Category Archives: Political Correctness

Update V: BUSH IN A BRA

Bush, Foreign Policy, Iran, Just War, Neoconservatism, Political Correctness, Politics, Republicans, Sarah Palin

That’s Sarah Palin. The Age of the Idiot means that, as I write, no transcript is available of Sarah Palin’s address to the Tea Party Convention. I would have preferred to speed read through the thing, but I am forced to view this. Thanks BAB readers for your solid comments on the speech in the previous post.

• Plenty babble about democracy being beautiful. The founders founded a republic, not a democracy, because they feared majorities as much as they detested monarchy.
• National security. More nonsense. The response to the pantie bomber is far more dangerous than the Mirandized man could ever be. Terrorizing the American sheeple at airports began under Sarah’s man, Bush. She repeats the asinine idea that the American military bestriding the globe, a presence that cost us a $1 trillion a year, is protecting our constitutional rights. Poppycock.
• Terrorists are trying to destroy the American Constitution, says she. Nonsense. American governments have beat them to it. To all intents and purposes, the Constitution is dead. If the lady doesn’t get it, then…
• Support for democracy and its dissemination across the world, now that’s an idea I’ve heard before. Bush branded the United States as the world’s “partner for a better life.” He also recommitted “our nation” “abroad” “to an historic, long-term goal”: seeking “the end of tyranny in our world.” If the Tea Party doesn’t reject root-and-branch this odious neoconservative formula; I’m out of there.
• “We need a strong national defense.” Middle America, or is it Meathead America, erupted in cheers when Sarah got militant. Uttered by Sarah this is code for gallivanting around the world, which Ronald Reagan, whom she invoked, did not do. He withdrew from Lebanon, remember? I’m for strong defense—of America’s borders, of her neighborhoods via local militias and well-armed citizens.
• I’m against sanctions, which Palin trumpets. We killed enough kids in Iraq through sanctions. “Trade, not democracy, is the best antidote to war. The more economically intertwined countries are, the less likely they are to go to war. Boycott Iran less and barter with it more and it’s bound to tone down its belligerence.”
• I liked the mention of Barry Goldwater, naturally. “We can be conquered by bombs, but we can also be conquered by neglect, by ignoring our Constitution.”
• TARP and bailouts. Didn’t her ticket support the Bush bailout? Isn’t she preparing to stump for McMussolini, the man who’s all for this Keynesian kookiness?
• Only twice did Palin get worked up in a real good way, and that was when she spoke of the effects of the bailouts and TARP on the states and the toll it would take on the Tenth Amendment. She should have remained a governor. She was good at that. The other instance was when she delved into energy issues—yet another of her strengths. If you read her book, you’ll know that, “when it comes to the ins-and-outs of the oil and gas industry—ownership, extraction, contracts and leases—Sarah Palin is as sharp as a tack.”
• The federales keep “making us take these steps toward insolvency.” Good. Palin did say that the federal government was printing dollars, funny-money, or worthless paper. More of that was in order.

Someone pick up from here. I’ve had enough.

Update I: GLORIOUS GIMPS. There, I’ve said it. In her advocacy, repeated in last night’s address, on behalf of “special” children, Palin is strengthening the contemptible tradition, embraced by “traditionalists,” of a politically correct tyranny, to say nothing of statism (when she ran as VP, Palin promised a department devoted to the developmentally challenged. Have I used all the right lingo?).

Palin is no different from her buddy, blond bubblehead Elizabeth Hasselbeck, in galvanizing the PC police to mete justice to mouthy individuals.

Ha’aratz:

(Sarah Palin, the former Republican vice presidential hopeful, demanded on Monday that President Barack Obama fire his White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, over a reported expletive [“f—-ng retarded”] he is said to have uttered, CBS News reported.)

Palin is pathetic on this front. She also has it all wrong. If anything, a traditionalist ought to defend manners. I find the plain rude “f-cking” more offensive than the legitimate colloquial “retarded.”

Update II: Palin a product of affirmative action? I can’t begin to think why anyone would so assert. Not true. Palin comes from a poor, hard-working, wonderful family. She worked like a dog for everything she has, including catching and gutting fish, and eventually owning a fishing concern with an equally rugged mate, Todd. In her family, the college-goer paid for his or her education. What parent that you know (or who partakes on this blog) has done that bit of character- building for their brats?

Read her book before you declare Sarah a product of affirmative action. Her political career is also anything but. Campaigning for governor involved getting in the pick-up with Todd and the kids—and if Todd was on The Slope in a hard hat, then without the remarkable hunk—cranking up the music and traveling for hundreds of miles around Alaska to meet the folks.

The woman is fearless.

Anyone who doesn’t recognize Sarah for the remarkable lady she is a plain fool. I challenge him or her to read Sarah’s book, the worst sections of which entail her entanglement with the man Barry Goldwater despised, McMussolini; the best tell of her early familial and political years (and too little of the Love of her Life).

The press lied about the content of Going Rogue. Despite the shoddy treatment Palin received at the hands of a bunch of sleazy McCain handlers, she remained gracious and genteel. Moreover, the book is substantive. Liberals simply consider the kind of ideas Palin expresses and the way of life she likes an abomination.

Having said all that, problems remain with her stunted politics.

Update III: I’m shaking; Iran and Sudan are talking. (In reply to the odd comment hereunder, which I had hoped someone else would do on my behalf). And in reply to “Ms Palin’s advice for Mr Obama, on Sunday, to attack Iran”:

WHY on earth? Iran is no danger to the US. If it sends a missile our way, we’ll intercept it. But if the missile lands on a city (DC?), Iran will be communing with the 12th Imam in a matter of minutes. One push of the button is all it takes for the US to nuke Iran out of this hemisphere. Obama, who has been very active in bombing Afghani terrorists, their families and villagers with the aid of drones, will press the button.

Any American who says he’s afraid of Iran is lying, is chicken, or is really afraid for Israel.

I too am afraid for Israel. As I’ve said, Israel has been threatened by Iran. If the Jewish state perceives an impending danger of a nuclear attack from Iran, then the Israelis must do what it takes to defend themselves.

Since backward, poor Iran poses no danger to the US, what our somewhat disingenuous neoconservative contributors are in fact suggesting is that the US fight Israel’s battles. I cannot condone that—certainly not while pretending that Iran poses a danger to the US, when it does not.

Update IV: PALIN STATISM. Other than perpetual war and a department for the disabled, Sarah Palin is a staunch supported of some other big-government items.

Larry Auster notes that “she is a passionate advocate of Title IX, the federal statute barring ‘discrimination’ against females in education which, in Atlas Shrugged manner, [I don’t get this obfuscating reference Auster has inserted] by requiring that there be an equal number of girls’ and boys’ sports teams in each school, has forced hundreds of schools around the country to discontinue boys’ sports teams. And she supports an expansion of federal aid to education–the very essence of the big government, socialist mindset!”

Update V (Feb. 8): BACK TO IRAN.

WALLACE: How hard do you think President Obama will be to defeat in 2012?
PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played—and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day – say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided really [to] come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do, but – that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today I do not think Obama would be re-elected. But three years from now, things could change if—on the national security front …
WALLACE: But you’re not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card?
PALIN: I’m not suggesting that. I’m saying if he did, things would dramatically change. If he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies, I think people would, perhaps, shift their thinking a little bit and decide, “Well, maybe he’s tougher than we think he’s—than he is today,” and there wouldn’t be as much passion to make sure that he doesn’t serve another four years.

Naturally I oppose a Palin foreign policy whereby we send our men to die for the safety of our satellite states.

One more pesky detail, for those of you itching for some war games (as you are not going to be fighting the war you promote): The US can’t afford the wars it’s in.

That said, you’d have to be an idiot to deny what Iran has been broadcasting: The Islamic Republic is cooking-up a Bomb. The French are afraid. So are the Germans.

So for America, war is out. All else is in. Get the IAEA’s ElBaradei working. He did a good job in Iraq before Bush kicked him out and flattened the place. Have the Europeans strain their nukes on Iran and create Cold-War deterrence. The peaceful options are endless.

Update II: Reid & The Knee-Jerk Jerks (LOTT)

Barack Obama, Democrats, Etiquette, Political Correctness, Race, Racism

What Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said about President Barack Obama is not remotely wrong, or racist.

Reid commended Obama to the authors of the forthcoming book Game Change as a highly electable, “light-skinned” African American, “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Indelicate language, but certainly not racist.

Now let’s hear Republicans say as much—and then demand that their candidates be given the same intellectually honesty treatment when they fall short on racial etiquette. Even more magnanimous and impressive: demand Reid resign for his health-care putsch, not for his inartful remarks about Obama.

Here is my version of the Reid Remarks:

The election of Obama is no racial milestone; it’s not that whites have come to their senses. But rather that African Americans have finally done what’s right (to paraphrase the childish, churlish prose of one Rev. Lowery). For the first time in a long time, the black community has put forward a candidate of caliber; a candidate the American people were only too willing to consider for the highest office in the land.
Until Barack, the black community had disgorged the likes of Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. Be he black, brown, yellow or red (Rev. Lowery’s classification)—no sane American would elect those two phonies to serve on their local PTA board, much less in the Oval Office.

Update I (Jan. 12): Reid displays “soft condescension,” says the reader below. Fine. But I don’t understand the, “Where is Reid coming from,” and the, “Why did he feel the need to articulate this truth.” Or “Why would it surprise him that a black man speaks non-ebonics (‘white’)?”

If the statement Reid made about obama’s uniqueness among the black community’s political leaders is true—why should it not be articulated? Obama’s diction and demeanor are indeed uncommon among black leaders, academics, etc. Is there something wrong about saying so?

Harry was expressing an objective reality. He forgot, for a moment, to be the two-faced player he usually is. How ironic that the one time the man (Reid) speaks the truth, he is crucified for it.

Update II (Jan. 12): LOTT’S LOT.

Republicans seeking Sen. Harry Reid’s resignation as majority leader over racial remarks he made about Barack Obama say yes — that Reid should be held to the same standard as former GOP Sen. Trent Lott, whose own racial gaffes cost him the Senate leadership in 2002

[Yahoo News]

From “Lancing the Lott”:

“Only seasoned and cynical opportunists could suggest that it was for segregation that Lott was pining, when he praised Strom Thurmond’s 1948 party platform at the octogenarian’s 100th birthday bash.”

“In 1948, Americans didn’t want the government to be involved in general, Frank Newport of the Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing told an unreceptive Jerry Nachman of MSNBC. When asked, the majority polled insisted, for instance, that issues revolving around employer ‘discrimination’ be left to employers and the states. The same goes for the adjudication of lynching. Nothing in the poll suggests an approval of the crime. Rather, Americans were emphatic about keeping the federal government out of state affairs.”

“When Strom Thurmond went up against Harry S. Truman and Thomas E. Dewey in 1948, it was about states’ rights. Dixiecrats was the derogatory name the Media Ministry gave to what was really the States Rights Democratic Party. Considering that the Constitution consigns law enforcement to state and local governments, the position the Dixiecrats took was hardly subversive.”

Update II: Reid & The Knee-Jerk Jerks (LOTT)

Barack Obama, Democrats, Etiquette, Political Correctness, Race, Racism

What Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said about President Barack Obama is not remotely wrong, or racist.

Reid commended Obama to the authors of the forthcoming book Game Change as a highly electable, “light-skinned” African American, “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Indelicate language, but certainly not racist.

Now let’s hear Republicans say as much—and then demand that their candidates be given the same intellectually honesty treatment when they fall short on racial etiquette. Even more magnanimous and impressive: demand Reid resign for his health-care putsch, not for his inartful remarks about Obama.

Here is my version of the Reid Remarks:

The election of Obama is no racial milestone; it’s not that whites have come to their senses. But rather that African Americans have finally done what’s right (to paraphrase the childish, churlish prose of one Rev. Lowery). For the first time in a long time, the black community has put forward a candidate of caliber; a candidate the American people were only too willing to consider for the highest office in the land.
Until Barack, the black community had disgorged the likes of Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. Be he black, brown, yellow or red (Rev. Lowery’s classification)—no sane American would elect those two phonies to serve on their local PTA board, much less in the Oval Office.

Update I (Jan. 12): Reid displays “soft condescension,” says the reader below. Fine. But I don’t understand the, “Where is Reid coming from,” and the, “Why did he feel the need to articulate this truth.” Or “Why would it surprise him that a black man speaks non-ebonics (‘white’)?”

If the statement Reid made about obama’s uniqueness among the black community’s political leaders is true—why should it not be articulated? Obama’s diction and demeanor are indeed uncommon among black leaders, academics, etc. Is there something wrong about saying so?

Harry was expressing an objective reality. He forgot, for a moment, to be the two-faced player he usually is. How ironic that the one time the man (Reid) speaks the truth, he is crucified for it.

Update II (Jan. 12): LOTT’S LOT.

Republicans seeking Sen. Harry Reid’s resignation as majority leader over racial remarks he made about Barack Obama say yes — that Reid should be held to the same standard as former GOP Sen. Trent Lott, whose own racial gaffes cost him the Senate leadership in 2002

[Yahoo News]

From “Lancing the Lott”:

“Only seasoned and cynical opportunists could suggest that it was for segregation that Lott was pining, when he praised Strom Thurmond’s 1948 party platform at the octogenarian’s 100th birthday bash.”

“In 1948, Americans didn’t want the government to be involved in general, Frank Newport of the Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing told an unreceptive Jerry Nachman of MSNBC. When asked, the majority polled insisted, for instance, that issues revolving around employer ‘discrimination’ be left to employers and the states. The same goes for the adjudication of lynching. Nothing in the poll suggests an approval of the crime. Rather, Americans were emphatic about keeping the federal government out of state affairs.”

“When Strom Thurmond went up against Harry S. Truman and Thomas E. Dewey in 1948, it was about states’ rights. Dixiecrats was the derogatory name the Media Ministry gave to what was really the States Rights Democratic Party. Considering that the Constitution consigns law enforcement to state and local governments, the position the Dixiecrats took was hardly subversive.”

Update II: NCIS Has Always Sucked (Ditto "24")

Christianity, Film, Hollywood, Islam, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Propaganda

I’d expect a reader as smart and articulate as Mike Bassett to refrain from watching NCIS. I do. I never watch any program in which the actors become “characters”—phony, “quirky,” empty heads, whose nauseating, smarmy interactions trump any attempt at a tale.

Yes, “Law and Order” in all its permutations sports PC elements, as does “CSI.” But generally, these excellent series offer kick-ass scripts and actors. Give me a good narrative. But I will not tolerate some prancing, decked-up, self-styled Goth twenty-something (allegedly) inserting herself into the story, and selling what goes, in these sorry days, for “originality” and “individuality.”

Other than the ladies who always offer up their cleavages in the interrogation room, and everywhere else (you want respect when you go into a situation boobs first? Not from me, bubbles), “Law & Order,” “CSI,” and “Criminal Minds,” especially,—are all top-notch productions.

Update: The other thing I refuse to abide in entertainment is what I call the “giant wagging, prodding finger.” Activism should not replace acting, and sermons must not supplant stories.” I refuse to be lectured by pea brains. GIVE ME A GOOD STORY! No politics.

Writes Mike Bassett:

NCIS, the nations #1 TV show goes P.C. run amok.

Tuesday night’s “Christmas” episode of NCIS, starring and produced by Mark Harmon, was the most disgusting and P.C. episode I have ever seen on the series.

The episode depicts a returned combat veteran Marine murdered while kneeling next to a tree on a Muslim prayer rug.

The crux of the investigation, conducted with a background of the “Christmas” theme in progress, shows various members of Leroy Jethro Gibbs’s NCIS team preparing for various pre-Christmas events while investigating the murder of this Marine turned Muslim.

The suspects are varied (yet inclusive), including:

(1) The Marine’s father, a retired Marine colonel turned “Christian Pastor”.

(2) A group of Marines in the victims former unit.

(3) The Marine’s widow (a very prim and proper white, blonde Christian chick).

(4) The Marine victim’s younger brother (a dashing white Christian guy attending a military prep school).

Also in attendance in the episode is the victim’s Muslim Navy Chaplin, a dashing black officer, who spends the episode quoting the positives of Islam and the traumas of our fighting men who wish to convert to Islam after their tours of duty in the Middle East.

The episode villainizes every suspect in the show as being outwardly hostile toward our victim’s conversion to Islam with the following results:

His father, the now Christianized, retired Marine colonel pastor, who only wants to be referred to as “Reverend”, is found to have paid off some of the current Marines in the victims old unit, to taunt him into rejecting Islam because it is detrimental to the mission of the unit and disgraces his family members.

The old unit buddies spend their time being paid off by Dad (the “Reverend”), and taunting our victim until he is forced to seek counsel from the Muslim chaplin, who, as I said before, spends the episode depicting the wonderful world of Islam.

The widowed wife is depicted as a surly and uncooperative individual, who refuses to assist in the investigation because she has a funeral to conduct.

The younger brother, Mr. Perfect, student at a prestigious military prep school, is in a quandary over who could have possibly killed his brother, the former perfect Marine, that is, before he shamed his family by becoming a Muslim.

Meanwhile, the dapper Muslim Navy Chaplin becomes threatened when he receives a pasted cutout letter describing him as the next victim.

It all boils down to this: Our victim was murdered by his prep school brother in an “honor killing” because he (the victim) was an embarrassment to this wonderful “Christian” family for accepting Islam, thus casting dishonor on his family.

Merry Christmas from NCIS.

As a Christian, a Vietnam Veteran, a retired law enforcement officer, and an American, I am totally repulsed by this further condemnation of my American way of life.

This episode, aired in the Christmas season, is a slap in the face to every American, Christian, Marine, and military man in this country.

It purposely depicted intolerance by the suspects (all of whom were white Christians or Marines) while propagandizing the wonderful tenets of Islam, which were being usurped by a bunch of disenchanted family members and Marines who were serving with the recently “converted” victim.

Disgraceful is an understatement.

Update II (Dec. 20): Virgil is right about “24,” and its hero, “Jack Bauer: Federal Zombie.” This is from the article so titled:

Certain themes in the cult series never change. One is Bauer’s eternal willingness to be chewed and spat out by the successive governments he serves. As Bauer’s Chinese jailers hand him over to his American handlers, the latter chain him like a dog to a fence. But Bauer is accustomed to being manacled by his owners. The Top Dogs just don’t trust their lapdog, despite his devotion.

Or is Bauer’s a zombie’s obedience? As a reader put it, “Jack Bauer is the unstoppable, undead agent who has actually been killed and brought back to life, in service—and thrall—to the state. Instead of the ‘brains’ that ‘regular’ zombies devour, the Federal Zombie feeds on ‘intelligence.’” Jack’s response to his mistreatment is to mutter about his approaching meaningful end—the prospect of giving his life for the Greater Good. Some individualist.

Other abiding Hollywood themes: In real life, the typical Islamic organization—take the Council on American-Islamic Relations—is staffed by media-savvy mouthpieces for militant Islam. “24,” however, has created a chimerical CAIR full of American patriots. One of the central heroes—was it Karen Hayes?—even laments that we are alienating the very community upon which we depend to fight terrorism. On the other hand, suburban Americans are depicted as rabid Islamophobes, wont to turn on their Muslim neighbors at the drop of a hat. In one vignette two such mouth breathers break down the front door of a Muslim family’s home and beat the son up. …