Fighting Fire With Fire

ScottDS and I had an interesting discussion yesterday, related to the Andrew Breitbart’s Bigs. Later in the day, Rufus at Threedonia, posted some similar thoughts. So this is probably worth discussing. Right now, the Bigs are kind of annoying. . . BUT here’s why they are actually doing a good thing.

The reason the Bigs are annoying is because they are jumping on minutia and mercilessly pounding it into the ground. Game Change had some inaccuracies, but is it worth 500 articles calling Tom Hanks everything from a truth rapist to the last American communist? Tom Hanks also appears in a video with someone in blackface. Is that worth pounding away? Bill Maher says much worse things than Rush ever said, but do we need to hear about it 10,000 times? Etc. All of this seems petty and it’s somewhat hypocritical in the sense that the Bigs are judging these people under politically correct standards which conservatives don’t accept. And frankly, I don’t personally like it. I don’t find this interesting and I would rather they were more constructive.

So it’s bad, right? Well. . . no.

Here’s the thing. For at least two decades now, the left has worked to isolate conservatives from the culture and make them pariahs. Every time a conservative spoke their mind, the left attacked them using some faked-sleight invented by the left. They would feign offense at some non-offensive word or act and then smear the conservative as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. It didn’t matter that leftists routinely said the same things, they still attacked. In fact, they would hound these conservatives until the conservatives either left the public sphere or surrendered to the mercy of their persecutors. In this way, they made it impossible for conservatives to have their voices heard because every time a conservative got noticed, they were destroyed personally and professionally. The idea literally was to make sure conservatives were afraid to speak.

And how did conservatives respond? Most cringed and did nothing. And when they saw leftists saying or doing the exact same things the left had attacked conservatives for doing, they remained silent. Why? Because they decided to take the high road. They reasoned that if it wasn’t fair to attack conservatives because of X, then it wouldn’t be fair to attack liberals for X either, so they refused to attack. This was stupid.

For twenty-plus years now, conservatives have let the left destroy conservative after conservative with hypocritical attacks without a peep of challenge except to whine about the hypocrisy. Public life became intolerable for conservatives (look at what they did to Palin for example), while liberals got to skate through saying and doing anything they wanted, secure in the knowledge that conservatives were unwilling to attack them.

No more. The Bigs have declared war. They have taken the same pathetic, petty attacks the left has used to smear conservatives for years and they are now applying those same attacks to leftists. They are fighting fire with fire, because that's the only way to stop what the left is doing. When someone has a weapon they can use with impunity, they will. But when they suddenly realize that others will use it against them, they will stop. Think of it as the cultural version of Mutually Assured Destruction: if you want to try to destroy a conservative as racist/sexist for using a particular word, then we will destroy every liberal who uses that word. This may not make for a pleasant world in the short term, but it is the only way to put an end to these attacks.

Indeed, fighting fire with fire is the only technique which works against the left because they win through incremental progress. In other words, they can win by getting a little bit at a time each time they come to power unless conservatives roll back their gains. For example, for decades, the left concentrated power in the executive branch and the courts. They used that power to force leftist ideas onto businesses, schools, state governments, charities, churches and individuals. When conservatives came to power, they would stupidly declare that they would take the high ground and not use the powers created by the left. The left laughed. And once the conservatives lost power again, the left picked right up where they were before and kept right on pushing -- secure in the knowledge that conservatives lacked the will to use these instruments of power against them.

All of that changed under Bush, particularly in education where Bush used the levers of power liberals created to push liberalism onto schools as a means to impose conservatism instead. Suddenly, the left started howling about state’s rights and attacks on personal freedom and they did their best to strip away the powers they had created. Ditto in the courts, where the left now squeals about legal principles like stare decisis, binding precedent and judicial restraint. . . things they ignored for fifty years while the courts were pushing the country to the left.

It’s the same thing here. Taking the high ground equals surrendering. Conservatives must learn to make the left pay for creating these weapons. This means using the government to bring lawsuits against liberal businesses that violate the laws, sending the IRS after liberal churches, unions and charities which engage in politics, going after race hustler groups and black racist organizations under the civil rights laws, targeting Obama-crony companies like GE with the environmental laws they demanded. . . and making life hell for liberal celebrities who step into the traps liberals have set for conservatives.

That’s what the Bigs are doing. And while I don’t personally enjoy it, I absolutely recognize the value of what they are doing. They are firing back the same nuclear weapons the left has been lobbing at us, and they’ve been rather successful at it. And when the left starts to realize that they are living under an unfair microscope of their own making, they will surrender. . . just as they have every other time conservatives have fought back.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

More Apologies To The Barbarians

Barack Obama was beginning to get light-headed after going days without something to apologize for. But thank the Good Lord, someone in Afghanistan made a big mistake in disposing of some Islamic literature, including Korans, and the Apologizer-in-Chief stepped right up to apologize to the adherents of the religion of peace. Where is Brenda Lee when we need her? “I’m sorry. So sorry. That I was such a fool.”

In fact, it was a veritable orgy of apologies. General John Allen apologized to Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan where the incident occurred. As penance, he has ordered all the troops remaining in Afghanistan into sensitivity training, concentrating on the proper handling of religious materials. White House mouthpiece Jay Carney said that the incident does not reflect the deep respect our military has for the religious practices of the Afghan people. Not to be outdone, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called it deeply unfortunate and apologized for the inappropriate treatment of the material.

Obama sent US Ambassador Ryan Crocker, General Allen, and Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter to meet personally with Karzai to weep and wail, don sackcloth, and heap ashes on their heads. Others who have joined in the sorry-fest include State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, who opined that the event was horrific, adding “desecration of religious articles is not in keeping with the standards of American tolerance, human rights practices, and freedom of religion (somebody forgot to tell her about the Obamacare mandates).” I’m still waiting for someone to cry “Oh, the humanity!”

So why did the Crusader troops burn the Korans so publicly and so insultingly? Well, they didn’t. The worst they can be accused of is sheer stupidity in making a spectacle of the destruction of dangerous materials. Am I saying the Koran is dangerous? Well, actually I would, but that’s a whole different debate. Assume that the Koran is actually a love poem to the rest of the world. It would make no difference in these circumstances. There was a lot more in that funeral pyre than Korans.

Reliable sources in Afghanistan report anonymously or “not for attribution” that the materials being burned were communications between terrorists, manuals and instructions for killing American troops, and generally all-around seriously dangerous materials. It’s understandable that the sources would remain anonymous, considering the pathological need of the Obama administration to take the blame on America's behalf for everything evil in the world, then apologizing for it.

It quickly becomes obvious that the few Korans actually burned were not the target of the burning. The target was what terrorists and Islamic plotters had written inside the Korans, attempting to get America to ignore troop welfare for the sake of religious sensitivity. At least General Allen was realistic enough to announce that “It was not a decision that was made with respect to the faith of Islam. It was a mistake. It was an error. The moment we found out about it we immediately stopped and we intervened.” OK, General Allen, there’s your statement and there’s your apology. Now stop, goddamit!

But my advice goes unheeded. The general and his minions are stupid enough to dispose of materials so publicly and so visibly that the locals know about it immediately. I can’t burn anything on my property without my neighbors knowing about it. I’m no military or CIA genius, and yet I can guarantee you that if I don’t want them to know what I’m burning, they won’t. I also don’t invite the neighbors to come over for a weenie and marshmallow roast every time I burn leaves and materials implicating me in terrorist activities (with the proper permit, of course). But it seems that the entire Afghan community is invited to witness the burning of terrorist materials. That’s stupid. That’s a mistake. We apologize. Are we done yet?

No, we’re not. In what seemed like mere minutes after the abject and humiliating apologies began to pour over the country like an oil slick, over 2000 Afghans showed up outside Bagram Air Force Base to accept the apologies and shout “die, die, foreigners, die!” The US embassy had to go on lockdown for the angry crowds outside. The scene is being repeated throughout Afghanistan and now other Islamic nations. TWINE (Taliban Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything) is fomenting unrest and violence wherever they have a serious presence.

Somehow, the ridiculous apologies and mea culpas are having zero effect on people who kill other people for publishing cartoons of Mohammed. Imagine that! President Karzai is a big help. His statement, made shortly after the American ambassadors got finished groveling, was aimed at hastening the exit of Americans from Afghanistan in any capacity whatsoever. Even the Emperor of Japan and the Nazi hierarchy didn’t have that kind of chutzpah at the end of World War II. Karzai spoke of the burnings, which occurred at the Parwan Detention Facility: “The sooner you do the transfer of the prison, the fewer problems and unfortunate incidents you will have.” He demanded that General Allen conduct a swift investigation, and called the burning of the terrorists documents (uh, Korans) a “desecration.”

The result of the weakness of the American position, highlighted by the pathetic apologies, was as predictable as night following day. Dozens of deaths and serious injuries have already been reported. Property destruction is pandemic. And now it appears that at least two American personnel have died as a direct result of the “protests.” Given all that, here is my suggestion for all official apologies in the future: “Oops.”

So some unthinking troops burned terrorist materials, incidentally including a few annotated Korans. Big freaking deal. Islamists burn Christian churches, preferably with the congregants still inside. I'm waiting for their apologies.

For you whippersnappers who are too young to know who Brenda Lee is, here’s a link to the song from 1960: I'm Sorry.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Avatar (2009)

Avatar, a.k.a. Dances With Smurfs, is a crappy movie. There is no other way to say it. If someone tells you they liked this film, punch them in the face. Not only is this the most politically correct film ever, but it’s poorly acted, poorly written and deathly dull. I feel like I’ve lost a portion of my life watching it.

** I would insert a spoiler warning here, but you can’t spoil this film. **

The "Plot"

Oh where do I begin. An evil corporation has invaded some planet (the unoriginally named “Pandora”) so they can mine something called “unobtainium” -- a word stolen form the infinitely better yet still crappy movie The Core. This unobtainium does something. We don’t know what exactly because James Cameron wasn’t smart enough to come up with anything, but just take it on faith that it’s important.

The main character, Jake Sully (we’ll call him “Lifeless” in honor of the acting non-talent of Sam Worthington), is a former Marine who lost the use of his legs. . . probably from sitting through this film. He takes a job on planet PandaOdor where he will be an avatar operator. What's an avatar you ask? Basically, Ripley from Alien came up with the idea that if you want to exploit a native people, you gotta look like the native people, then you can trick them into trading their land for your beads. So she invented these body-suit things that look like the locals. We aren’t really sure how the suits work or how they’re made because Cameron didn’t care about this aspect of the film. But don’t worry about it, you won’t care either because your mind will be numb by this point in the film. . . ten minutes in.

Lifeless’s job is to operate his avatar in such a way that he endears himself to the locals, a tall blue race called the Na’vi, who look an awful lot like Smurfs who’ve spent time on a Medieval torture rack. After a boring, boring, boring 20 minutes of watching animators try to make Lifeless emote as he runs through the forest of this standard videogame world, Lifeless comes up with a plan. He decides to get himself attacked by wild animals in the hopes that some borderline-retarded princess of the Na’vi happens by and saves him. Of course this works because you can’t swing a dead panda on PandaOdor without hitting a Na’vi princess and because chicks can’t resist a dude who is helpless, rude and stupid.

After a few more minutes of scenery and some pidgin English, these two fall in love and the Smurfs make Lifeless a trusted member of their tribe. Retarded-Princess then mates with Lifeless’s avatar. . . somehow. . . before we are “treated” to another thirty minute scene where Lifeless runs through trees and learns to fly on the backs of creatures on Smurfback Mountain as the other Smurfs learn to accept him and see him as the chosen one.

Suddenly, it’s back to the plot. For reasons Cameron never bothers to explain, the evil US Military decides that since they can now succeed with their plan of gaining the Na’vi’s trust, now would be the perfect time to ditch that plan and instead start killing them for fun. What?! Those aren’t the US military, you say? Well, you could have fooled me. Then the “plot” stops, a fight ensues, a lot of people die, as do many Smurfs, and forty minutes later the evil military loses and Lifeless becomes the leader of the Na’vi. Roll credits.

The Characters

Now that you know the plot, let’s talk about the characters. The characters are awful.

First, you have Lifeless. He’s a pointless character with little to add to the movie despite being the main character. His role is clearly a copy of Kevin Costner’s role from Dances With Wolves, but Worthington comes across more like a mental patient whose thorazine wears off every once in a while. Indeed, he seems incapable of displaying any emotions, despite suffering wild mood swings -- “I hate this place,” “no, I love this place, it’s paradise,” etc. etc. His character also is prone to saying really stupid things, but that’s ok because the other characters aren’t listening. In fact, one of the first things you’ll notice about this film is that none of the characters speak to each other, they deliver speeches to the audience. If it weren’t for the fact they do touch each other once in a while, you’d almost swear they filmed their parts separately and never met. Even simple lines, like "good morning fellow capitalist oppressor," seem to be spoken past the other characters.

The main bad guy is Colonel Cliché, who has a severe disability which prevents him from saying any line you haven’t heard in another film. He loves to kill. Sigourney Weaver plays a woman who occasionally uses scientific terms and then dies. She likes to be rude to people. And there are a whole bunch of other actors too, who presumably do something plot-wise, though it’s not really clear what. Finally, there are the Smurfs, whose main job is to speak like cliché American Indians, while pretending they aren’t American Indians. Not much more to say about them.

The “Writing”

The writing is awful. In fact, there wasn’t really a single line in the film that didn’t make me cringe. Every sentence was cliché-ridden and predictable. The word choice was around a fifth grade level. There was nothing subtle in the writing either. If they want you to know a particular character can’t be trusted, they will literally have multiple characters come on screen and say, “You cannot trust Character X.” And the only memorable line in the film was “The End,” words for which I was truly thankful.

The Political Correctness

Now that we’re done talking about the good parts of the film, let’s talk about the most serious problem with this sucker: this film is pure leftist propaganda. Every single line delivered in this film is crawling with politically correct bullsh~t. Seriously, these people can’t say good morning without making some leftist crack. These characters don’t speak, they make speeches. And here’s what they say: corporations are evil. The military is evil. Scientists who do the bidding of evil corporations or the military are evil. The American Indians are noble creatures who lived in an ideal world where no one died and their gods literally existed and everyone was a vegetarian and loved each other until whitey came along and killed them all and herded them into casinos. Save the environment from capitalist whitey and the military. The war on terror is evil. The American military are terrorists, shock and awe is evil. Shave the whales! Down with whitey!

The anti-white message in this film was particularly obnoxious. All the bad guys were white. In fact, the only minorities on staff (the Indian dude and the Hispanic chick) quickly changed sides and betrayed whitey to aid the Smurfs, as did all the women and the handicapped guy (what, no gays?). Whitey Colonel Cliché even asks Lifeless how it feels to betray his race, which may have meant “human” in this instance, but sure sounded like "white."

But before James Cameron goes patting himself on the back for being a full-blown worshiper of oppression theology, let me point out one irony. Why is it, James, that the only person who can save the backwards Na’vi is the white dude? And why would these peaceful people make him their leader, as they apparently do at the end of the film, when his only qualifications are being a solider and being a white dude? Are you saying that a moronic white dude is the best and brightest on their planet? That seems kind of racist. Seriously James, it’s amazing how easily your screed against white oppression seamlessly morphs into the noble savage fantasy that was so popular among empire builders in the late 1800s. I guess you see yourself as the man who would be king?

The anti-military message was obnoxious as well. All the soldiers are drawn entirely from the paranoid Hollywood clichés of soldiers. They are bloodthirsty and irrational and long for nothing more than subjugating the scientists and businessmen who run the show, just so they can kill the Na’vi because. . . well, just because. Sounds to me like James Cameron must have had a bad experience with a solider at one time. . . in a mensroom.

Unfortunately, these messages permeate everything you see and hear in this crap-fest. Indeed, there wasn't a line of dialog that didn't push these ideas. And that was a big enough turn off to anger me, whenever I awoke from my periodic movie-induced comas.

Conclusion

To sum up this film, all I can really say is that it swings wildly between boring and offensive, with a pretty lame videogame thrown in between. I am glad this turkey will be forgotten in a couple years, but saddened that James Cameron made any money. Maybe he’ll get robbed. . . now that is a happy thought!

Check out the new film site -- CommentaramaFilms!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Ask And Tell, Fine, But Don't Misbehave

The Senate voted 65-31 on Saturday to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. In and of itself, this change in policy doesn’t give me a lot of heartburn. But I do think the timing is atrocious and a real indictment on the Democrats’ willingness to put politics ahead of the safety of American soldiers. I also think the real questions remain to be answered. Here are some things to consider.

1. This policy was put into place 17 years ago by the Clinton Administration to bail themselves out of one of their many huge mistakes at the beginning of Clinton’s presidency. To satisfy his gay supporters, Clinton declared the military open to gays. But he failed to get any support for such a change before announcing it. This blew up on him. Afraid to offend either side, Team Clinton (including now-Justice Elana Kagan) came up with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as a way to pretend they changed things, when they really didn’t.

2. If gays think Democrats are their friends, recall first that Clinton fooled you, then that Obama promised to repeal this but made no effort to do so, and that the Democrats did nothing until a lame duck session after they lost the Congress. With friends like those....

3. Eight Republicans joined the Democrats in repealing this policy. John McCain (who has surprisingly become a conservative firebrand since the election) led the opposition. Joe Manchin (D-WV) skipped the vote, something he’s already showing a penchant for doing with votes that will be unpopular in West Virginia.

4. The timing of this change is horrible. Despite seventeen years of arguing over this issue, there has been almost no honest study of how letting gay soldiers serve openly will affect the military. Instead, the debate has been dominated by half-studies using loaded questions and the personal opinions of general officers. Thus, we honestly don’t know how this policy will affect the military. It is therefore rather asinine to change this policy at the stroke of a pen while the military is in the field fighting a war. Indeed, if there was ever a moment for a roll-out of a policy, this would be it.

5. Whether this change turns out to be effective, ineffective or disastrous, will depend on how it is enforced. To the extent the military simply changes the rules to allow gays to serve openly, and it requires them to follow the identical rules of conduct that heterosexual soldiers currently follow, there probably will be few problems.

But to the extent they start demanding changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to accommodate conduct of the type that is associated with “the gay lifestyle,” there will be problems. For example, thousands of years of military experience have shown that fraternization is corrosive of military discipline. If rules like the prohibition on fraternization are eliminated or are not enforced when the conduct is between homosexuals, then military discipline will suffer.

Similarly, the military will need to strictly apply anti-sexual harassment rules against gays just as it does between heterosexual soldiers of the opposite sex. In other words, if the military takes a politically correct stance and decides that only heterosexuals can be harassers or that gays need only comply with a lesser standard of harassment, then expect serious problems.

6. Don’t expect the court challenges to stop. Repealing this policy will kill the current court cases challenging the policy. BUT those who have been discharged will probably seek reinstatement and back pay. To solve those cases, the Supreme Court will be asked to rule on the validity of the policy to decide whether the government acted properly in tossing them out under the old policy. It’s unlikely the Court will make such a ruling (it will instead rule on the basis of "sovereign immunity"), but expect the effort nevertheless.

Moreover, expect a slew of challenges to the UCMJ alleging that rules like the prohibition on fraternization and other “conduct unbecoming” rules are unconstitutional.

7. For those gays suggesting this change represents a civil rights victory of some sort, you are wrong. At best, this is an acknowledgment that gays are more accepted in society. But to call this a cornerstone of some change in the civil rights laws is incorrect. Indeed, this vote has no effect at all on the legality of gay rights laws or the classification of homosexuality as a protected class. This is simply a change in military rules that now allow certain conduct, just as if they said soldiers may openly gamble or own Priuses.

8. Finally, the effects of this policy change need to be watched closely and studied intensely. If this policy leads to a decline in military discipline or the endangerment of soldiers (gay or straight), then it must be changed. AND, most importantly, these studies need to be conducted honestly and without pressure to reach the politically correct conclusion desired by the politicians (on either side). American lives are too precious to let Nancy Pelosi play games with them just to satisfy her supporters.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Don't Label Me Bro!

You’ve probably heard about this “No Labels” garbage the left has come up with? Ostensibly, the idea is that if we can keep people from labeling each other “liberal” or “conservative” or “communist” or “RINO” or “idiot” then we can end the horrible partisanship that keeps “us” from getting things done. What a load. This is nothing more than an attempt by RINOs and leftists to make it hard for the public to spot them.

This laughable idea was created by two failed political consultants. On the left, you have Nancy Jacobson, a former finance director for the Democratic National Committee and a Hillary Clinton-campaign creature. On the other left, you have Mark McKinnon, who once worked for arch-conservative John McCain (**snicker snicker**) until he decided that he “[didn’t] want to work against an Obama presidency.” Poor dear.

Politicians who have outted themselves in favor of this idiocy include Democrats Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Evan Bayh (D-Ind); RINOs Mike Castle (RINO-Del), Charlie Crist (RINO-Fla), and Tom Davis (RINO-Va); and a slew of leftist hacks from MSNBC. “Labels get in the way of getting things done,” whined RINO Tom Davis, who spent his time in Congress pushing for DC statehood and federal pay raises.

So what are these groups after? Let’s look at each group.

The RINOs want a home. Their repeated betrayals of the Republicans have worn thin and Republican voters are done with them, but Democrats don’t want them either. They are hoping that by getting rid of labels, they can hide in the squishy middle while getting re-elected on personality and favor trading. In fact, their ideal world would be one where there are no parties and, thus, no primary voters to answer to.

The Democrats want a lifeline. They blew it with Obama/Pelosi. The voters hate them and the Republicans are ready to be as aggressive with them as they were when they were in power. So they are now pushing the idea of being bipartisan in the hopes that the Republicans buy into this and they can sneak through their policies despite the growing Republican majority.

The left wants a way to hide. The left has a long history of spoiling any label they tried to adopt. Their policies are poison. They destroy economies, they endanger people, they create poverty and make existing poverty more intense, they encourage crime, they encourage racism, they encourage violence, and their ideological compatriots have been directly responsible for killing millions of people. Thus, it’s no wonder they’ve worn out their welcome wherever they’ve been. Therefore, they’ve had to change their labels every couple of years as the latest label gets disgraced, so that people don't realize who or what they are.

Indeed, they went from progressives to populists to radicals to socialists to liberals and a dozen more, each time trying to choose a name that sounded like a good thing and eventually disgracing that name through their actions. If they could create a world where politicians and ideology bore no labels, then they could avoid being found so easily. Instead of people saying, “watch out for the progressives,” and everyone knowing exactly who and what that meant, they could hide among us in plain sight, pretending to be just concerned politicians. . . part of the generic establishment as a whole. It’s the political equivalent of camouflage.

These are the people who make up the “No Labels” coalition, a collection of losers looking to deceive the rest of us about who they are. Sad.

Finally, let me ask this. What exactly is wrong with partisanship anyway? Partisanship is what gives the voters a clear choice of ideas. Should we complain that McDonalds doesn’t also offer a Whopper? Or that Long John Silvers doesn’t offer tacos or winter clothing? No. That’s ridiculous. We want clear choices that let us decide what we are in the mood for, with each restaurant specializing in one type of item rather than all restaurants doing a little of everything because we know that promotes better quality and cheaper prices. So why is it, when it comes to politics we’re suddenly supposed to want politicians who offer fish-taco-hamburger jackets?

Seems kind of obvious to me.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

What is Political Correctness?

“Political correctness” is a term that gets bandied about. Most of you probably have a really good idea of what the term means, but there appears to be some confusion in journalistic ranks. So as a service to our low-IQ and self-deluding friends in the media, let’s offer a quick tutorial.

“Political correctness” is a term first coined to describe the attempts by the American left to squelch open debate and free speech. The term stuck immediately and has been such a devastating dual description and criticism of leftist actions, that many of the left despise the term more than the speech political correctness is trying to squelch. Indeed, on most left-leaning boards, all you need to do is use the term and you will find yourself treated like a heretic at a 14th Century Cardinal’s cook out.

At one point, several leftists in the media tried to defuse the term by applying it to right wingers who supported policies that the leftist media hacks didn’t like, on the basis that they were just pandering to the voters. But that effort failed, because it ridiculously misunderstood how clearly the public knows political correctness when it sees it.

So what exactly does political correctness mean? Political correctness represents group think at its worst. It is the requirement that people accept as true, certain “facts” that are not true under the threat of significant sanction. In this case, that sanction tends to be a jihad like series of attacks on you by the leftward collective.

The idea behind political correctness dates back to 19th Century socialist movements, which believed that they could make the world a better place if only they could recreate man. Gone would be the man created by an accident of evolution or the design of God, and in his place would stand the new, modern socialist man. But that didn’t work out. It turns out that the whole self-awareness thing stands in the way of rebuilding man as a communal creature.

When the civil rights movement of the 1960s moved away from seeking equality and moral treatment into seeking a share of the spoils in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the age of identity politics was born. This began with blacks and then feminists. Soon other groups were sprouting up everywhere. Soon we had a veritable apartheid rainbow of genders and races and disabilities, all carefully self-segregating.

As these groups grew in influence in places like academia, they re-awoke to the idea of rebuilding man. If there was any morality, logic, or merit to their arguments, they could have succeeded by simple persuasion, but there wasn’t. So, instead, they took an approach right out of the dark warnings of Orwell’s 1984. This time, they decided to change the mind of man first. And the only way they could think to do that was to make people afraid to speak their minds. If people could not say an idea, then they could not have the idea. . . or so the thinking went.

It's a lot like that Twilight Zone episode where young Bill Mumy wishes people into the cornfield when he doesn’t like what they are saying or thinking, only the politically correct didn’t see young Bill as the bad guy, he’s what they aspired to be. Thus, they set about shutting down debate and demanding that people stop speaking truths that didn’t fit their agenda.

Let’s consider some examples. Blacks commit crimes in a much higher percentage than whites. That is an undeniable fact. There are many causes, almost all of which point the finger right back at the black community. But black groups have been some of the strongest purveyors of political correctness and blacks have been some of the new religion’s most ardent foot soldiers. And the first rule of political correctness is to combat any fact that makes your group look bad. Thus, they decided that these facts were not politically correct and that they should not be allowed to be spoken. So they set about attacking anyone who dared speak them.

Consequently, if you held a debate on the issue of crime today, and you tried to suggest either of these facts, you would risk being shouted down, risk having your black panelist stage a walk out, risk being called a racist, and risk having a jihad declared against you with an army of drones trying to get you fired and ostracized. Why do this? Because if you can’t address the real facts, all that is left to explain the problem is to either deny that such a problem exists or to attribute it to politically correct “facts” like white racism or economic circumstances. Not coincidentally, the solution to those “facts” seems to be legislation. . . and more goodies for the identity camp.

Feminists have done the same thing. They have create a twisted set of assumptions to which you must pledge fealty or you will be labeled a sexist. Chief among these new “facts” is that there are no differences between men and women, except for those that benefit women. Thus, for example, you cannot mention that women are not as physically strong as men or that pregnancy has been a huge issue for military readiness when the feminists question why women can’t be front line soldiers. You also cannot mention that the different choices women make affect their income potential when discussing the issue of pay equality. Indeed, to suggest that women shun the harder professions, like science and engineering, or that they tend to drop out of the work force for a period of years to raise children would be like declaring Christ a myth at a 12th Century Crusade planning meeting. It’s best just to pretend that you have no idea why women earn more college degrees, but don’t make as much money as men over their careers.

Again, the reason is obvious. If you factor out all the things that women and men do that generally lead to different career paths, then the only possible explanation left for why a woman and a man have disparate incomes must be sexism. And that requires legislation, which means more goodies for the identity camp.

And this goes well beyond panel discussions. If you say the wrong thing at work, or at school, or in print, prepare for the modern Inquisition. If you put an ad on television and an identity-group member looks bad in the ad, expect trouble. If you make a movie, you better not make identity-group members the bad guy, and you better not forget to over-include them in positive roles no matter how historically inaccurate. In fact, ironically, they expect you to overcompensate in the other direction. . . for the fact you're not allowed to mention. Thus, if the knock on a group is that they're lazy, then you better make them the hardest working characters on your show. If the stereotype is stupidity, better let them teach everyone else the vital lessons. And so on.

The idea behind the terror is to get you to self-censor. If you are afraid to speak the truth, then the truth may cease to exist. . . at least, that’s the hope.

If you’ve ever discussed this issue near one of these people, before they try to shout you down, you may have noticed that they will make the argument: “how is this different than simple manners.” And they will claim that people have always done what is now being “unfairly” called political correctness. But they are wrong.

First, manners are based on generations of experience about what creates problems in society and what doesn’t. Manners are basically the little things that we need to do to make society flow. These are learned behaviors that are based on observed facts. Political correctness, on the other hand, is not about making society better. It is about one group forcing itself on another. It is about accepting lies as true and ignoring the things we know. It is dogma of the worst kind.

Secondly, unlike manners, which are meant for general application, political correctness is applied unfairly. Political correctness applies only to a protected few. Whites can be fired for using the wrong word, but blacks can’t be fired for using the same word. Minorities are free to complain about anything they want with regard to majorities, but majorities aren’t. And so on. Moreover, politically correct rules aren’t about objective rules, they are about subjective interpretation. In other words, they rely on the “victim” to decide if they’ve been victimized. This isn’t about creating conduct for everyone to follow, this is about giving certain groups the power to attack those with whom they disagree. The last group of people to hold similar powers were the aristocracy under Louis XIV or Nazi party members under Hitler.

Finally, I’ll leave you with a bit of irony. Because political correctness is so subjective, it changes all the time as grievances are expanded and new victims discover their victimhood. Thus, what was politically correct a few years ago may not be so today. Sesame Streets on was one of the first attempts at politically correct brainwashing. But when they released the DVDs a year ago, they actually put a label on them that these were not appropriate for children.

Thus, to all the politically correct of the world, I say this. . .



[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Scooby Doo Exposes The Politically Correct

I’m a huge fan of Scooby Doo. No doubt, you are as well. I mean seriously, how can you not love a talking dog? But Scooby Doo has been changing of late, and not for the better. Scooby Doo has become politically correct. Interestingly, these changes tell us a lot about the true nature of political correctness.

Political Correctness Is About Victimization And Thought Crime

We all know what political correctness means. The term “politically correct” was coined to describe the left’s attempts to force people to accept identify-politics by making it a thought crime to express any view that upsets the victimization cult. This cult, consisting of various self-anointed identity groups (e.g. black groups, women’s groups, disability advocates, homosexual activists, etc.), would challenge anyone who expressed a politically incorrect thought and would demand that they be sent to sensitivity training to “correct” their thinking. If they persisted, cult members would shout the person down and seek to have them fired from their jobs. The idea, as with all thought crimes, was that if people could be kept from expressing ideas, they would stop having those ideas. Stupid.

Well, as the minions of political correctness made their whiny ways into the real world, most found themselves slapped down hard by reality. But some found comfort among the fruits and nuts of academia, or in the weak-willed halls of corporate “human resource” departments, or in Hollywood, where the need to be worshiped mixes with leftwing politics like a nauseous potion. And having found a place where they could revel in their victimhood, they set about inserting that victimhood into films. . . and cartoons.

But a “strange” thing happened when these victims began spewing their idiocy onto celluloid -- they showed themselves to be hypocrites. Rather than being mere victims trying to end the oppression of others, they proved to be expert victimizers and hatemongers. Imagine that! Who could have guessed that a group of people that wants to control the thoughts of others and will happily destroy anyone who does not submit, could somehow turn out to be nasty, vindictive sh..ts?

And nothing exposes their hypocrisy better than what they’ve done to Scooby Doo.

Classic Scooby Doo

Before we can show how Scooby Doo has changed, let us first establish a baseline by describing what classic Scooby Doo was.

Scooby Doo is the story of four friends and their dog, who solve apparently supernatural mysteries. These friends include Fred, the well dressed preppy, athlete type. Daphne the hottie. Velma the nerd. Shaggy the sort of hippie. And Scooby, their talking dog.

Now the first thing to realize is that this is not a normal pairing of high school kids. They represent a cross section of school cliques that would typically despise each other. But instead, this group really were fast friends. They cared about each other, they were intensely loyal, they worked together extremely well, and they treated each other with respect. In that regard, Scooby Doo presented a hopeful vision of the future, of a time when even high schoolers would stop forming cliques and would all just get along.

Moreover, none of these characters fit the well known stereotypes. Fred, despite being handsome and athletic, was also very intelligent and friendly. He was brave and loyal, and he treated his friends with respect. Velma, the nerd, was actually the co-leader of the group. She was smart, clever and brave, as well. Daphne, the hottie, was stylish and personally attractive, and she also was smart, brave and capable. She was at times clumsy, earning her the nickname “Dangerprone Daphne” but she could hardly be called helpless. Shaggy was a gymnast and a track star, but he’s also a bit of an early hippie. He is much more easily frightened than the others, but he too proves himself brave time and time again. And of course, there was Scooby.

Classic Scooby Doo also had a positive, simple message. Don’t be afraid. All the ghosts and monsters they encountered always proved to be a guy in a costume. Thus, the message was obvious, don’t fall for crazy, paranoid or supernatural explanations and never let your fears control you. There was also a strong undercurrent of trusting your friends and that, by working together as a group, one can overcome all obstacles.

But all that’s changed. . . now that they’ve made it “better.”

How Political Correctness Warped Scooby Doo

Somewhere along the way, angry feminists got their hands on Scooby Doo. And they warped this show beyond recognition. But what they did gives us an interesting mirror into their thinking.

First, they hated Fred. The idea that a handsome, athletic male would lead this group was enough to cause their little, hate-filled hearts to burst. Clearly, this was old-school male oppression, and it was keeping little girls everywhere down. So they changed Fred. Did they make him more egalitarian? No. They made him into a barely competent fool. None of Fred’s ideas make sense any more, and everyone ridicules them. He is seen as muscle, when needed, comic relief when not -- he can't even drive well. And every time he comes up with a plan, the others need to demand to know why he thinks he’s the leader.

They also like to make Fred out as sexist (when they aren’t suggesting that he’s gay). See, in the original series, whenever he wanted the group to separate to find clues, he always chose to take Daphne and leave the ugly girl (Velma) to go with Shaggy and Scooby, right? Hence, sexism!!! Boo hoo hoo. Actually, no.

In the original series, they rarely broke the group up this way. Usually, Shaggy would take Scooby in one group and the other three would go in the other group. Moreover, what the feminists miss, is that Velma is the second leader of the group. Thus, forming groups around Fred and Velma would be natural. Third, there was a suggestion that Fred and Daphne were dating, which again would be a reason for them to stay together. But because the feminists can’t see past their victimology, they assume this pairing (which rarely happened) had to be sexism. So now every new cartoon or live action movie has to include a scene where Fred proposes to break the group up and he selects Daphne, only to be harshly slapped down by Daphne and Velma for being sexist.

But Fred wasn’t the only victim of politically correct hate. Daphne’s character has suffered as well. Because she’s attractive, the same people who made Fred incompetent decided that she needed to be made vapid and vain. After all, we can’t have little girls believing that good looking people might be anything other than shallow, because then they would feel oppressed by the good looking. Consequently, hardly a new Scooby Doo movie goes by without Daphne obsessing about her make up, her hair or her clothes.

But there was the inescapable problem that Daphne, being female, also needed to be a role model. So they set about forcing her to act out the feminist obsession with being good at all things men can do, and being independent from men in the process. Despite her obsession with beauty she is now made to reject any hint that she’s interested in men -- she’s not a lesbian, she’s just become anti-sexual (“frigid” in the ancient parlance). She is also required to have an independent career, and to engage in whatever masculine hobbies fit the plot. And she must always be seen to be better than everyone around her, except when she’s being vapid. The message to little girls, you better become better than boys if you want to succeed.

Velma too has suffered, and in the strangest way of all. Of all the characters, you would have expected Velma to have undergone the best transformation at the hands of the politically correct. Are we not told that we should not judge people according to their looks? Apparently, that’s a myth. First, the politically correct stripped Velma of her leadership role. She’s now a full-on modern nerd, which apparently includes confused thinking and social insecurity. . . but not leadership. In the latest incarnation, they’ve even gone so far as to cast an Asian girl to play her -- reinforcing the stereotype of Asians as tech savvy nerds. What’s more, they’ve made Velma into the only sexually active character. In movie after movie, she now lusts after some male (always a geek, of course, because looks do matter and you don’t want to encourage ugly girls to go for attractive males). But even more insulting, she remains flummoxed by the experience of lusting after boys until Daphne steps in and teaches her the art of seduction, which always includes make up, new hair, tight clothes and a scene where she stumbles around learning to walk in high heels.

And what makes this really sick is the fact that the people who have done this, honestly believe that little girls are influenced by the girls they see on cartoons. Think about that. What that means is that these are conscious choices. And yet, rather than offering two different yet intelligent and capable female characters (as they were in classic Scooby Doo), they’re now offering a frigid, vapid, neurotic loner with a chip on her shoulder, and a nerd girl who needs to learn to mimic the vapid chick to get the attention of boys.

Moreover, as a consequence of these changes, these “friends” are no longer really friends. They fight and argue and act out petty jealousies. Daphne is obsessed with showing she can be independent. Velma is obsessed with proving she’s smart and satisfying her nerd lust. Fred sulks for his lost masculinity. Only the relationship between Shaggy and Scooby remains unscathed.

Of all the characters, Shaggy actually escapes with the least harm. Shaggy’s lost his core, particularly his hidden bravery, but he’s little changed otherwise -- having gone from proto-hippie to quasi-stoner. Apparently, stoners love their dogs.

And It’s Not Just The Characters That Have Changed

In addition to the dramatic and disturbing changes in the characters, there have been two other dramatic changes wrought by political correctness. First, each new cartoon is crawling with politically correct information. Rather than just solving mysteries, we now learn about global warming. We learn how Wicca is a religion, not just something for goth kids to jerk themselves with, and that all witches were wrongly accused. We learn that greedy American developers are destroying wonderful third world paradises like Mexico. And so on.

Secondly, the monsters are now real. That’s right. The monsters and ghosts are now genuine. This is truly despicable because it replaces the comforting and rational message of “don’t be afraid” with the disturbing message of “fear the dark, for there be monsters in it.”

Conclusion

Look what political correctness has wrought upon Scooby Doo! Gone is the show about a group of kids, who have shattered stereotypes and ignored peer pressure to become friends, and who work diligently as a team, using the best virtues of mankind to solve mysteries and expose to children that there is truly nothing to fear. In its place, we have a group of highly stereotypical, self-centered unpleasant people who barely get along and who prove time and time again that monsters are real.

This is the fruit of political correctness. The self-appointed victims of oppression have not shown us a world free of victimization as they promised, they just victimized those they don’t like. And in their anger, they have shown a startling jealousy. Could it be that political correctness is not about correcting injustice so much as it is about getting even with those who make us feel inadequate?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Oh You Dirty Liberal Racists. . .

The New York Democratic Party and its allies in the media are dirty racists who can’t stomach the idea of a black man sitting in the Governor’s chair, or so says New York Democratic Governor David Paterson. No so, respond his liberal critics: the problem is you’re blind. So much for the usual political correctness.

For those who don’t know, David Paterson, who is both black and blind, has been dubbed the “Accidental Governor.” He took over the post when crusading “white-knight” Governor Eliot Spitzer flamed out after consorting with a hooker named Ashley Dupre. (The term “white-knight” was not mine, by the way, it came from the racist New York media.)

And the liberals did cheer when Paterson took over. According to one liberal columnist, “People wanted Paterson to succeed, people wanted to get behind . . . a black, sight-challenged New Yorker.” Because that’s how we move beyond race, by supporting a candidate because of his race.

But since those heady days, the cheering has stopped. Paterson’s approval ratings have fallen as low as 18%, and Democrats have begun to call for him to declare that he will not run for re-election, lest the seat fall into Republican hands. And this doesn’t sit well with the good Governor. Why? Because his critics are racists. That’s right, the New York Democratic Party and their media allies are racists.

Last Friday, Paterson told Daily News columnist (and African American) Errol Louis in a radio interview that a “racist media” is trying to kill his chances of running for a full term next year. According to Paterson, the campaign against him is being “orchestrated” by reporters who would rather make the news than report it: “The whole idea is to get me not to run in the primary. We’re not in a post-racial period.”

Apparently, some people are uncomfortable with too many black politicians in power, Paterson warns us. Said Paterson, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick also is under fire in racist Massachusetts because of his race. Moreover, “the reality is the next victim on the list -- and you can see it coming -- is President Barack Obama, who did nothing more than trying to reform a health care system.”

Yes, we can see it coming David. And all because Obama tried to reform health care. . . and the $9 trillion debt, the $1 trillion deficit, the seizure of GM and the political closing of Republican dealerships, the insulting of America and Americans to Muslims on foreign shores, the commission of the same “war crimes” Dick Cheney used to whip out for fun, the demonization of average Americans, the fishy snitch, calling cops stupid, and a whole host of other non-things.

Paterson’s warning did not sit too well with Team Obama. White House political director Patrick Gaspard called Paterson aide Larry Schwartz to tell him that Obama wants no part of this mess (whew, I almost used the word "tar baby" but then I remember that's now racist). Said Obama spokesman Bill Burton:

“In terms of media coverage of the President, he thinks that there are a lot of people who agree with him in the media, there are a lot people who disagree with him in the media, and there are a lot of folks who play it straight. . . Whether or not race plays into that. . . the President doesn't think it is the case. What he thinks is that there area lot of people with different opinions, and one of the great parts about the American tradition is that people are able to do that freely.”

Obama then “wee wee’d” himself.

With the left wing media going insane, not being as accustomed to false allegations of racism as the right is, and with Team Obama trying to unload this albatross, Paterson tried to downplay his comments.

“I don't think the media has acted in a racist way, but I have felt stereotyped at times. . . At no point did I claim that this media piling-on effect was due to race,” he said, before adding, “What I did point out was that certain media outlets have engaged in coverage that exploits racial stereotypes. The media is trying to control the politics, not reporting it. They're trying to control it. There are some folks in the media who think that it's all right to racially stereotype.” Thus, they aren’t racist, they just make racist attacks.

Surprisingly, this didn’t stem the criticism, particularly as the allegation of racism did not sit well with a Democratic Party that believes that it cannot, by definition, be racist.

Said state Senator Kevin Parker: “He’s given the media more than enough to feed on with the incompetence shown in his administration. To quote Michael Jackson, he should start with the man in the mirror.” Michael Jackson? Some Republican will have to try that line on Obama and see how much blood flows at Huffpo.

Paterson was quick to respond by doubling down on stupid. Indeed, noting that despite New York’s financial crisis, he had not had to write IOUs like liberal California, and the state was not nearly as bad off as Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Massachusetts. Strangely, no comparison was made to Republican run states. He also complained that he was held to a higher standard. “I played by the rules. It was a very difficult position to find myself in and I've given it my best. I've done the best I can under the very trying circumstances the state is facing. It seems I have to work twice as hard as others.”

Then he added the coup de grace: “I have been quiet for 17 months on this issue. . . . Part of what I feel is that one very successful minority is permissible, but when you see too many success stories, then some people get nervous.”

He also pointed out that it bothers him that people refer to him as the “accidental governor.” Whines Paterson: “It was not an accident. It is a constitutional mandate. I became governor by a constitutional mandate.” He then noted that the honkus maximus successors to disgraced governors Jim McGreevy of New Jersey and John Rowland of Connecticut were not dubbed “accidental governors.”

The racists in the media haven’t take this too well. After comparing Paterson to black athletes and suggesting that he should raise the “white flag”, they described his complaints as “self-pitying,” even though we know that allegations of racism cannot be self-pity.

But don’t worry, it may turn out that this isn’t about racism at all. . . it’s about disablism. At least, that’s what Democratic state Senator Diane Savino claimed, when she said:

“We live in a digital age now, with e-mailing and BlackBerrying. He is not able to do that because of his visual impairment. David cannot do those things. Also, he does not read Braille. He has people reading newspapers to him. He listens to tapes of staffers briefing him. All that takes an enormous amount of time. . . In some ways I think that has hindered him, in spite of everything he has accomplished in life. David is one of those people who tends to rely on the staff around him to set policy and make decisions, and then he turns around and undoes things. The messaging and the policy development comes out in various conflicting forms.”

Paterson aide, Larry Schwartz called those comments “insensitive and totally inappropriate.” He then stated that “Diane Savino owes a public apology to Governor Paterson and every visually impaired New Yorker.” He then insulted the non-blind by claiming that Paterson functions “as well, if not better than people without a handicap.”

Thus, we are left with a riddle. Is the New York liberal media and the New York Democratic Party (and their Massachusetts equivalents) a bunch of racists who can’t handle seeing too many black men in power? Are they just biased against blind people? Or has a black governor made false claims of racism to cover his own incompetence?

The ironies here are rich. New York should impose an “irony tax.”

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...