Mediaboss Marketing

From left: Sean Gunn as Kraglin, Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel), Chris Pratt as Star-Lord, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper), Dave Bautista as Drax, and Pom Klementieff as Mantis in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. Courtesy of Marvel Studios

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, The latest installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, features a ragtag band of misfits and outcasts fighting a megalomaniac eugenics-spouting despot. It celebrates found family and finding your true self, no matter how improbable that self is, or how different it is from what your parents and the world expect. Its Florida Governor Ron DeSantis worst nightmare, right?

Well, not exactly. DeSantis has been engaged in a high profile war with Disneythe biggest employer in central Florida (and parent company to Marvel) since the company issued a mild objection to DeSantis sweeping Dont Say Gay ban. That ban places tight restrictions on discussing LGBT issues, or effectively LGBT people, in schools. Disney this month sued DeSantis on first amendment grounds.

In that context, its tempting to read Guardians of the Galaxy as a show of support for queer people: director James Gunn giving the governor a patented superhero biff in the snoot.

The truth is less defiant, though. Guardians of the Galaxy carefully avoids explicit queer themes even as it nods in their general direction. It also continues the MCUs tradition of villainous progressivesutopian dreamers who want to change the world for the better, and end up just slaughtering people.

The film doesnt show that Disney is determined to advance progressive goals. It shows mostly that Disney would rather avoid controversy and wants to sell tickets to everyoneeven Ron.

Volume 3 focuses on the backstory of Rocket Raccoon, an anthropomorphic genius inventor with a blaster voiced by Bradley Cooper. Rocket, we learn, was created through genetic manipulation by the High Evolutionary (Chukwudi Iwuji), who is on a quest to create a perfect society.Miriam Shor as Recorder Vim, Chukwudi Iwuji as The High Evolutionary, and Nico Santos as Recorder Theel (from left) in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. Jessica Miglio

Rocket escaped from the High Evolutionary sometime before the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie, and now the High Evolutionary wants him back to study his brain. But of course the Guardians of the Galaxy arent going to allow any evil dude to take their buddy Rocket! Cue lots of inspirational nostalgic rock music, explosions, fight choreography, and quips.

Rockets a very appealing neotenous protagonist, and the flashback sequences that show him gaining sentience and bonding with a genetically-enhanced otter, rabbit, and walrus are the emotional core of the film.

In one sequence, the surgically altered foursome realize that they dont have names of their ownthe High Evolutionary gives them numbersand they decide to rechristen themselves. The parallel with trans experience is hard to miss and seems like it has to be intentional. Rockets father and creator insults him, bullies him, loathes him, and tries to kill him. And in response, Rocket finds a new community (or new communities) and a new self, with a name that hes chosen, and that reflects who he is, rather than who his ogre father wants him to be.

The metaphor is moving. But its very much just a metaphor. The film has cyborgs, sentient trees, telekinetic dogs, and green-skinned women returned from the dead. But it doesnt have any queer people. The one representation of an LGBT relationship is a throwaway gag; the Guardians mind-manipulator Mantis (Pom Klementieff) makes a guard fall in love with her bruiser friend Dax the Destroyer (Dave Bautista). Hes exasperated, shes amused. Men loving other men; its something to laugh at.

The MCU did include a gay relationship in The Eternals. But Disney obviously still approaches that material with some diffidence. The film could have made Rocket gay, if theyd wanted to follow their LGBT themes to their logical conclusion. But instead he stands in for the LGBT community, rather than being part of it himself.

The MCU also has often distanced itself from progressive causes by making its villains thinly disguised progressives-gone-wrong. Thanos in Infinity War and End Game wants to eliminate half of the people in the universe as part of a misguided environmentalism; he thinks catastrophic population decline will leave more resources for all. Both Black Panther films frame White colonialist nations, like the United States, as the villains, to some degree. But then our Wakandan heroes spend most of the films fighting other people of color who want to retaliate against white supremacy too harshly.

The High Evolutionary is in that villainous tradition of twisted radicalism. Hes Black and disfigured, and claims to want to perfect society, a la Communist and utopian medlars. But his lust for perfection leads him to genocidal lengths, as he incinerates and exterminates all his sentient projects that dont quite work out. His surgical experiments are treated with particular disgust, and theres an uncomfortable resonance with the current moral panic targeting trans medical care.

His surgical experiments are treated with particular disgust, and theres an uncomfortable resonance with the current moral panic targeting trans medical care.

Obviously, Volume 3 isnt trying to make some sort of sweeping statement about Black people in power, or to denounce medical care for trans people. On the contrary, its trying not to say anything. On television, Amazon Primes The Boys and James Gunns own Peacemaker on HBO denounce white supremacy and fascism directly; their villains are racist, power-hungry white men who glory in targeting and humiliating marginalized people. Those schemes are clearly modeled on Trumpism, and the critiques of these shows therefore encompass DeSantis, or any number of Republicans.

Gunn knows how to take a stand, if he wants. But Guardians does not. Its carefully balanced and carefully distanced so that it can appeal to marginalized people looking for heroes without actually standing by them or naming any oppressors. When the Guardians get into a big group hug at the end of the film, its supposed to evoke love and solidarity. But it might better be characterized as the unity of capital, determined to offend no one and turn no ones dollars away. Disney may be suing DeSantis, and they may well win. But they want his fanbase to come to the movies too, and so they give them a villain they can comfortably mock, and heroes who are carefully not queer.

The rest is here:
'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3' And The MCU's Tradition of Villainous Progressives - Observer

Nicole Gelinas

Opinion

By Nicole Gelinas

May 4, 2023 | 3:57pm

Its good that New Yorks progressive elected officials and transit advocates are outraged by Jordan Neelys killing on a Manhattan subway train Monday.

Neelys life mattered and so did the lives of the 27 other people violently killed on the subway since March 2020.

Where was the progressive outrage then?

It might have prevented the latest death.

Monday afternoon, Neely, 30, was menacing people on an F train in Lower Manhattan, according to witnesses, when another passenger put him in a chokehold.

The medical examiner has ruled the death a homicide.

Its up to police and prosecutors and, if it comes to that, a jury to determine whether this killing was justified self-defense or just another subway murder.

Our progressive pols arent willing to wait.

Jordan Neely was murdered, concluded AOC, because he was crying for food. People experiencing homelessness, mental illness, hunger, and frustration need and deserve compassion, not force, tweeted city councilwoman Tiffany Caban.

Does the Mayor, Governor, or any high-ranking MTA official plan to say anything about Jordan Neelys killing today? asked the author of a popular subway blog.

Its good that the progressives are finally interested in a subway killing.

But before Neelys death, from March 2020 until early April, 27 people lost their lives to murder in the subway, many of them, like Neely, were homeless young people.

Before 2019, it took 15 years for New York to rack up 28 murders on the subway, not three.

Where were AOC and Caban when homeless soccer player Akeem Loney, 32, was murdered by a stranger as he slept on the subway, in November 2021?

Where were they when Claudine Roberts, 44, also sleeping on the subway, was fatally knifed by a stranger earlier that year?

Jordan Neely, 30, a homeless man, was strangled aboard a northbound F train just before 2:30 p.m. on May 1, according to police.

He reportedly started acting erratically on the train and harassing other passengers before being restrained and ultimately choked by a straphanger, identified as a 24-year-old Marine from Queens.

The Marine, who was seen on video applying the chokehold, was taken into custody and later released but the DA is mulling charges, which could include involuntary manslaughter, according to experts.

The city medical examiner ruled Neelys death a homicide, noting he died due to compression of neck (chokehold). This will be weighed during the investigation into whether charges will be brought for Neelys death.

Neelys aunt told The Post that he became a complete mess following the brutal murder of his mother in 2007. She noted he was schizophrenic while suffering from PTSD and depression.

The whole system just failed him. He fell through the cracks of the system, Carolyn Neely said.

Law enforcement sources said Neely had numerous arrests on his record, including for drugs, disorderly conduct, and fare beating.

At the time of his death, Neely had a warrant out for his arrest for a November 2021 case in which he was accused of assaulting a 67-year-old woman in the East Village, the sources said.

Mayor Eric Adams has said its important for the DA to complete the investigation into Neelys death and not rush to conclusions.

READ MORE

Oh, yes Caban, even as four people were killed within a month last fall on the subway, including a union steamfitter and a Citi Field worker separately on their way home from work, was dismissing concerns about subway violence, calling it a one-in-a-million event.

In some recent cases, perpetrators have claimed self-defense, perhaps spuriously.

Just in April, an attacker killed 18-year-old Isaiah Collazo aboard a Brooklyn train after Collazos friend pulled the emergency brake, sparking a dispute; the attackers Legal Aid lawyer claims the dispute escalated to the point where he had to defend himself.

Similarly, last fall, the man who allegedly pushed Heriberto Quintana to his death under a Jackson Heights train claimed the move, during a fight, was defensive.

Because, in the latest case, Neely was black and the alleged perpetrator appears to be white, the progressives are all now screaming Bernie Goetz, after the illegally armed man who shot and wounded four people menacing him on the subway in 1984.

We cannot end up back to a place where vigilantism is tolerable, Al Sharpton says.

Actually, the Goetz incident wasnt that unusual. Self-defense, or the claim of it, was common in the 1970s, 1980s, and early-1990s high-crime subways.

In 1979, a 63-year-old man stabbed and killed a 23-year-old who, he said, had tried to rob him.

In 1990, two people died in alleged subway self-defense incidents.

Just like in the latest case, the press and pols only found Goetz interesting because he was white, and his assailants were not.

What kept killings, including purported self-defense killings, on the subways low after the early 1990s? Low crime.

In 1990, with 26 murders on the subway, riders were on edge.

That was the year Bill Bratton launched broken-windows policing underground, stopping low crimes before they became big ones, and crime fell.

By 2019, with one or two killings a year on the subways, riders felt safe.

But now, with killings back up to double-digit numbers annually last year for the first time since the early 1990s, people are scared again.

Neely, with a long history of disorderly and violent behavior, is just the latest example of a trend weve seen for three years: disorder escalates.

Whether Neelys death was justified or not is less important than whether we could have prevented it.

Yes, we could have, by keeping subways as safe as they were in 2019.

Ensuring order on the subway means that Neely wouldnt have been able to act in a way that made people scared; it also makes it less likely that a fellow passenger would react in the same way to feeling scared.

Violent subway crime, though lower than it was during last years horrific fall, is still 28% higher than it was in 2019.

Progressives needed to care about all subway victims to save the one who, sadly, fit their desired narrative of vigilantism.

Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor to the Manhattans Institutes City Journal.

https://nypost.com/2023/05/04/where-was-the-progressive-outrage-when-27-others-were-killed-on-the-subway/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

Read more:
Jordan Neely matters but where were progressives when 27 others were killed on the subway? - New York Post

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribunes daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Voters across Texas are heading to the polls Saturday for municipal elections that are being headlined by several ambitious, progressive-backed ballot propositions.

Mayors in some of the states largest cities are also on the ballot, but few face serious competition. Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson does not face any opponents at all.

That has focused most political attention on ballot propositions in San Antonio, Austin and El Paso that touch on a host of progressive priorities. In San Antonio, the states second-largest city, progressives are pushing a justice charter that promises to decriminalize abortion and low-level marijuana offenses and require tickets rather than arrests for some nonviolent offenses.

In El Paso, progressives are backing Proposition K, or the climate charter, which would set aggressive renewable energy goals and overhaul city policy to make reducing carbon emissions a priority. It has drawn the support of Beto ORourke, the former statewide Democratic candidate and member of the U.S. House from El Paso.

The ballot propositions have drawn fierce opposition from public safety and business groups, which have issued dire warnings about their impact.

The ballot propositions are part of a trend that has Texas progressives turning to local elections to implement an agenda that has been blocked by the Legislature. Republican lawmakers have taken notice and are prioritizing proposals this legislative session to narrow the cities home rule authority.

Polls are open Saturday from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

San Antonio is home to the biggest progressive fight in Texas. Proposition A would not only overhaul policing through its provisions on abortion, marijuana and nonviolent offenses, but it would also outlaw no-knock warrants and officer chokeholds.

The city has said only one provision creating a justice director at City Hall is consistent with state law, with the remaining provisions unenforceable.

Supporters are relishing the opportunity to send a symbolic message about the citys values and potentially battle the state in court if the proposition passes. Theyre also branding it as the first time Texas voters get a chance to vote directly on the issue of abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, triggering a virtual abortion ban in Texas.

However, much of the campaigning has focused on a proposal to expand the citys cite-and-release policy. Currently, San Antonio police have the discretion to either make an arrest or issue a citation for a range of Class A and B misdemeanor offenses, such as theft from a business of less than $750. Proposition A would require citations for those offenses and expand the list of offenses eligible for citations.

Supporters say Proposition A is needed to reduce jailing and free up resources to focus on more serious crime. But opponents argue it will incentivize crime and damage the economy. Its opponents include Mayor Ron Nirenberg, who has otherwise been a Democratic ally on some of the issues in the proposition.

In El Paso, Proposition K aims to reach beyond the citys operations and attempt to set clean energy goals for the entire local economy: 80% clean energy by 2030 and 100% by 2045. It would call on the city of El Paso to create a new climate department, produce climate impact statements for major city decisions and rethink local policy at all levels to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It would also require the city to explore buying El Paso Electric, which is privately owned.

Its the second climate proposal brought to El Paso voters in less than a year: In November, voters approved a proposition to create a city climate action plan.

The proposition has provoked a bitter fight between economic development groups and local climate activists, including those involved with the national Sunrise Movement. Even in his recent endorsement of the proposition, ORourke said it was not ideal, calling some of the language confusing and vague.

And in Austin, voters will decide on dueling propositions related to policing. Proposition A was placed on the ballot by criminal justice reformers and seeks to increase oversight of the Austin Police Department. Proposition B is similarly worded but backed by law enforcement groups and geared toward maintaining the status quo.

In addition to Dallas Johnson, other mayors up for reelection Saturday include Fort Worths Mattie Parker and San Antonios Nirenberg. While Parker and Nirenberg have multiple opponents, none have posed a serious threat.

The races are nonpartisan, but each mayor has partisan history. Johnson is a former Democratic state representative, while Parker has identified as a Republican but has expressed dismay with the current state of the party.

There is also a mayoral race in Arlington, the Dallas suburb that counts as Texas seventh-most-populous city. Mayor Jim Ross is seeking reelection against a realtor, Amy Cearnal, who has received large money in the homestretch and has attacked Ross for donating to Joe Bidens 2020 presidential campaign.

Still, Ross is the favorite to win, much like the other incumbent mayors.

A more pitched battle is playing out farther down the ballot in Fort Worth, where Republican forces are trying to win back a majority on the City Council. Democrats gained a one-seat majority on the council in 2021, and conservatives are trying to take over a newly expanded 11-seat council.

Erin Douglas contributed reporting.

Disclosure: El Paso Electric has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

We cant wait to welcome you Sept. 21-23 to the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, our multiday celebration of big, bold ideas about politics, public policy and the days news all taking place just steps away from the Texas Capitol. When tickets go on sale in May, Tribune members will save big. Donate to join or renew today.

Read the original:
San Antonio, El Paso voting on progressive propositions - The Texas Tribune

The United States is fighting wars on multiple fronts. Aside from our involvement in Ukraine and the Middle East, a hot war is being waged against economics. This war is being championed by the progressives in the Democrat Party, backed in large part by left-wing sociologists and political scientists. Progressives deny basic economic principles and theory. They deny that incentives matter, that markets work better than government dictates, that scarcity and opportunity costs exist, that the laws of supply and demand are operative, that benefit-cost analyses have merit, and that economic efficiency makes consumers and producers better off.

Incentives matter. Remove penalties for looting and carjacking and more looting and carjackings occur. Establish sanctuary cities and free college tuition for illegal immigrants and expect increased flows of illegals crossing the border. Increase compensation for the unemployed and more unemployment occurs. To deny that incentives matter is to deny inductive and deductive logic. Progressives admittedly march to the music of a different logic. What the tune is isnt clear.

Scarcity means that resources are limited. Getting more of something requires having less of something else. Economists call the best alternative use of resources its opportunity cost. Larry Summers, the well-respected Democratic economist and former secretary of the treasury, wondered if the billions of dollars proposed to be given to individuals who have college debt might be better spent elsewhere (or perhaps not spent at all). His question was roundly ignored by progressives.

Understanding opportunity cost is essential for rational decision-making. Imagine a family operating without regard to opportunity cost. Little Sally might be given her hearts desire while the rest of her family goes without food. No rational family would operate like this. Nor should any nation.

Government commands destroy the benefits from markets. Progressives despise markets. Markets privately allocate resources based on supply and demand through which the costs of production and consumer preferences interact to set prices and efficient levels of output. Progressives think markets produce the wrong things. The old Soviet Union and Chinese command economies announced five-year plans that dictated the production of nearly everything (including the number of nails). Shortages, inefficiency, and economic stagnation followed. Thinking that the geniuses in Washington know best how to allocate resources will set us on the same road.

Economic efficiency raises living standards. Progressives think efficiency is a dirty word. They either dont understand the concept or choose to neglect it because it interferes with support for their public-policy whims. Economic efficiency incorporates a number of basic concepts, and an important one is to avoid producing something that costs more in resources than the value of the final product. Markets generally take care of this. If progressives want something, they dont care how much it costs or how wasteful it is. Take the Green New Deal, for example.

If progressives deny economics, what criteria do they use for decision-making? They rely heavily on the vaguely defined concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-acknowledged socialist and progressive, was recently asked by Bill Maher to define equity. He was stumped. It is best not to define terms that will get you into obvious contradictions. Take the proposed forgiveness of college debt. How does this square with the diversity, equity, and inclusion criteria? It more than smacks of a crass giveaway to buy votes.

The University of Michigan sociologist Elizabeth Popp Berman acknowledges the war against economists and their way of thinking. In her book, Thinking Like an Economist: How Efficiency Replaced Equality in U.S. Public Policy, she claims that economists are the chief obstacles to achieving progressive policies. She hopes that the progressives in Congress will be joined by a range of experts and activists including economists not committed to the economic style [of thinking]. However, is it reasonable to call someone who does not think like an economist an economist?

To be clear, economists can disagree on public policy. But the economic way of thinking allows for a rational debate. Professor Berman is correct that the economic way of thinking has been a chief obstacle to progressive policies. It has saved us from traveling down F. A. Hayeks road to serfdom.

Read more from the original source:
Progressives Are Declaring War on Basic Economics: News: The ... - The Beacon

As Maharashtra celebrates its 63rd Foundation Day, some politicians in the state are causing controversy over the location of a petroleum refinery at Barsu village in the Sindhudurga district. Nothing highlights the hypocrisy and doublespeak of the Shiv Sena, the principal opposition party in the state, more vividly than this. A forward-looking Maharashtra is being forced to close doors to development and take the path of negativism.

One wonders what happened to its much-touted legacy of progressivism. Maharashtra was once known for intellectual giants such as Lokmanya Tilak, Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, and C D Deshmukh, social reformers like Mahatma Phule, builders of institutions that revolutionised popular thinking like Dr Hedgewar, Vinoba Bhave, Maharshi Karve and Vithal Ramji Shinde, freedom fighters like VD Savarkar, and politicians like YB Chavan. Recently, Maharashtra seems to be struggling to provide truly honest intellectual leadership.

The reasons for this decline are not far to seek. Firstly, the virus of hypocrisy has seriously afflicted the thinking circles in the state. Not a single politician or social leader who takes pride in Maharashtra's progressive legacy ever forgets to mention that this is the land of Phule, Shahu Maharaj, and Ambedkar. For many, merely mentioning these names has served as an umbrella to hide all their undemocratic, feudalistic, and even obscurantist acts.

It was the era of post-Mahatma Gandhi's assassination that saw the sowing of the seeds of hypocrisy in Maharashtra's politics. The riots and arson, plunder and loot that were witnessed in the state immediately after Gandhi's dastardly assassination met with only feeble condemnation. Selective amnesia and recognising only convenient facts were to become almost permanent ingredients of the approaches of most in the political class in Maharashtra, later!

Many from this so-called progressive cabal have closed their eyes when intellectual untouchability and thought-apartheid ruled the roost. Otherwise, known for tom-tomming about freedom of expression, they chose to look the other way when PB Bhave, a literary giant, was almost thrown out of the Marathi Sahitya Sammelan held immediately after the Emergency. All of a sudden, their liberal values vanished when Ramesh Patange, a senior RSS leader and author, was not allowed to speak at a seminar held by progressives where he was an invited speaker. They were tight-lipped when a needless controversy was manufactured on the subject of Maharashtra Bhushan to be given to historian Babasaheb Purandare. When it comes to politics of hurt emotions, these tsars and tsarinas of Marathi progressivism have always taken a religion-specific approach and silently watched the gagging of the likes of Taslima Nasrin. The duplicity of their approach came to the fore when they remained silent on the ban of the Satanic Verses and created a brouhaha over a complaint against the famous Ghashiram Kotwal, decades before, both cases of alleged hurting of emotions!

What is more appalling is the progressive cabal's willingness to crawl in front of the Thackerays when, in fact, they are asked to bend. Today, whatever remains of the so-called Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA), parties that had opposed the ban on Ambedkar's Riddles in Ramayana have joined hands with those who had advocated the same from the rooftop. Shiv Sena politics was always known as anti-democratic. Balasaheb Thackeray had defended the infamous Emergency of 1975. Besides the party's openly anti-South Indian or anti-Gujarati positions and the Robin Hood brand of politics, which is many times fuelled by protection money mechanisms, there are many aspects of Shiv Sena's style of functioning that no genuine progressive would ever accept. However, simply to cater to their own pathological hatred of RSS and BJP, progressives have been turning a blind eye to Shiv Sena's uncivil activism.

Throughout these years, Marathi progressives have developed a ghettoised mindset. With thought apartheid top of mind, most of them refuse to be seen in the company of a Sanghwala, deny recognition to any artist, litterateur, or journalist with an RSS background, and totally ignore the number of social work projects started by RSS persons. In the land of Phule-Shahu-Ambedkar, the progressives have promoted crass intellectual untouchability, and that too in the name of those who were true epitomes of all liberal values. All this puts a big question mark on Maharashtra's ability to provide thought leadership to the nation.

Thanks to the complete politicisation of the creative and intellectual spheres, dominant sections of the traditional thought leadership of Maharashtra pose a much more serious threat to those who do not subscribe to their brand of progressivism. From theatre to cinema, music to literature, and education to media, these pseudo-progressives try to corner every other recognition and call names when persons opposed to their brand of progressivism are decorated by some award. More often than not, this pseudo-progressive cabal seems to be thriving on a 'you-scratch-my-back; I-will-scratch-your-back' principle. While mutual obligation mechanisms have helped them sustain their grip, the loss of objectivity and non-partisan approach has cost the thinking circles heavily.

In contrast, the approach of RSS towards this needless ideological polarisation and untouchability deserves mention. Firstly, many in RSS recognise unhesitatingly that even beyond RSS, there are many honest and passionate social workers serving society. Secondly, RSS has always tried to build bridges across ideologies. Many, not subscribing to the RSS view in its entirety, have routinely graced the Vijaya Dashmi function as Chief Guests. No gatherings of the so-called progressives have ever seen an avowedly RSS person being invited to grace and given respect.

What is more deplorable is the fact that this thought apartheid has led to a near-total demise of authentic journalism. It has become fashionable to talk about what they call "Godi-Media" today. In reality, many media persons in Maharashtra seem to toe the line of Shiv Sena. Generally speaking, whether in power or opposition, Shiv Sena continues to influence not just the news but also the edit pages of key print-media publications. So much so that the popular impression of journalists indulging in a different kind of politics, including that of vocabulary, punctuation, headlines, and placement of news items, is gaining ground with every passing day.

Apart from being caught in the web of politics of fear and crass partisanship, Maharashtra also seems to be in the grip of the politics of patronage. Movie directors, theatre artists, and quite a few men of letters have been, although obliquely, given a clear message that to wear a badge of progressivism, you have to be anti-RSS and BJP. Not just that, those obliged by the progressive echo system are made to see no wrong in dynastic politics, open threats of violence given by some 'upcoming' leaders or denigration of Veer Savarkar. The silence of a powerful section of opinion makers on issues like sugar barons exploiting sugarcane growers, or diverting waters from particular dams to select areas in an unjust manner, speaks volumes.

With the spirit of accommodation now shrinking, the days of a genuine exchange of thoughts and ideas have become a thing of the past. The trio of Phule, Shahu, and Ambedkar must be cursing all those who swear by them and behave exactly opposite to their ideals.

Vinay Sahasrabuddhe is former MP, Rajya Sabha and columnist, besides being President of Indian Council of Cultural Relations (ICCR)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author.

Waiting for response to load...

Go here to see the original:
Opinion: The Hypocrisy Of Maharashtra's Progressives - NDTV