The most PC movie review ever

Back in Oct. 2009, Todd Boyd, a professor of mine at USC and Tyler Perry’s fiercest critic, wrote: [In] spite of the demeaning stereotypes and utter disregard for black humanity, TP’s dope has some people reluctant to criticize him. Many point to TP’s money and success and in turn use this to justify their support of his nefarious enterprise. No one is crazy enough to actually try and defend the garbage that he puts out, so praising his business success allows them to shift the focus away from the amateurish flicks that he makes. Now read the New York Times’ non-judgmental review…

Chick-fil-A may not like me, but I like Chick-fil-A

Chick-fil-A is the best fast food chain in America. Period. They’re efficient, courteous and consistent. I could care less about their CEO’s politics. The Atlanta-based company has come under fire from gay rights groups for supplying food to an event sponsored by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which has worked to defeat same-sex marriage initiatives. (I guess feeding religious fundamentalists crosses some sort of progressive line in the sand.) Granted, Chick-fil-A is sympathetic to the Pennsylvania Family Institute’s cause, as is half the country. So what? Fast food chains neither shape or influence public opinion. To those who want to boycott, fine. It’s…

As offensive as the word itself

Saying they want to publish a version that won’t be banned from some schools because of its language, two scholars are editing Mark Twain‘s classic Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to eliminate uses of the “N” word and replace it with “slave,” Publishers Weekly writes. The edition, from NewSouth Books, will also shorten an offensive reference to Native Americans. Sad on so many levels. That this undisputed work of art is “relegated to optional reading lists, or banned outright” from grade school curricula proves the tyranny of political correctness. When sensitivities rise beyond reason, smarts plummet beneath comprehension — a recurring axiom in…

Are you a heterosexist?

The acronym is bigger than I thought — and even more ridiculous. The latest, all-inclusive version: Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer Questioning Asexual Ally The University of Wisconsin-LaCross Pride Center site also features a glossary of “non-heteronormative” PC inanities: Berdache: A generic term used to refer to a third gender person (woman-livingman). The term ‘berdache’ is generally rejected as inappropriate and offensive by Native Peoples because it is a term that was assigned by European settlers to differently gendered Native Peoples. Appropriate terms vary by tribe and include: ‘one-spirit’, ‘two-spirit’, and ‘wintke.’ Heterosexism: Prejudice against individuals and groups who display non-heterosexual…

is it dangerous to lampoon the president?

Of course not. It is dangerous to suggest we shouldn’t. “Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery,” says Hutchinson, “it is mean-spirited and dangerous.” “We have issued a public challenge to the person or group that put up the poster to come forth and publicly tell why they have used this offensive depiction to ridicule President Obama.” Yes, by all means, humble yourself before the Indignation Council so they can brand you with the scarlet letter of insensitivity. Every president has been spoofed. It’s a healthy part of democratic expression, whether it be George W. as Alfred…

no quarter

Let’s keep this simple for the let’s keep this simple crowd. A bunch of partisan scolds are excoriating a highbrow publication for having the temerity to appeal to wannabe highbrows: “Dumb it down, New Yorker. Maybe to uh, I don’t know, Newsweek level. Thanks. It’s for their own good.” Americans are children, you see. As for us adults, well, the children aren’t ready for bed yet, so we must keep it clean. And simple. Why do we build monuments to Lincoln and Jefferson? Why not to the uneducated and dimwitted? They are the most noble of all creatures, or so we’re led…

the hysterically indignant respond

A sampling of Huffington Post commenters reacting to The New Yorker cover: realtalk IT IS SAD THAT BARACK OBAMA WHO IS A GOOD MAN, WITH A GREAT WIFE, AND TWO GREAT DAUGHTERS HAVE TO TAKE THIS GARBAGE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!! THE NEW YORKER, AND THOSE AMERICANS WHO THINK THAT THIS MAGAZINE COVER IS APPROPRIATE ARE THE WORST OF THE WORST! THIS IS JUST DISGRACEFUL!! memphispaul New York Fascism is alive and we wilburr0g This is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen. buckygreen Whats next for the New Yorker? Maybe a rib tickling, hilarious lynching caricature. You know, satire. Way…

stand up for satire

In a depressing nod to the dimwitted and perpetually aggrieved, Barack Obama’s campaign has condemned a New Yorker cover depicting him as a flag-burning terrorist and his wife as a gun-toting revolutionary. “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.” Satire is not in the eyes of the beholder. The magazine’s intent was clear; its message, well-executed. Hell, it’s The New Yorker, not the Daily Klansman!…

let us all tolerate the screaming children in the theater

Based on the recommendation of an Iranian-born colleague, I planned on watching the controversial Dutch documentary “Fitna” today. Linking footage of terroristic acts to verses in the Koran, the film has been roundly condemned, with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon offering the most offensive critique. “We must also recognize that the real fault line is not between Muslim and Western societies, as some would have us believe, but between small minorities of extremists, on different sides, with a vested interest in stirring hostility and conflict,” Ban said. So non-violent provocateurs are equivalent to baby-killing suicide bombers? I’m sure Ban hasn’t watched “Fitna,” and,…