for their own cynical ends.

Which brings me onto the final point: What has any of this got to do with sexualizing children?

I want to suggest two things. The first is that its created a massive cultural blind spot. Psychologists have always understood transsexualism to relate or to potentially relate to adult sexuality. We could have a debate about whether we think urinating on sanitary pads is normal behavior or not, we can have that debate, but it is about sexuality. Its been masked by an ideology, and because of the politics of it all, theres a great fear for many people. Its a legitimate fear because they might get fired, or worse, for signaling some terrible phobia.

This becomes very obvious in the subject of drag. Drag, which means dressed as girl, comes from the Elizabethan period when women were forbidden from performing publicly, so men assumed the role of women. For some drag queens I was speaking to one yesterday, James Davis, whose stage name is Elaine Lancaster it really is about performance. I come from the U.K. where we have this genre of theater called pantomime, and its funny. Its just men dressed up as women called dames. But these things are very context dependent.

Davis yesterday was agreeing with me. While he was saying that for him its about performance, he recognizes that when hes in bars and other public places, people come up to him at the end, and its all about sex for them. As an adult, who knows that and understands that, he can deal with it. He can say whether he wants to get involved or not after all, its a free country but why would we put children in that situation? Why would we invite salacious interest in children by dressing them up in drag? We shouldnt do that, and Im referring here to a whole new phenomenon called drag kids.

The argument were supposed to accept rather unthinkingly is that, Oh youre just being bigoted, and youre just prejudiced, because this about self-expression. And Im thinking well no, because yes children dress up, but again, its context dependent.

The analogy I would invite you to think about here is imagine a little girl in a bikini. Shes 13 years old, in her parents private pool. Is it a big problem that shes wearing a bikini? No, its not a big problem. Shes in her parents private pool. But if the same girl, in the same bikini, still 13 years old, is walking down a catwalk in a room full of adults, would we all feel uncomfortable? Yes, we all would feel uncomfortable. Its a completely different thing, and its the same when it comes to drag.

This is not hypothetical. I invite you to look up the case of Desmond is Amazing, who should really be called Desmond needs saving because this poor little boy is dressed up in drag, gyrating in gay clubs in Brooklyn, and few have said anything because to do so would be homophobic. Well, no, sorry. Because this drag queen and other gay people would say the same thing on this its just not on. It is not, and never should be, acceptable to sexualize children.

Our friends at the Humans Rights Campaign would prefer that none of us knew these intricacies, that people like me didnt exist to remind you of them, that people like James Davis (the drag queen) didnt exist, or those open minded people at the rally who thought that Martin Luther King had a point didnt exist. They would prefer that the only people who opposed the sexualization of children were like the horrible, frightening right-wing boogeyman the Heritage Foundation. Everyone whos too scared to talk about this will just have to get over that because theres too much at stake, Im sorry to say. And to be honest, the worst thing they can do is say that youre the boogeyman, and you just say, Boo. And then thats it, youre done.

View original post here:
The Origins of the Transgender Movement - National Review

'Maleficent: Mistress of Evil'

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil is a breath of fresh air from Walt Disneys sub-genre of live-action fairy tale adaptations. It is noticeably better than the previous Maleficent (which was allegedly stitched together via an assist from John E. Hancock) and the very best of these Disney fairy tales since the one-two-three punch of Cinderella (excellent), The Jungle Book (damn good) and Petes Dragon (spectacular). Okay, well ignore Alice Through the Looking Glass for a moment, but you get the idea. The plot is almost as threadbare as the first one, but it makes A-to-B-to-C logic and exists as an excuse for a fantastical spectacle, some dynamite action and not a little camp melodrama. At its best, its a go-for-broke adventure that that avoids the mistakes that tripped up the last handful of Disney fairy tales.

Plot synopsis: Five years after the first film, Maleficent's peaceful life as the protector of the Moors takes an unexpected turn when Prince Phillip proposes to Aurora and she accepts. Unbeknownst to all, Phillip's mother, Queen Ingrith, plans to use the wedding to divide humans and fairies forever. With Maleficent and Aurora finding themselves on opposite sides of an impending war, the two question whether they can truly be a family.

Directed by Joachim Rnning, and written by Linda Woolverton, Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster, Mistress of Evil offers specific pleasures new to the franchise and thus feels organic and narratively justified. Sure, the whole What happens after happily ever after pitch is straight out of Shrek 2, as is the first acts extended Guess Whos Coming to Dinner set-piece which sees Maleficent forced to dine with Phillips parents. But its a fun set up and allows Jolie and Pfeiffer to snipe at each other, which is half of why you bought the ticket in the first place. Alas, the dinner goes badly, with Shrek 2 morphing into Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, forcing Maleficent to flee while Queen Ingrith seems to be using the wedding to strike at the heart of an already fragile peace.

Michelle Pfeiffer in 'Maleficent: Mistress of Evil'

The film treats Ingriths duplicity as every bit as surprising as the makers of Angel Has Fallen treated the Shocker Danny Huston is a bad guy. reveal. While we dont get the full breadth of what shes up to until late in the game, the movie makes no effort to hide a painfully obvious reveal. Once Maleficent takes off, she finds herself in a fantastical world populated by creatures not unlike herself. Theres some arbitrary worldbuilding an exposition, but this is all an excuse for the movie to go full-How to Train Your Dragon 2-meets-Avatar, and I mean that as a compliment. Much of Mistress of Evil seems like a contingency plan for the theme parks in case Avatar 2 bombs. Just wave your magic wand, shout bibbidi bobbidi boo and, poof,World of Pandora becomes Maleficent-Ville.

The second act is something of a waiting game, and they even blow a pretty clear opening for Jolie and Pfeiffer to reenact the coffee shop scene from Heat. That said, the visuals are great, and its worth it for the third act. What you get is less conventional Walt Disney battle scene and more a ridiculously violent (but bloodless) mass battle scene that feels like a What if Gargoyles had bed-breaking unprotected sex with Avatar? blow out. The film is technically about how a racist human hatches a scheme to massacre a bunch of fairy tale creatures, and wow, the movie has a body count that earns that PG. I dont want to be the troll who says Maleficent: Mistress of Evils action finale is better than the climax of Avengers: Endgame, but

Ell Fanning in 'Maleficent: Mistress of Evil'

The cast does what they must amid the spectacle, although Jolie and Pfeiffer are special effects all by themselves. The production design has a clarity and coherence that was missing from the first film, as does the overall story. Oh, and as an example of how unapologetically over-the-top it goes, Mistress of Evil features Jenn Murray as a (I think) silent assassin/enforcer who is both conventionally bad-ass and gets one extended musical beat every bit as absurd as Mad Max: Fury Roads Doof Warrior. Youre damn right I mean that as a compliment. The entire movie, but especially the third act, feels like Disney got high and storyboarded the movie while binge-watching The Battle of the Five Armies, Aquaman and Avatar. Its not as good as those films action sequence, but you get the idea.

More so than any of these films since Petes Dragon, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil feels like Disney using the safety of a viable IP, or at least the protection of knowing that they will survive if this movie bombs, to just throw caution and fidelity to the wind. Theres a bare minimum of (to paraphrase Lindsey Ellis) girl boss faux feminism, attempts to correct the politically incorrect attitudes/ideologies of the original material or obsessive recreation of what came before to appease the fans. Its a self-correction that brings (false?) hope to the next batch of presumably less slavishly faithful Disney adaptations coming down the pike. Maleficent: Mistress of Evil is the Disney remake/fairy tale as kid-friendly heavy metal madness. It may not be a masterpiece of music, but it rocks and rocks hard.

See the original post:
Review: Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil Resembles The Offspring Of An Unholy Union Between Gargoyles, Aquaman And Avatar - Forbes

Views of Westminster from the bridges over the Thames have been celebrated by artists as varied as William Wordsworth, Claude Monet and The Kinks.

There's not much inspiration for any artist coming to parliament these days.

Big Ben is shrouded in scaffolding and dark drapes. The chimes and the clock are out of order.

Westminster Bridge is shut to traffic and strewn with barriers, cones and rarely used cycle lanes. The pavements are cluttered by a motley crew of con artists, illegal store holders and rickshaw drivers looking to separate the throngs of tourists from their cash.

Those who make it as far as Parliament Square have to do so on foot. That is currently the only way to reach the important buildings which surround it including parliament, Westminster Abbey, and the Supreme Court. To protect the few hundred Extinction Rebellion protesters camping out for two weeks the police have closed surrounding roads such as the Embankment, Victoria Street and Whitehall.

Thanks to recent terror attacks, the Palace of Westminster itself stands in a state of siege, protected by high fences and massive blast proof barricades.

Outside, other protesters drift about with their hats, flags, banners and amplification systems. The majority of them are either for or against Brexit but there are a number of other eccentrics who seem to have little to do with the political issues of the day. Glockenspiel Man comes along to play loudly on evenings when live cameras are around. There's the cartoonist who does his mostly scatological pictures as oil paintings. The bloke who dresses as a Roman legionary, the man wearing sandwich boards who claims to be responsible for peace in Ireland, not forgetting the defrocked Irish priest who capers to loud music bare-legged and in a kilt. Stewart Holmes the perennial demonstrator whose causes have shifted from anti-smoking to anti-nuclear to, now, get Brexit done. Such people used to be confined to Speaker's Corner at Tyburn in Hyde Park, London's old place of execution.

Now anyone who wants to conduct business in Westminster has to clamber through an obstacle course of protesters and barriers. No wonder hordes of tourists stand around blocking the pavements looking bemused.

It's difficult not to find metaphors for the current state of British politics in the crumbling buildings and multiple blockages. One thing is certain. This England, "the mother of parliaments", is abusing its baby. There is scant respect too for the politicians trying to make democracy work from the inside.

There have always been protest marches in central London but these are no longer enough for demonstrators who want to draw attention to their cause.

Politicians are partly to blame, falling over themselves to show they are "listening" to protesters and turning a blind eye to the increasingly aggressive tactics they are using. It's no surprise that Extinction Rebellion is both urging parliament to act and proposing to replace it with "peoples assemblies".

Anxious not to be politically incorrect, the police mainly facilitate protests rather than clear obstructions.

Protests used to be banned in Parliament Square back in the 1980s and I witnessed mounted police blocking a student march coming down the Embankment. But by 1998 the New Labour government encouraged those seeking the extradition of the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet to set up camp opposite parliament.

I am expressing no view on the merits of any of these protests, but I do wish to draw attention to their growing disrespect for other people and their lack of interest in democratic argument. Adam Boulton

A rival pro-Pinochet camp soon turned up, then others with different axes to grind joined in. The Stop the War protester Brian Haw lived in Parliament Square for several years, sometimes accompanied by a small village of tents. The Countryside Alliance installed a pig in a pig sty there and flash mobs, often with political grievances from the Indian subcontinent, frequently crowd the square and Whitehall.

I am expressing no view on the merits of any of these protests, but I do wish to draw attention to their growing disrespect for other people and their lack of interest in democratic argument. Extinction Rebellion are just the latest manifestation of this escalating intolerance.

:: Listen to the All Out Politics podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker

Perhaps bolstered by their own anxieties about global warming and guilt at their own consumption, the public have largely smiled benignly at these latest protests. The police have obliged by blocking any roads they have targeted. It looks suspiciously as if they have done a deal to ensure the Queen's Carriage gets uninterrupted passage to parliament for the state opening on Monday.

But if these demonstrators can shut down central London for a fortnight why shouldn't another group such as the English Defence League do the same?

There is no doubt that there is a problem with congestion around parliament. But there is a good reason to have a centre where the pillars of state - parliament, executive, civil service and established church can come together and have direct access to each other. Ensuring this happens should be the priority.

Some populists say parliament should move out of London - but this surely is to relegate it. Government should be at the heart of the nation in the capital, most accessible to all.

Since London has a history of more than a thousand years, the street layout is old. Major transport arteries converge on the city. This week buses and other road transport have not been able to operate on their usual routes. Governments and mayors have considered turning Parliament Square into a pedestrian zone, but no one can find where to put an alternative north-south route away from the Thames which flows in that direction at Westminster because of a bend in the river.

Plans are under way to repair and modernise parliament to make it a building fit for this century. Already some MPs are trying to curry favour by complaining about the cost of the renovation and the "full decant" to a temporary chamber nearby while it is under way. They should have more confidence in the importance of their work.

The last time parliament was this run down and obstructed was in 1834. The building caught fire. Ordinary members of the public are said to have watched and jeered as it burnt down.

In all our interests it is high time we restored dignity and freedom of access to our parliament and the areas around it.

Previously on Sky Views: Ian King - We could do with more US-style philanthropy

Read more:
Sky Views: Protesters have gone far enough. It's time to restore dignity to parliament - Sky News

Sept. 11, 2001, is one of those days etched in the memories of those of us who were alive at the time.

Ive never shared my memories of that day publicly before this year. Ive never felt it was that important since I wasnt directly affected.

However, because the story involves my dad, I felt like I should at least put it down since I no longer have him either.

It was a Tuesday morning, and I was chilling out in my dorm room at Ole Miss. I had classes later in the day. My dad called me and asked if I was watching the TV or knew what was going on.

He said something to the effect of some idiot has flown a plane into the World Trade Center.

I asked him what kind of plane and how somebody could have been so inept they hit a huge skyscraper.

See, at that time, it wasnt known it was an airliner or a deliberate terrorist attack.

My dad was a private pilot, and I had grown up around aviation. He had grown up during WWII and remembered a B-25 Mitchell crashing into the Empire State Building one foggy night.

We had also read stories on the occasional light aircraft hitting skyscrapers because the pilot got too close.

As we were talking about possible ways it could have happened, the second plane hit. That this was no accident was immediately obvious.

I stayed glued to the TV and didnt go to any classes that day. I think they were cancelled, but I dont honestly remember.

I watched on live TV as people jumped to their deaths from the tops of the towers instead of being burned alive. I watched it live when the first tower fell and then the other.

On Sept. 11, 2001, I had been talking with my dad and witnessed an event that for me would be just as memorable as Pearl Harbor was for him.

I remember feelings between sadness and anger for quite some time.

I was studying to be a mechanical engineer at the time. When classes resumed, I remember my thermodynamics professor trying to speculate and explain to our class how the planes might have caused the buildings to collapse.

I remember how united we all were on Sept. 12, 2001.

A lot has happened in the intervening years. Even with protracted conflicts overseas, I am still stunned we have sitting members of Congress who refer to what happened on September 11th as some people did something, or that the New York Times runs a picture of the Twin Towers, stating airplanes took aim instead of the now politically incorrect truth that this was done by radical Islamic terrorists.

I suppose they now blame the jets for hitting the towers, not the evil at the controls, much like guns are now blamed for the actions of those wielding them.

I wish we could return to the unity of Sept. 12, but I would never want to see another 9/11 to make us get to that point.

Hopefully someday the rancor and divisiveness will subside. The lust for power that drives political parties now is ripping the nation apart.

I pray that cooler heads will prevail, and the nation will once again come together.

Greg King is the Franklin County District 4, Seat A commissioner and a Decherd police sergeant.

View post:
Let's get back to the unity of Sept. 12 - Winchester Herald Chronicle

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is fighting to hold on to power with the help of President Trump AP-PHOTO

JERUSALEM (AP) Israelis vote Tuesday in an unprecedented repeat election that will decide whether longtime Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stays in power despite a looming indictment on corruption charges.

Netanyahu, the longest serving leader in Israeli history, is seeking a fourth consecutive term in office, and fifth overall. But he faces a stiff challenge from retired military chief Benny Gantz, whose centrist Blue and White party is running even with Netanyahus Likud. Both parties could struggle to form a majority coalition with smaller allies, though, forcing them into a potential unity government.

Netanyahu has tried to portray himself as a seasoned statesman who is uniquely qualified to lead the country through challenging times. Gantz has tried to paint Netanyahu as divisive and scandal-plagued, offering himself as a calming influence and an honest alternative.

Tuesdays vote marks their second showdown of the year after drawing even in the previous election in April.

Netanyahu appeared poised to remain in office at the time, with his traditional allies of nationalist and ultra-religious Jewish parties controlling a parliamentary majority.

But Avigdor Lieberman, his mercurial ally-turned-rival, refused to join the new coalition, citing excessive influence it granted the ultra-Orthodox Jewish parties. Without a parliamentary majority, Netanyahu dissolved parliament and called a new election.

News Talk Florida columnists Jim Williams and Alan J. Steinberg breakdown what to expect in the election on The Politically Incorrect Podcast Powered by Warby Parker.

Opinion polls have forecast similar results this time around, potentially putting Lieberman once again in the role of kingmaker.

After voting Tuesday, Lieberman reiterated his promise to force a unity government between Likud and Blue and White. He vowed there wont be a third round of elections and said the parties will have to deal with the constellation that emerges from this vote.

The performance by the Soviet-born politicians Yisrael Beitenu party is just one of the factors that could determine Netanyahus future. Several small parties are fighting to squeak past the minimum 3.25% threshold for entering parliament. The performances of these parties could make or break Netanyahus ability to form a coalition.

The longtime Israeli leader is desperate to secure a narrow 61-seat majority in parliament with his hard-line religious and nationalist allies who are expected to approve legislation that would grant Netanyahu immunity from prosecution.

Israels attorney general has recommended pressing criminal charges against Netanyahu in three separate corruption cases, pending a long delayed pre-trial hearing scheduled next month.

With his career on the line, Netanyahu has campaigned furiously and taken a late hard turn to the right in hopes of rallying his nationalist base.

Hes staged a flurry of media appearances to beseech supporters to vote in large numbers to stave off the prospect of a left-wing government he says will endanger the countrys security. He also has accused his opponents of conspiring with Arab politicians to steal the election, a message that has drawn accusations of racism and incitement.

Heavier turnout by Arab voters, many of whom stayed home in April, could hurt Netanyahu. After casting his ballot, the leader of the main Arab faction in parliament, Ayman Odeh, said Netanyahu was obsessive in his incitement toward Arabs. He said the answer was for that his constituents must be first-class voters on the way to becoming first-class citizens.

Voter turnout has emerged as a key element of this election day, which is a national holiday aimed at encouraging participation. In Aprils election, turnout was about 69%, slightly below the 72% figure in the previous election in 2015.

As of 10 a.m., Israels central election committee said some 15% of Israelis had already cast their ballots. It marked more than a 2% increase over the figure at the same time in April.

Aron Shaviv, who managed Netanyahus 2015 re-election campaign, said Netanyahu believed theres no such thing as bad coverage. But he thought his former boss may be making a mistake by appealing so heavily to hard-liners and giving up on moderate voters.

Hes turned people off, playing the right-left polarization as far as he possibly can, he said.

A centerpiece of his eleventh-hour agenda has been the pledge to extend Israeli sovereignty over parts of the West Bank and to annex all the Jewish settlements there, something Netanyahu has refrained from doing during his decade-plus in power because of the far-reaching diplomatic repercussions.

His proposal sparked a cascade of international condemnation, including from Europe and Saudi Arabia, an influential Arab country that has quiet, unofficial ties with Israel. The U.S., however, had a muted reaction, suggesting Netanyahu coordinated his plan with the Americans ahead of time.

Netanyahu has also been flaunting his close ties to President Donald Trump, and the prospect of a defense pact between their countries shortly after the election, as part of his frantic push get out the vote and dictate the elections agenda on his terms.

Trump chimed in his prediction, telling reporters at the White House on Monday that it will be a very interesting outcome. Its gonna be close.

After casting his ballot in Jerusalem, Netanyahu said he could confirm the vote would be very close.

Voting in his hometown of Rosh Haayin in central Israel, Gantz urged all Israelis to hope. We will bring hope, we will be bring change, without corruption, without extremism, he said.

In his attacks on Arabs, Netanyahu has made unfounded claims of fraud in Arab voting areas and unsuccessfully pushed for legislation to place cameras in polling stations on election day.

He also claimed to have located a previously unknown Iranian nuclear weapons facility and said another war against Gaza militants is probably inevitable. In some of his TV interviews, the typically reserved Netanyahu has raised his voice and gestured wildly as he warned of his imminent demise.

Yohanan Plesner, president of the non-partisan Israel Democracy Institute think tank and a former lawmaker, said he didnt think it reflected genuine panic.

I think youre observing Israels most seasoned and competent politician who knows exactly how to fire up his base and is now using all his tools at his disposal in order to ensure victory, he said.

Polling stations opened at 7 a.m. Tuesday with exit polls expected at the end of the voting day at 10 p.m. Official results are projected to come in overnight.

Thats when the real jockeying may get under way, with attention shifting to President Reuven Rivlin who is responsible for choosing a candidate for prime minister. He is supposed to select the leader who he believes has the best chance of putting together a stable coalition. The honor usually goes to the head of the largest party, but not necessarily. Just as important is the number of lawmakers outside his own party who recommend him to the president.

Rivlins selection will then have up to six weeks to form a coalition. If he fails, the president can appoint an alternative candidate and give him up to four weeks for the task.

In an overnight video, Rivlin said he will do everything in his power to get an elected government in Israel as soon as possible and to avoid another election campaign.

Link:
Israelis vote in repeat election centered on PM Netanyahu. Alan Steinberg wants to know what Trump and Bibi are up to? - News Talk Florida

But Bidens gaffes, as The New Yorkers Eric Lach wrote earlier this spring, often center around the question of race. During the 2008 primary, he famously referred to his future boss as being clean and articulate. His 2020 campaign has been marked by a series of unforced errors when discussing racial issues, including an instance earlier this year when he said poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.

Many of Bidens slips point to a blindspot on race that has rightfully drawn significant attention over the last year. But his incoherence is not limited to speech that the political media labels as gaffes, but instead extends to much of what he says on basic questions about policy. The section in last Thursdays debate covering health care ended with a smirking Biden defending, in patriotic terms, a system that kills tens of thousands a year. His economic platform is that no one should be punisheda not-so-subtle message to billionaires that he isnt interested in wealth redistribution. The best case he can make on health care and the economy, the two biggest issues in the primary, is that he will improve systems that already exist, which barely qualifies as a platform. Bidens incoherence comes not from some charming Washington-esque inability to tell a lie, but from a lack of real ideas about how the government should work.

In his piece about how Biden can find a platform that extends beyond reminding people that he once worked for Obama, Klein pointed to Bidens political style as the thing that makes the former vice president different. Bidens approach to politicswhether its foreign leaders, congressional negotiations, or the Iowa State Fairis relational, Klein writes. Biden was often deployed to do the in-person work Obama dismissed. In a piece arguing that the Democratic primary has been a debacle, New Yorks Jonathan Chait made a similar point. It seems just as likely that many of Bidens supporters have a positive appreciation for compromise and pluralism, Chait wrote, designing policies that appeal to wide social and economic swaths of the country, rather than those that draw sharp cleavages between winners and losers.

The idea here is that Bidens appeal is as a dealmaker. This is something that Biden has run on himself, both in 1988, when he dropped out after being accused of plagiarism, and in 2008, when he quit the race after finishing fifth in Iowa. In the latter campaign, Bidens signature idea was to essentially make a new Sykes-Picot agreement, dividing Iraq into three semi-autonomous territories. (It was, and continues to be, a bad idea.) In fact, Bidens entire 2008 campaign was premised on a series of similar pragmatic-seeming compromises, on issues like Social Security (he promoted a plan that would involve bipartisan negotiations on a number of issues, including the retirement age and trumpeted his past work with Republican senators, including Bob Dole) and health care.

There is nothing wrong with making the case that being a back-slapping dealmaker is what America needs to cut through the Gordian knot at the center of our politics. (Theres also not much right about it.) But its not an idea and it certainly doesnt rise to the level of policy. This was, importantly, the basis of Bidens last, not-at-all successful campaign, when he ran as the candidate for those who wanted compromise and ended up getting crushed. But this approachof premising deal-making over ideascontinues to define Bidens approach to politics.

It also continues to undercut this presidential campaign. One reason why Biden was so incoherent in Thursdays debate is that he doesnt have an ideological foundation to rely on when pressed. His instinct is to cut deals, not to find the best policy or solution. But that also means that Biden has little of substance to offer on most big policy questions. And, while it may very well be true that what voters are looking for is someone willing to compromise, Biden has run on that idea before, with disastrous results.

Its not exactly surprising that Biden, as true a creature of the Senate as there ever was, would think about politics this way. And there is an argument to be made that it does have its place in the White House, given the foreign policy-heavy responsibilities of the executive branch. But that means that Bidens struggles to make sense do not stem from his inability to get out from under Barack Obamas shadow or from his age. Theyre grounded in a shallow approach to policy thats more rooted in backroom deals than in real world consequences.

Read more from the original source:
The Pragmatic Roots of Bidens Incoherence - The New Republic

In July 2001, Sarah Silverman appeared on NBC's Late Night with Conan O'Brien and used the racial slur "c---k" multiple times in a joke during the interview. Her remarks came under fire by the Japanese-American civil-rights activist Guy Aoki, who criticized her for casually using the epithet. The two publicly feuded on episodes of Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher and, in her 2005 stand-up special Jesus Is Magic, she said, There are only two Asian people I have a problem with. One is, uh, Guy Aoki. The other is my friend Steve, who actually went pee-pee in my Coke. Hes all, Me Chinese, me play joke!"

This is just one example of this type of remark from Silverman's often controversial career in which she's been publicly criticized for racism, including a 2007 sketch where she wore blackface as well as a 2010 tweet captioned "I'm having minstrel cramps" with a photo of her donning the same makeup.

With these incidents in mind, the comments she made Monday to the Los Angeles Times about the 2019 climate surrounding comedy didn't come as a huge shock. She told the publication, "I also think its interesting whats happened on the left. Its almost like theres a mutated McCarthy era, where any comic better watch anything they say." She brings up criticism of Dave Chappelle's latest special as an example of this mutated McCarthy era. (During the actual McCarthy era, hundreds were imprisoned and thousands lost their jobs as a result of investigations carried out by the House Un-American Activities Committee. Chappelle is a highly successful comedian with lucrative Netflix specials and sold-out tours, who is receiving the John F. Kennedy Center's Mark Twain Prize for American Humor in October.)

Silverman continues, "Ive said it before, theres this kind of 'righteousness porn' going on with canceling people over their past, a thing they said or a moment they had, with no earnest hope that they may be changed." (Silverman, who has been at the center of this kind of criticism multiple times throughout her career, has just received an Emmy nomination in the variety sketch category for her recent Hulu series I Love You, America.)

In a 2017 interview with Fast Company, Silverman looked back at her early career and stand-up specials. She said, "Its so from another time, and its interesting to have done comedy through such totally different times." She then goes on to add, "Theres so much in my first special that makes me cringe, but Im not ashamed of it. You have to be accountable. And if you dont look back at your old shit and cringe, youre not growing."

See the original post here:
Sarah Silverman, Who Did Blackface, Doesnt Think You Should Cancel People - VICE

Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks during an election campaign stop in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Sept. 19, 2019. SHANNON VANRAES / REUTERS

I was not surprised to read the letters dismissing Trudeaus blackface costumes. Trudeau has repeatedly shown that he is above right and wrong.

From harassing the attorney general to ignoring the law to protect SNC, to wearing blackface, Trudeau sees no bounds. He also dismissed his B.C. accusers memory. Only when he got caught, does he say his actions were racist.

Yet, his left-wing fans are in full support. This reminds me of Trumps fans. Same dismissal of bad behaviour, behaviour which makes them unfit to lead a country. But their fans dont care. Thats what makes them fans.

We need less fans and more thinking citizens. Otherwise we will continue to get these bad actors. We also need our local Liberal MPs to step up to condemn this behaviour. But, of course, that wont happen.

John Engleder, Sherwood Park

Sometimes we make major stories out of minor items. If you dress as an (old-time) British judge should you not wear a wig of bad macrame, or if you dress as Abe Lincoln should you not wear a beard and a tall hat? Are such things considered offensive to people with beards or hairpieces?

If you dress as Spock, should you not wear pointed ears? If you dress as Belafonte can you not wear brown makeup? Some things are just silly.

For Justin Trudeau, let the past go to the past and let the future speak for itself. Personally, I object to belittling other people and cultures, but overall I ask for common sense, whether it exists or not.

Peter Willott, Seba Beach

What a tragedy if Trudeau is given a pass on his blatant racist act. His apology, in terms of sincerity, is so superficial it ranks with the makeup he used in his racist act.

But in addition to being racially insensitive, this is one more piece in the growing list of indiscretions confirming that Trudeau has no morality. He is all about self-satisfaction and ego and will say or do anything, including repeatedly lying, to achieve what he perceives are in his best interests.

Wayne Smith, Edmonton

What a ridiculous kerfuffle; so a chap went to a fancy-dress party in full dress-up clothes and put on makeup to play the part, and Scheer has hysterics.

Makeup or behaviour used to caricature another person or culture is bad manners, rude and demeaning to the perpetrator, however using makeup to play a part in a theatrical event that is uplifting and fun is part of human culture worldwide.

Unfortunately, in the U.S., the racially intolerant have used parodies and caricaturing specifically against African American citizens to demean them. The attitude to this behaviour now seems to have spread across the continent to the extent that anyone using makeup to play a different role comes under suspicion.

Lets forget all these past events that are now considered politically incorrect but in those days were considered normal behaviour, and fun, and in no sense intended to be demeaning or hurtful.

We have more important countrywide issues to discuss and bringing up these very old items in the middle of an election is pure unadulterated crass opportunism and frankly demeans and discredits these mudslingers.

Adrian Jones, Edmonton

Seems the current leader of this country likes to play dress-up, much like little children do. That of itself is a terrific exercise to help the learning process and fire the imagination of our young ones.

Of course, most kids dont carry this into their adulthood, whether being a school teacher or representing their country in India.

Obviously some never learn about the consequences of insensitive actions or outgrow their childhood games. Shame.

Rick Nenn, Edmonton

I cannot imagine by what process of reasoning, it is necessary to become desperate photo-finders when political offerings are not doing it for you. I wonder how any of the other alleged leaders would have dressed at an Arabian Nights party 10 years ago.

Edna Lerl, Edmonton

We invite you to write letters to the editor. A maximum of 150 words is preferred. Letters must carry a first and last name, or two initials and a last name, and include an address and daytime telephone number. All letters are subject to editing. We dont publish letters addressed to others or sent to other publications. Email:letters@edmontonjournal.com

Read more:
Saturday's letters: Trudeau's fans dismiss his behaviour again - Edmonton Journal

Racial epithets have a space in the classroom

Mahad Olad

Paul Zwier is a law professor at Emory University. Last September, he got in trouble for uttering the word nigger while discussing the facts of a civil rights case. One of his students complained to the administration about feeling shocked and hurt by Zwiers usage of the N-word. After a year-long investigation, Emory will decide Oct. 4 whether or not to terminate Zwierfor racial insensitivity.

Do racial epithets have any place in the classroom? They certainly should. Classes are spaces where no controversial topic is off the table. When non-black professors refer to the N-word with a euphemism, a significant aspect of the words meaning is lost. I would feel a bit patronized if a professor thought I was emotionally incapable of hearing them merely quote iconic writers like James Baldwin who employ this slur in their writings.

How are students supposed to examine the historical facts and layered meanings of this loaded word if it cant be seen, heard or said? Moreover, theres a clear distinction between wielding this slur as a vehicle for racism and referencing it to discuss reading materials that deal with the systemic oppression of African-Americans.

In order for learning to occur, these distinctions need to be acknowledged and appreciated. Id go as far as to argue that professors, regardless of their race, should pronounce the full epithet. That way, students particularly black students can thoroughly absorb the rhetorical power and visceral force this repugnant slur commands. Nonetheless, Id urge instructors to not use nigger outside of academic contexts. That would seem a bit gratuitous and could empower others to negligently throw around this term. Ultimately, professors should teach the N-word in a respectful manner that furthers honest even painful conversations about its cruel history.

When I first heard a white professor say the N-word to discuss the word itself, I felt nauseous. My strategy for dealing with this nausea was to ask myself: What am I gaining from possibly destroying this professors life other than a brief catharsis for my racial trauma? Perhaps, is there more to learn from evoking this trauma than asking to be coddled from it?

I have a hard time wrapping my head around students feeling the need to always flock to the administration when they hear professors say something politically incorrect. Do they not realize that taking the bureaucratic route to address the concerns of marginalized students often ends up transferring more power to the administration? Are students, particularly those who are marginalized and underrepresented, okay with this transfer of power?

If this is what needs to happen so students of color can enjoy their lives on campus, then so be it. But then who is to stop the administration from weaponizing our grievances against us? Just like any other power structure, higher education can validate the experiences of underrepresented students and also suppress them especially if our concerns stand in the way of its economic mission.

Also, diversity bureaucrats cannot conceivably scrub the campus clean of racism and bigotry. Does this mean that colleges shouldnt respond to social justice demands? Of course not. However, this social justice work does not mean that administrators cave into every progressive tantrum particularly when those tantrums call for policing historically ubiquitous words.

Controversies surrounding professors using the N-word cant be reduced to free speech and academic freedom. Whats also at stake here is how black students navigate racial trauma within academic environments. Speaking for myself, I find exposure to triggering materials whether that be hearing the N-word or witnessing lynching photographs more effective in helping me cope with my emotional vulnerabilities and learn about racism in the United States. The enormous violence of racist words and images can only be conveyed through exposure, not censorship.

N-word has no place in academic settings

John Turner

Necro. Niger. Negro. Nigga. Black. The word nigger has never had a positive connotation. Although the spelling of the word has evolved, the feeling of the whip is still the same.

It is believed that the N-word is derived from the Latin word niger, meaning black. Niger became the noun negro in English, Spanish and Portuguese. In the last two, it means the color black. In English, it means black person.

If you look at early modern French, niger became negre and, later, negress: a word to describe a black woman. Some believe that nigger is a phonetic spelling of the Southern white mispronunciation of Negro or that it comes from the Greek prefix necro, meaning corpse or death.

No matter its origins, the N-word is never appropriate for a white person to say. It is not appropriate while in the privacy of your home, while teaching students in a classroom, while reading a novel or while singing along to a rap song. It is especially not appropriate for a professor to recount a personal experience and recite the words nigger-lover, even if he was the one called the epithet.

Recently, Emory College professor Paul Zwier did just this. Zwier, a white professor, was criticized for using the N-word in an educational context. In the wake of the controversy, he used the N-word more than once to describe his own experiences, such as being the subject of racial epithets from white racists. Despite his intention, he is still in the wrong.

Zwier allegedly used the racial slur as an example again when a student of color visited his office hours to discuss his use of the word in the classroom. He allegedly did this despite being warned.

One of the main reasons that racism and racist slurs exist to this day is the refusal of people to change once their racist behavior is brought to their attention.

This situation is the definition of white privilege. White individuals have the luxury of choosing what language is appropriate and what is not. Black individuals do not have this luxury. Historically, our voices have been continuously disregarded.

White privilege is not being affected by racial slurs in the same way people of color are. That is why the word cracker will never have the same implications as the N-word. White privilege is claiming ignorance of the N-words inappropriate nature because when I, as a black individual, am subjected to this word, I am not only subjected to the history of the word but also its racial implications that are still prevalent today. Black people cannot afford to be ignorant. As numerous news stories on police brutality have shown, ignorance at the hands of racist individuals can cost black people their lives.

With the implications of slavery still lasting today, black bodies being used for profit and black men and women getting murdered by those sworn to protect them, the use of the N-word will never be appropriate when said by a white person even if they are a professor in an academic setting.

As a child, I used to believe that it was acceptable for my teachers to say the word when reading a novel that had the word in it. But as I began to educate myself, I began to recognize the history of the word and that some of my ancestors would rather face death than be subjected to the captivity that would degrade them to being merely a nigger. I realized that the word should never be spoken by those whose ancestors were the perpetrators of this violence.

The usage of the N-word is especially problematic in the classroom because of the normalization of the word. Sometimes professors will not even ask students if they feel comfortable with the use of the word in an academic setting. For some, there is immense trauma attached to even hearing the word, and rightfully so. If the word is not appropriate in a casual setting, then it is especially not appropriate in an academic setting.

In response to my opinion of the word, I often hear, If the N-word is such a bad word, why do black people say it to each other?

If anyone has the right to assume the word, it is black people. Black people have been subjected to years of disenfranchisement and dehumanization, so they have the right to reclaim the language that was meant to defeat and degrade them. Do not mistake this reclamation as an invitation to use the word. If you are not black, the word is not for you. It never will be.

Think about the trauma that these words carry. Post-traumatic slave syndrome is very much real. Trauma within black communities has been passed on from generation to generation; so when I hear the N-word, I think of my father, his fathers father, his fathers wife and his fathers enslavement. I ask myself, How would they feel to know that their pain, their accomplishments, their love, their humanity, their fear and their trauma has been minimized by a word thats origins mean death?

When you have been described as three-fourths of a human, then you can say the N-word. But until then, it should never come out of your mouth.

See the rest here:
Point/Counterpoint: The N-word in educational settings - The Ithacan

Jewher Ilham, the daughter of jailed Uyghur academic Ilham Tohti, is a graduate from Indiana University who has spoken out in support of his peaceful promotion of equal rights and greater autonomy for the Turkic speaking Uyghur ethnic group in northwest Chinas Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). Tohti, currently serving a life jail term for "separatism," won the prestigious Martin Ennals Award 2016 for human rights, the Liberal International Prize for Freedom in 2017, and Freedom Houses Freedom Award in 2019. The jailed professor is also a nominee for the 2019 Sakharov Prize and the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize.

Ilham spoke to RFA about her fathers case and Beijings policies in the XUAR, where authorities are believed to have held more than 1.5 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities accused of harboring strong religious views and politically incorrect in a vast network of internment camps since April 2017. Ilham referred to the facilities as concentration campsa term also used by U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense Randall G. Schriver and the Uyghur exile community.

RFA: How do you envision a path to your fathers release from prison?

Ilham: Unfortunately, I dont think its happening soon, based on the Chinese governments recent actions, such as the concentration camps and other Uyghur scholars like [jailed former head of Xinjiang University] Tashpolat Teyip. I havent seen good signs, especially since I havent heard anything about my father since 2017his condition, or if he has been transferred to another prison. We dont know anything about it. But Im always keeping hope and its very important to be positive. If you lose hope, then you lose everything.

RFA: After speaking with President Trump and other officials about your father and the situation in the XUAR, do you feel confident that the U.S. government will take meaningful action on the issues?

Ilham: Actually, I have to say that the U.S. is one of the countries that has taken the most action throughout the world. Unfortunately, I havent seen Muslim countries taking any action, so I really appreciate the U.S. for being willing to do so. We cant really say that any action is meaningful or productiveall of this depends on the Chinese government and how they react. Any action is meaningful, any action is considered useful and productive, to me at least.

No one wants to be treated like that

RFA: What would greater autonomy for the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Look like according to what your father has argued for, and how would that solve tensions between Beijing and the Uyghur people?

Ilham: I think thats a question that my father should be answering. Im not him, so I cant speak for him. I would say that his suggestions and what he was trying to do was create better understanding between [people]. Someone once told me, when you dont understand each other, you will always think of the other person as evil. My father wanted to prevent this from happening.

Now what the Chinese government is doing to the Uyghur people is actually making people look more evil to each other. And no one wants to be treated like that[put] in a concentration camp. Im pretty sure no one in the Chinese government would want their family members to be thrown into a camp, even in an education camp, as they call it. They wouldnt want anyone to be in a labor camp. They wouldnt want any of their family members to not be able to go home, not be able to contact their relatives, and not even know if their relatives are alive or not. No one would want that, and if you dont want something to happen to you and your family, why would you do it to others?

For the past many years there have been enough TV shows, movies, even classes at school to educate Uyghurs about Han Chinese culture, but what about the opposite side? There hasnt been anything done for the Uyghurs. And now they are forcing the Uyghurs to adopt the Chinese culture, and this is not fair.

RFA: The plight of the Uyghurs has gotten unprecedented attention in the past two years, with exposures of the internment camp system. Has that meant anything for your father's case?

Ilham: This exactly proves what my father was saying that the Chinese government was doing wrong. Now they are doing the exact opposite of what my father suggested and look at what is happening. China has lost reputation based on their treatment of human rights and I dont see any benefits or good outcomes from its actions.

Original post:
Interview: They Are Doing The Exact Opposite of What my Father Suggested - Radio Free Asia