Welcome to the first installment of Pat’s Perspectives – News Commentary. Every week, I will pick a few news topics surrounding politics and culture. I will then provide my own commentary and open up the posts for discussion. My goal here is to foster a thought-provoking discussion that we can all learn from. As a reminder, these are my personal perspectives and do not reflect anything more than that. I am not an expert on any one topic and will never claim to be. See below for this week’s stories.
1.) Paris 2024 Olympics Opening Ceremony Controversy: Mockery of the Last Supper or Performative Display of Dionysus?
I’m sure we’ve all read about and seen the much talked about controversy surrounding one of the performances during the Paris Olympics’ opening ceremony: was it a mockery of the Last Supper or an interpretation of Dionysus? In case you haven’t or need a refresher, you can read about it here. I’m not going to explain the art because that is the job of the Creative Director. Personally, I do not get the controversy. This is France’s Olympic Games to host. France has always been edgy and “out there”. (Menage-a-trois, anyone?) When the U.S. hosts its next Olympic Games, it will be free to do what it wants and how it wants.
France is also an artistic hub, producing some of the world’s greatest artists and art. Art by definition is supposed to evoke emotion and feeling. No two people will view a piece of art the same, and I think that’s beautiful.
Whether or not the intention was to create controversy (I personally think it was a harmless display), I find the outrage more performative than the actual performance in question. I am not a particularly religious person, but I do not fault those who are. I am not here to invalidate anyone’s personal convictions either. If you were offended by it, then that’s your feeling. If you weren’t, that’s okay too. I think the rhetoric surrounding this controversy has gotten a little out of hand, though. In the same way we shouldn’t “cancel” those we disagree with, we shouldn’t “cancel” art that we disagree with, because at the end of the day, it’s art.
I hope we can all take a lesson from this: That is that there will always be things we find offensive, but we don’t always need to attack when we do get offended. Let’s embrace different cultures and their displays of art. Voice your beliefs without judgement and respect those who see it differently.
2.) White Dudes for Harris – Offensive or Misunderstood?
By now, we’re all aware that the Democrats have nominated Vice President Kamala Harris to be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States. We can discuss this in a future post if there is interest. In the last 2 weeks since her campaign started, there have been a number of groups being established with the goal of organizing groups of voters from distinct backgrounds/ethnic groups/identities to garner support for Harris. Some of the groups include “Women for Harris”, “Veterans for Harris”, “Youth for Harris”, and “White Dudes for Harris”.
These groups have gained attention from select voices on the Right claiming these groups only further divide Americans and promote “identity politics”. The Right’s attack on identity politics has been increasing over the years, justifiably or not. It is worth noting that there are similar groups that exist for Trump including “Black Voices for Trump”, “Gays for Trump”, “Women for Trump”, and “Students for Trump”.
The merits of identity politics is something that is fair to debate, but we can do that another time. Of the groups for Harris, one in particular, “White Dudes for Harris”, caught itself in a bit of controversy this week. Voices on the Left and Right called the group “non-inclusive” and “limiting”. Disclosure: I joined the White Dudes for Harris call. I find these accusations a bit misleading because, despite the name of the group, it was very clearly stated that “ALL were welcomed” to join the call. In fact, the second speaker of the night was a Black man.
In addition, the point of the group is not to alienate non-white men from supporting Harris, but rather discussing the role that white males will have in Kamala’s campaign. In 2016, Trump captured 62% of the white male vote, with Hillary Clinton getting only 32% (see data here). Some Republicans have even go so far as saying men who vote for Kamala should have their “man card” revoked (whatever that means).
In essence, the call discussed how white males will not be “forgotten” under a Harris Administration. The speakers showed that white men have an option other than Trump. At no point did I feel the call was non-inclusive, denigrating towards other groups, or unwelcoming.
I close with the question: Do you think the name of the group is an issue? What would you have done?
3.) Harris’ VP Pick: Who’s the Man to Get it Done?
On the topic of Harris, let’s talk about the question we’re all wondering about: Who will be Harris’ running mate? In the title of this topic I purposefully wrote “man”. Obama made strides becoming the first Black president. Hillary Clinton was close to breaking the glass ceiling had she been elected in 2016. Harris already will be making history if elected due to her biracial background and her being a female. As far as we have come in America, I do not think we are at a place to elect a female-female ticket; sorry Gretchen.
By that same logic, I also do not think Pete Buttigieg would fare well being a gay man. But that’s not my objection to Mayor Pete. He is young and certainly has a career in Democratic politics should he desire to keep moving up. His time will come, but this is not it. He also doesn’t add a new state or group of voters that is much needed to bring Harris to victory.
So who’s left? The top 4 names being thrown around are Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Governor Andy Beshear of Kentucky and Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota.
For me, I think it has to be either Mark Kelly or Josh Shapiro. Andy Beshear is the son of a former KY governor, often being labeled as a “Nepo-baby”. He is also in a state that will ultimately go to Trump, so no new electoral votes there. Finally, he has been criticized by advocates for women’s health who say although his views are supportive, his actions aren’t enough. Running on a ticket with Kamala, whose whole agenda recently has been women’s health, might not fair well. Governor Walz also doesn’t add any new voters and, to me, just isn’t as inspiring.
Kelly is an interesting choice. He is beloved in Arizona by the right and the left. He is married to Gabby Giffords, who is the survivor of gun violence and also beloved by many. He is a very centrist Democrat. You can’t win AZ without being one. Plus, he’s an astronaut and who doesn’t love an astronaut? Only concern here is that his Senate seat would be up for election in 2026, which could cause the Democrats to lose the Senate if that seat goes red.
Shapiro is also a solid choice. He could get Harris the state of Pennsylvania, which she would need for a presidential victory. He, himself, is also very moderate and actually promotes school choice, which is often cited as a Republican policy. He has the support of Republicans and Democrats, too, which makes for a larger group of voters. One of the issues some Democrats, mainly far-left progressives, fault him on is that he is pro-Israel. I mean, no surprise, he is Jewish. We should all be advocating for the safety of both the innocent Israelis and Palestinians caught up in a terrible conflict that neither group particularly wanted. I don’t see this as being an issue, but instead, it highlights anti-semitism among the far-left flank of the Democratic Party.
Who do you think would make for a good VP pick and why?
4.) Project 2025 or Agenda 47: Open Commentary
Another controversial segment, here. With Trump being the Republican nominee, there has been a ton of discussion and confusion surrounding the Republican’s platform. Many Democrats have turned to highlighting Project 2025, which is a “playbook” for the next “Conservative” president. It is influenced heavily by the views of the Heritage Foundation, which is a “Conservative” group that is committed to formulating and promoting “Conservative” policy. Note the “” surrounding the word Conservative. Personally, today’s MAGA-Republicans do not know the meaning of Conservatism, so I am hesitant to call these people Conservative, but I will do so to avoid “misrepresenting” these groups. Interestingly enough, this week, Project 2025 Director, Paul Dans, stepped down from the Heritage Foundation.
It is worth noting that Trump has said that he is not associated with Project 2025 and does not endorse it. You can make your own judgements about this. Trump’s policies instead belong to Agenda 47. Personally, Agenda 47 doesn’t seem nearly as detailed as Project 2025. It’s also written in a very high-level manner, which has left many to be skeptical about the “how” Agenda 47 will be carried out.
On the other side of the aisle, I cannot actually find the proposed policy agenda for Kamala Harris. If anyone actually knows where I can find it, I’d be curious. All in all, I think both sides have put out some good and some bad policy over the years. The trick to the policy battle is not going to be about the words these candidates put out, but the action that will follow.
What do you think about the policy positions of the candidates? Do you agree with them? Disagree?
5.) Males in Female Sports? Females in Male Sports?: Olympic Boxing Controversy
Earlier in the week, women’s Olympic boxing got caught up in controversy surrounding the match between an Algerian boxer, Imane Khelif, and an Italian boxer, Angela Carini. Khelif has been accused of being transgender, giving her an unfair advantage over her opponent. Before we go any further, let’s just clear up some biology here.
Transgender is someone whose gender identity is different from the gender they were thought to be at birth. Cisgender is someone whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth. Intersex is a term for people born with sex traits that don’t match the binary medical definition of male or female. Let’s also clarify the following: Sex is a set of biological attributes that are primarily associated with physical and physiological features, such as chromosomes, reproductive organs, hormones, and gene expression. Sex is usually assigned at birth by a doctor based on genitals and chromosomes, and appears on a person’s birth certificate. In Western cultures, sex is often understood in binary categories of male or female. Gender is a socially constructed concept that refers to a person’s roles, behaviors, expressions, and identities. Gender is influenced by social, cultural, and personal experiences, and can also refer to how a person is responded to by social institutions based on their gender presentation.
The controversy lies in the fact that Khelif was previously barred from competing in last year’s Women Boxing Championship due to the fact that she failed to pass a “gender eligibility requirement”. Conservative voices call the match “unfair” and “wrong” because of the supposed advantage that Khelif had over her opponent. Khelif did test positive for having higher levels of testosterone, which can be a biological condition called hyperandrogegism. This is not a disqualifier for the Olympics.
As of now, there are no confirmed reports of Khelif being transgender or intersex. All the records show that she has always competed as a woman against other women.
For me, this story has many questions to be answered. First and foremost, I would like everyone to start correctly differentiating between sex and gender. If people are worried about hormone levels in athletes, a “gender eligibility test” would be the incorrect test for this. If people want biological males to be competing against biological males and biological females to be competing against biological females, then we should be conducting chromosomal testing to see their 23rd set of chromosomes. However, this also could lead to confusion for individuals with XXY, XYY, or even just X chromosome pairs (have fun with that one, folks). If the standard should be hormone levels, than we should be looking at that.
I think the question of fair participation in sports across sexes is a valid question, but unless opponents are willing to learn and accept the biology of sex than it’s just going to lead to a bunch of baseless claims and accusations that might potentially harm athletes unfairly. To me, it just seems like the sports community still doesn’t have a set definition of what they want to ensure fair competition. I can get behind rules that enable fair participation and competition as long as their is one standard definition that is backed by science and universally applied.
What do you think of this story? Was the match fair? How should situations like this be handled?
Anyway, if you made it to the end of this post, congratulations! I’m looking forward to hearing what people have to say. If there is a particular story you would like me to cover next time, please reach out. Also, to be notified when any new content is posted, click the sign up button at the bottom of the site. Have a great weekend!
Pat's Perspective 