#stephanie's account of how she acted and how her in-laws treated her is SO different to valerie's

[archduchessofnowhere]

It was the morning of January 30th, a gloomy winter day, the sky being overcast, and snowflakes drifting across the window-panes. I had my singinglesson from the wife of Professor Niklas-Kempner, at ten in the morning as usual (...) When, shortly before, I had returned from the south, I had once again been struck by the change in the Crown Prince, and this time more strongly than ever. He was rarely sober; did not get home to the Hofburg Palace until dawn; and as for the company he kept, the less said about it the better. His restlessness and nervous irritability had become intensified, He spoke menacingly of horrible things, and, in my very presence, would cruelly toy with the revolver he always carried about with him. Indeed, I had become afraid to be alone with him. Still, summoning all my strength of mind to aid me, I went on trying to hide from others’ inquisitive gaze the complete failure of our marriage. On the particular morning of which I now write, the entrance of my chief lady-in-waiting interrupted the singing lesson, and the gloomy trains of thought which were interspersed with it. Her aspect was unusually serious and reserved when she begged me to give her a few minutes in private. She had, she said, an important communication to make to me. I went with her into the adjoining room, and looked at her while, in words hesitant and trembling, she began to talk about bad news from Mayerling. I realized instantly that the catastrophe I had so long dreaded must have taken place. “He is dead!” I cried. Sorrowfully she nodded her head in the affirmative. He was dead; he had fulfilled his dreadful threat, and had put an end to his disordered life. Such was the insufferable climax to all I had suffered, seen, and heard during the last few weeks. I trembled with excitement and terror. Then I begged my informant to tell me, in detail, what had happened; but, as yet, she knew nothing more than the bare facts of the suicide. Soon I was summoned to the Emperor [Franz Josef] and the Empress [Elisabeth]. Accompanied by my chief lady-in-waiting, I went to the private Imperial apartments. The Emperor was seated in the middle of the room, the Empress, dressed in black, her face pale and rigid, was standing beside him, In my shattered condition I believed that they looked on me asa criminal. They assailed me with a cross-fire of questions some of which I could not, and others would not, answer. At length the Empress made up her mind to tell me the whole truth. The most horrible thing had happened which could befall a wife. At Mayerling, early in the morning, the Crown Prince had been found in bed, with his brains blown out, and beside him the corpse of a woman who had also been shot— Mary Vetsera.

Count Joseph Hoyos, one of the Crown Prince’s guests at the shoot, summoned early in the morning by the groom of the chambers, who could get no answer to his knocking at the door of the Crown Prince’s bedroom, had forced an entry and had seen the two dead bodies. Hoyos had made all possible speed to Vienna, and had conveyed the terrible news to Rudolf’s chief chamberlain. It was decided to tell her Majesty the Empress before any one else; the companion and secretary, Fraulein von Ferenczy, being charged with this painful commission. The Empress went at once to the Emperor. The agony of this hour was borne by the parents alone, without any witness of their grief.

Only after that was it decided to acquaint Rudolf’s widow with what had happened. I sat between their Majesties while what I heard and suffered inflicted on me incurable wounds. At length I ventured to tell the Empress what, weeks before, I had tried to say to the Emperor. I spoke of Rudolf’s manner of life, his habits and customs, his associates, how completely his health had been disordered. The Empress, however, stubbornly closed her mind against these communications, and it was an additional distress to me to feel that she was turning away from me. In her eyes I was the guilty party. Though outwardly I remained calm, inwardly I was in a state of collapse.

Princess Stephanie of Belgium (1937). I was to be empress

[aion-rsa]

Framing Britney Spears Review: FX Doc Is a Pop Horror Story

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

The FX docuseries The New York Times Presents takes a celebrity turn on the installment “Framing Britney.” But this is no tabloid exposé, even as the gossip rags and paparazzi become inadvertently complicit. The series provides consistently dedicated longform journalism as a matter of course. Their beat is varied. It’s covered front line workers, booted a hacking network, and chased a killer.

“Framing Britney” doesn’t present a homicide case, though legal minds might argue a life has been taken away. It is a true crime documentary, but the truth hasn’t been determined, and the crime is hard to define. There is a fiduciary element, and questionable mental health is a contributory factor. It is also a missing person’s case where the exact location of the victim-at-large is known. Well known and splashed across newsfeeds at a moment’s notice if there’s even a hint of a move. That’s part of the problem.

“Framing Britney” does a very good job of breaking down the incredibly confusing legal details. Since what has been called a very public breakdown in 2008, Spears has been under her father Jamie Spears’ conservatorship. This is also known as a guardianship and it is normally limited to people with diminished capacity who might not be capable of making decisions. Spears entered the conservatorship at age 26. She acknowledged it was necessary when it began, but at 39, wants the conditions changed.

The court documents call Britney a “high-functioning conservatee” who is still raking in the bucks. James Spears’ conservatorship may have been legally dubious, but it has been profitable, bringing the star from the depths of a bottomless spending spree to a net worth of well over $60 million. The conservatorship has done so well, even James’ initial co-guardian, the aptly named Andrew Wallet, wants a raise, and The New York Times Presents wants to know why. Britney’s attorney Samuel D. Ingham III tries to explain as much as he can, but he’s only privy to so much information. The documentary makes it seem Spears’ case is too profitable to get resolved. It’s not about health, but money. Even the Los Angeles Superior Court Judge is named Brenda Penny.

The subtext of the documentary has even saturated Spears’ song titles. “Work Bitch,” “I’m a Slave 4U,” “Overprotected,” all describe the neverland Britney inhabits, and “Framing Britney” lets you know it without stating it explicitly. Baby, she’s been hit more than one too many times. And it drives her crazy. It drives her fans mad as well. They’re only angry but they’ve been labeled insane by the opposition. Britney’s father dismisses them as “conspiracy theorists.” Some members of the #FreeBritney movement say they feel so gaslighted they sometimes doubt what they know. But they know, and are very good at getting the inside scoop.

One sequence recounts an anonymous voicemail message to the fan-produced podcast “Britney’s Gram.” It is obviously big news, and the fans who produce it do the right thing. They make all the right disclaimers. They do their due diligence, vetting as much as possible, cross-checking as much information as they can get. The self-appointed Britney-fan-journalists are organized, intelligent, and so well-informed Britney herself thanks them on record highlighting the word. They go to the hearings, take minutes and share them via google doc, insiders confess to them. They are a serious media concern, and this writer hopes when they achieve this goal, they don’t give up on their network and what it can do.

The fan/journalists dig through every conservatorship document available to the public. This may be part of a New York Times series, but they are star stringers, and director Samantha Stark is absolutely justified in treating them this way, albeit with tight editorial restrictions.

This may be the most innovative aspect of the episode. New York Times journalists Jason Stallman, Sam Dolnick, and Stephanie Preiss teamed with Left/Right’s Ken Druckerman, Banks Tarver, and Mary Robertson on this project. They enthusiastically analyze and incorporate the information they get from the grassroots fan-based press which sparked The Free Britney movement. Over the past few years, cellphone-recorded incidents and social media feeds have been changing the way news is gathered, providing first-hand accounts of harassment, protests and aggravated law enforcement tactics. The New York Times Presents produces one of the best mixes of the evolving media landscape. It is a transitional program, adhering to traditional journalistic values while vetting the upstart alternative media.

“Framing Britney” watches Spears’ followers as they scrutinize the star’s Instagram posts. Since disappearing from public view, these are the only glimpses into the megastar’s life, and she appears to be packing as much into the short clips as she can. Almost every post artfully weaves a mysterious clue, but even the fans admit, anyone can read anything into all of them. Spears’ lyrics have come under similar microscopes leading to vast and dark conspiracies. Britney could be singing about watching The Sixth Sense in “Girl in the Mirror.” The lyrics to “911” could be interpreted as a plea from a monarch-programmed sex-kitten. She never even officially released her response to a famous ex-boyfriend’s teary-eyed breakup song.

The documentary includes insightful interviews, especially with Felicia Culotta, who was with Spears from the very beginning of her career. She is to Britney what Mal Evans was to the Beatles, the one who did the day to day work. She was hand-picked by Britney’s mother and James Spears’ ex-wife Lynne Spears. Culotta stood with Britney for Times Square selfies on the first trip to New York. An early talent manager talks about how dedicated Britney was to her musical and performance studies, and the documentary shows stills of the singer on different instruments. We see the rise of a female pop phenomenon in the age of the boy band.

This is where “Framing Britney” earns its title. The directors indirectly infer not only has Spears been set up for some kind of blame, the entire picture is off-center. Sure, the #FreeBritney movement has become a cause célèbre, and the documentary shows Cher, Miley Cyrus, and others hoisting flags during concerts. But when Britney shaved her head and told people to stop touching her, she was a late-night talk show joke regurgitated on daytime game shows.

The documentary highlights how, from the moment Britney took off Mouseketeer ears and got ground through the American pop-star machine, she was a target and an easy score. “Her rise was a global phenomenon,” the FX advance press promised. “Her downfall was a cruel national sport.” One segment of the documentary shows a chorus line of well-known names making sport of Spears. The series shows Justin Timberlake treating radio interviews like locker rooms, and Us Weekly heading the cheerleading squad.

The piece sheds a completely different light on Spears’ public breakdown in 2007 and 2008. While an interview with former MTV VJ Dave Holmes reveals how professional, friendly and focused she was on set, one the paparazzi squad talks about ducking the famous umbrella attack. Even in retrospect, he doesn’t get it. He still doesn’t think his actions, chasing the pop singer around in a car while she tended intricate family business, had anything to do with her beating on his car door with an umbrella in the middle of the night. He acknowledges Britney had told him to lay off, but the cameraman assumed the requests applied to specific moments, not forever. It makes it seem Britney had to advise the paparazzi on a case-by-case photo op basis. Who does that?

One of the highlights of the documentary comes at a big announcement of her second Las Vegas residency in early 2019. Britney, who did her share of comedy acting on Saturday Night Live, does a perfectly broad impression of a Mel Brooks late-night Tonight Show appearance. She walks onto the stage and keeps walking. It is art. It is a major statement from the fabricated pop star.

One of the sad truths the documentary inadvertently points out is a series of artistic “what might have been” scenarios. Known only as a singer and dancer, we’ve never gotten to know the singer as a musician, because everyone cared about the gossip. People dismiss Britney as a dance pop artist without thinking that dance pop is an art. In spite of its intentionally static rhythms, it is often more intricate musically than rock. Britney, the artist, never stopped looking to expand the sounds. She was one of the pioneers of dubstep, taking it from the London club scene to the tops of all international charts. The documentary shows a series of unrelentingly harrowing questions about dating, boys, and the dangers of her young feminine sexuality. At one point Britney has to respond on camera to the news that some mother in the Bible Belt wants to shoot her dead. “I’m nobody’s babysitter,” the singer mouths, ad-libbing like the young professional she is, before cameras linger a little too long.

Ultimately, The New York Times Presents gives us a horror documentary, as scary and unfathomable as The Blair Witch Project, only more chilling because it is not fiction. Even Stephen King veers from this kind of harrowing suspense. It’s a pop-up, and you have to wait for it. They don’t reveal it until the end credits, though we’ve known it from the beginning. As the producers are thanking their contributors, they mention they reached out to Britney Spears herself. She never responded. They don’t even know if she got the message. This is dramatic brilliance. It is subtle, effective, and as the final visual burning in the mind’s eye, provocatively expansive.

“Framing Britney” is worth watching for the details, the history it tells, and the history it captures inadvertently by virtue of its hybrid journalistic filmmaking. This is Millennial Media and it is fitting the subject is Britney Spears, the most iconic figure of that generation. The full-length documentary, without ever expressly proclaiming it, shows how the star is being saved by her peers. An entire community, linked with nothing but love for their favorite singer, comes together to do right by her. It’s their prerogative. K-Pop fans showed the power of their stans as political weapons. “Framing Britney” presents entirely new possibilities.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

The New York Times Presents “Framing Britney Spears” debuts Feb. 5 on FX and FX on Hulu.

The post Framing Britney Spears Review: FX Doc Is a Pop Horror Story appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3rjH2W4

[citizentruth-blog]

On Punching Nazis, Serving Sarah Sanders, and Matters of Civility - PEER NEWS

New Post has been published on https://citizentruth.org/on-punching-nazis-serving-sarah-sanders-and-matters-of-civility/

On Punching Nazis, Serving Sarah Sanders, and Matters of Civility

Sarah Sanders getting kicked out of The Red Hen in Lexington, Virginia has prompted conversations about whether people should be kicked out of establishments for their political beliefs and whether “civility” is warranted in these situations. While not all calls for civility have equal merit in light of their source, restraint, mediated by facts and precision of language, is still a worthy aspiration. (Photo Credit: Twitter)

You’ve probably seen T-shirts or memes devoted to instructing others to “PUNCH MORE NAZIS.” This sentiment, which invokes Richard Spencer—who doesn’t call himself a “Nazi” or a “white supremacist,” but an “identitarian,” though that basically means he’s a white nationalist and doesn’t want you to know he’s a white nationalist—getting punched in the face by a protestor on the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration, is one that many of us can probably get behind. After all, who really likes Nazis outside of actual Nazis?

As sympathetic as we may be to the idea of Spencer and his ilk getting decked, however—or, for some of us, wish we could’ve been the ones to do it—just because we can punch more Nazis, does it mean we should? Political theorist Danielle Allen, in an August 2017 column for The Washington Post, emphatically rules for the negative on this question. She writes:

White supremacy, anti-Semitism and racism are false gods, ideologies to be repudiated. They must be countered and fought. We must separate the violence that flows from those ideologies from the ideas that animate them. Different tools are at hand for fighting each.

We need to counter extremism’s violence not with punches but with the tools of law and justice. Where hate crimes and acts of domestic terrorism are perpetrated, our judicial institutions must respond. We as citizens must make sure institutions do their jobs, not plan to take the law into our own hands.

When the legitimacy of legal and judicial institutions has come into question — as has occurred because of police shootings and mass incarceration — we must strenuously advance the project of reforming those institutions to achieve their full legitimacy. But to take the law into one’s own hands is only to further undermine legal and judicial institutions. It provides no foundation for reform.

As Allen sees it, we need to be thinking more Martin Luther King, Jr.’s brand of civil disobedience and nonviolence, and less, you know, Charles Bronson’s brand of vigilantism from Death Wish. In doing so, we must address the failings of major institutions—namely the courts, the criminal justice system, and the legislative branch—enduring the process of advocacy for reform. Punching Nazis, while perhaps providing more immediate satisfaction, doesn’t put us on the same long-term path of reform.

In fact, as Allen stresses, countering violence with more violence only takes us further away from the peaceful society many of us would envision — one devoid of white supremacists and their hate. It does not make our world anymore just than it was before we started throwing haymakers, rocks, and the like. It certainly doesn’t make it any more stable.

In other words — Danielle Allen’s words — “Once political violence activates, shutting it off is exceptionally difficult.” Her closing remarks reinforce this theme, with special attention to the morality of nonviolence as well as the impracticality of its opposite:

Why should anyone believe that people who have been committed to political violence will change their minds and recommit to peaceful forms of litigating conflicts? That kind of distrust erodes the foundations of stable political institutions. The path to justice always lies through justice, including the basic moral idea that immediate self-defense is the only justification for the use of force. We need moral clarity on this point.

Along these lines, violence is not the cure or negotiating tool we might conceive it to be. As the saying goes, it just begets more violence and makes people that much more predisposed to taking sides and fighting, rather than willing to change. When people are made to think of political and social matters in terms of a war, they treat it like one—casualties and all.

The topic of punching Nazis is an extreme example, but one that facilitates a conversation about how we as Americans try to interact with and otherwise react to people with whom we disagree on matters of culture, politics, and morality. Recently, Sarah Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant named The Red Hen in Virginia because of her connection to the Trump White House.

The owner of the restaurant, Stephanie Wilkinson, was home when she got a call from the chef that night, who expressed to Wilkinson the notion that the staff was concerned about Sanders’s presence there. For Wilkinson, Sanders’s defense of Donald Trump’s policies within her role as White House Press Secretary was a deal-breaker. As she (Wilkinson) feels, it’s a matter of moral standards. Compassion. Cooperation. Honesty. These are not the kinds of things that Sanders and her briefings are not known for, and as such, Wilkinson took a stand. What’s more, Wilkinson said she would do it again if given the same opportunity.

News of Sanders’s removal from the restaurant has prompted all sorts of reactions, many of them indicative of a political divide that events such as these only seem to help widen. If The Red Hen’s spike in popularity on Yelp is any indication, the actions taken by its owner have proven very polarizing indeed, with scores of 1-star and 5-star reviews being affixed to the restaurant’s online profile in light of the controversy. While I suppose the treatment of guests should be a factor in reviews of eateries, lest we call these new additions illegitimate, to say nothing of the other elements of the customer experience really seems like a waste of an entry. I mean, what if the trout Grenobloise is truly transcendent? You can say what you want about the owner—but leave her and her restaurant their fish dish, OK?

Beyond reputation assassination via social media from anonymous sources, there are other issues raised by Sarah Sanders getting the boot from The Red Hen and subsequently calling out the restaurant on Twitter. For one, Sanders did so in her official capacity as Press Secretary, and that’s an ethical no-no. According to Walter Shaub, former ethics chief under Barack Obama and Trump, Sanders’s condemnation of a business for personal reasons using her government account can be construed as coercive and a violation of a corollary to the ban on endorsements that someone like Kellyanne Conway has blatantly disregarded in the past. As Shaub reasons, Sanders can “lob attacks on her own time but not using her official position.”

Also, people have drawn a comparison between the way Sanders was refused service for her political positions and the way some businesses have sought to refuse service to homosexuals, claiming “religious freedom.” As far as detractors on the right are concerned, this is just bigotry on the part of the left, but this is a false equivalency; since it has come up frequently enough, it’s worth addressing. Sanders chose her line of work and accepted her current position, and continues to serve as Press Secretary of her own volition. Gays and lesbians, on the other hand, don’t choose to be gay. It’s who they are. The best argument one can try to make is that Sanders, were she to proverbially fall on her sword, would put her career and her livelihood at risk. Still, that’s a stretch when considering the ostracism members of the LGBTQ community have faced over time.

The issue that appears to loom largest here, however, is the matter of whether or not owners of establishments should refuse service to patrons based on their political beliefs or their association with a disinformation machine like the Trump White House. This is where I’m a little unsure that Stephanie Wilkinson’s choice is the right one. Now, it’s one thing if Sanders and her group were actively trying to cause distress to members of the staff or other patrons, or they were trying to espouse discriminatory views. If I were a restaurant owner, I wouldn’t want, say, Ku Klux Klan members waltzing into my place and ordering cheese and crackers. There are limits to freedom of expression, to be sure.

Assuming Wilkinson has the right to ask Sanders and Co. to leave, though, whether or not she should ask them to leave is a subject worthy of debate. It’s like refusing to serve or otherwise accommodate someone wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat. In April, a New York City judge ruled a bar was legally allowed to refuse service to a man wearing a “MAGA” hat, as it wasn’t discriminating based on country of origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, or other demographic characteristic. It also didn’t help the man’s cause that he reportedly was verbally abusive to staff. In Sanders’s case, meanwhile, there is no indication that anything more than her presence was the source of unrest. Even in the court of public opinion, this seems like less of an open-and-shut case.

What especially gives me pause is that few people seem to be on Sarah Sanders’s side on this one, and I’m not sure if this is my failing in my refusal to join in, or just the left looking to stick their tongues out at a Donald Trump supporter like the White House Press Secretary in the midst of the administration’s flagging popularity, and as we plumb the depths of a crisis facing immigrant families which feels less like border security and more like ethnic cleansing.

Other Trump administration officials have met with similar treatment, with DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and senior policy advisor Stephen Miller both being met with protests as they ate at—irony fully noted—Mexican restaurants. It’s not just Cabinet members and racist advisors to the President, either. A video of New York-based attorney Aaron Schlossberg berating and threatening employees of a restaurant with deportation because they spoke Spanish went viral, and condemnation and ridicule were soon to follow. Heck, a GoFundMe page was even erected to pay for a mariachi band to play outside the man’s office. At a moment in time marked by visible tension between groups, especially whites who support the President vs. minority groups and their defenders, everyone seems to be fair game. The racist rants of yesteryear now run the risk of damaging people’s careers.

In all, there doesn’t seem to be much sympathy for Ms. Sanders—and I don’t know that there should be, quite frankly—but despite what someone like Rep. Maxine Waters would aver, maybe these officials shouldn’t be kicked out of restaurants, and definitely, I submit, they shouldn’t be harassed. That is, if one were to convey his or her opinions to them in a civil manner, it’s one thing, but it’s another to shout epithets at them while they try to eat enchiladas.

At the end of the day, we may find the positions of Nielsen and Miller reprehensible, but they’re human beings. Like you or I or the immigrants who live in fear of the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy, they still need to eat and spend time with family. While I suppose Sanders and her group could have just gone, say, to a Chili’s instead, to try to abnegate the humanity of one because of his or her own abnegation of another’s humanity is to make two wrongs without making a right. It might feel good for a spell, but as with punching Nazis, it doesn’t put us on a path to reform.

To boot, for those looking to discredit people on the political left as intolerant in their own right, the decision to ask Sanders to leave The Red Hen has the power to turn her into somewhat of a sympathetic figure, and given that she’s served as the mouthpiece of an administration which doesn’t seem to have the word “sympathy” in its vocabulary, such is a regrettable turn in these cultural conflicts because concern for her feels unearned.

It comes on the heels of criticisms levied on her by Michelle Wolf, for which members of the media were quick to come to her (Sanders’s) defense, a defense not only unearned but undeserved given that Wolf was only pointing out Sanders’s role as an enabler and liar for President Trump. Thus, when Sanders tweets to say that The Red Hen’s owner’s actions say “more about [Wilkinson]” than they say about her and that she tries to deal respectfully with those with whom she disagrees, you tend to hate that she seems even somewhat credible—compromised ethics and all.

I know my position is liable to be upsetting to some people because it screams Democratic centrism to them (Chuck Schumer, among others, has criticized the desire to harass Trump administration officials). Believe me — I don’t wish to be lumped in with moderates when the Democrats’ refusal to move further left is one of my chief frustrations as someone trying to become more engaged with politics. And I certainly don’t wish to appear as if I agree with Donald Trump, who, though he has much more important things to do — facilitate peace on the Korean peninsula, help Puerto Rico, reunite kids with their families, etc. — felt compelled to rant about The Red Hen’s decision on social media. Say what you want about POTUS, but he’s consistent, you know, in that he never misses a chance to point a finger in a petty way.

Or some might just plain disagree. Ryan Cooper, writing for The Week, defends incivility toward Trump administration officials with points such as these:

In the situations recounted above, no one beat up these officials, broke any property, or threatened them in any way.

If anyone is “uncivil,” it’s the con artists, criminals, and/or racists of the Trump administration and people of a like mind such as Rep. Steve King of Iowa.

President Trump is, like, the most uncivil of us all, and he has a platform much bigger than any dissenter on the left.

This is a natural and perhaps unavoidable reaction to a lack of immediate electoral solutions or an absence of meaningful legislative representation.

Fretting about civility on the left internalizes the belief that it is pointless to try to appeal to people on the right, especially the far right, on moral and rational terms. Moreover, it sows division within “the Resistance.”

Cooper also dismisses concerns about incivility from the left being used as political capital for Trump and other officials, and while I agree to a certain extent that one shouldn’t necessarily worry about the feelings and potential votes of others in the course of public discourse, I also think that these definitions of “civility” and “incivility” are somewhat vague and get muddled with moral judgments. Being “civil” doesn’t necessarily relate to the moral rectitude of your behavior or your speech, but merely to formal courtesy and politeness in their expression. By the same token, however, “political civility” isn’t exactly the same thing as civility as per the dictionary definition, so maybe the problem is simply with our specificity of expression and how we delineate the terms, first and foremost. The line is an apparently fine one, and who is using this terminology is as important as what words are being used.

Plus, for those decrying this fussing over civility as just a ploy to stifle free speech, while addressing how to reach people in the face of carelessness or lack of composure is critically important, and while not all calls for civility are equal considering the source—this can’t be stressed enough—this doesn’t strike me as an occasion to participate in relativistic exercises. So Trump’s henchmen and henchwomen are uncouth. Does that mean we should all up and call them “feckless c**ts” in the style of Samantha Bee? Even if I feel Bee, like Michelle Wolf, shouldn’t feel duty-bound to apologize, her use of profane language didn’t make her argument more credible. At least we should be able to agree on this point.

I get it—so many of us are angry at Donald Trump and his enablers, and heartbroken about the plight of immigrant children, and feeling powerless with the midterms months away and 2020 still seeming remote, and tired of the onslaught of bullshit day after day. It’s not easy. Then again, it never was going to be easy, and for all the hemming and hawing about civility, if this is not to be the goal, at least we can aim for precision of language and factual correctness. Even in the face of haphazard tweets and “fake news,” rationality and truth yet have value.

  Is Political Correctness Really Bringing America Down?