Archive for ‘political correctness’

May 23, 2009

New frontiers in political correctness

As Dave Barry says, I’m not making this up:

Mayor quits job for gay
illegal immigrant he loves
. . . Only two weeks after being elected to serve his fourth term, Mayor J.W. Lown of San Angelo submitted his resignation letter Tuesday from an undisclosed location in Mexico. . . .
What made it stunning wasn’t the status of Lown’s office, which pays $600 a year, but the status of his lover.
Lown fell for an illegal Mexican immigrant.
A man.
Lown told the San Angelo Standard-Times he had fallen for the man in March, after he had already filed for re-election. The man came to the U.S. five years ago to study at Angelo State University.
It was unclear whether he had a student visa, but if he did it apparently had expired.

Go read the whole thing, if only to prove to yourself this isn’t from Iowahawk. A couple of thoughts:

  1. To quote our hero Gunnery Sgt. Hartman, “Only two things come from Texas,” and Mayor Lown is definitely not a steer.
  2. If this doesn’t get Mayor Lown a Profile in Courage award and a “genius” grant from the McArthur Foundation, it will at least get him a six-figure book deal, appearances on “The View” and “Oprah,” and either a HBO movie deal or a reality series on VH-1.

Via Memeorandum.

UPDATE: Linked by Moe Lane at Red State and Jimmie Bise at Sundries Shack, both of whom are trying to beat the low-traffic Memorial Day weekend blues.

Advertisements
April 22, 2009

Carrie Prejean: Hateful Oppressor?

“The problem with the ‘homophobia’ smear is that this allegedly dangerous tendency does not correlate with any actual evil. Nearly all ‘homophobes’ are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who treat the objects of their supposed ‘phobia’ with civility and courtesy. It is the object of the Left to convince homosexuals that they suffer oppression as the result of the intolerance and prejudice of their fellow citizens, yet it is extraordinarily difficult to argue that homosexuals are oppressed — the annual income of gay households, calculated as a per-capita average, far exceeds the income of most married-with-children households — much less that their putative oppression is the result of discrimination at the hands of heterosexual bigots.”

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin:

Instead of apologizing for pageant judge Perez Hilton’s vile behavior, the pageant director of the Miss California contest, Keith Lewis, sent a note to Hilton throwing Prejean under the bus: “I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss CA USA 2009 believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman. . . . Religious beliefs have no place in politics in the Miss CA family.”

Ergo, Perez Hilton, OK; Carrie Prejean, not OK. Secular liberalism, OK; religious conservatism, not OK. The values of the media-culture mainstream are clear, and the price of publicly rejecting those values is equally clear.

Please allow me to call to your attention the continued shifting of the tectonic plates of American politics, as Michelle Malkin moves steadily into alignment with Robert Spencer and Pam Geller, while Charles Johnson drifts toward Meghan McCain. Meanwhile, Carrie Prejean comes out of the closet as a Tea Party conservative. I am once again reminded of Phyllis Chesler and The Camp of the Saints.

WOLVERINES!

UPDATE II: No Sheeples Here notes that, although Miss California didn’t win the crown, Perez Hilton is a total queen. Meanwhile, Donald Douglas is exploiting the controversy with admirable shamelessness.

Rule 5A — “Everybody Loves a Pretty Girl” — explains both the value of Miss Prejean’s courage in speaking up, and the rage of the Left against her. The Left knows very well what I learned more than two decades ago while working as a nightclub DJ: Wherever the pretty girls are, that’s where everyone wants to be.

This is why Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter drive ’em nuts. Beauty is associated with prestige, and when a beautiful woman declares herself a conservative, she effectively undermines the prestige of liberalism. If you’ve contemplated Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed, you understand that liberals think of themselves as more sophisticated and enlightened than the benighted “masses.”

This self-congratulatory liberal self-conception is contradicted when their ideology is not embraced by prestige-conferring beauties. Liberals have no problem getting their agenda endorsed by airhead Hollywood starlets, but whenever one encounters the confluence of beauty and brains, conservative beliefs are far more prevalent.

My beautiful and intelligent conservative wife is sufficient evidence of that phenomenon, but noting the “progressive” outrage over Tom Tancredo’s appearance at the University of North Carolina, perhaps Mrs. Other McCain won’t mind my adducing other evidence of the widespread appeal of Youth For Western Civilization:

Rep. Tom Tancredo and young extremist Clever S. Logan. (Better watch your step, Big Sexy, or these right-wingers will have you deported.)

UPDATE III: Linked at Memeorandum, with this observation from Dan Riehl: “It’s getting so one can hardly express a critical thought if it isn’t acceptable to the Left.”

UPDATE IV: Allahpundit has video of an interview with Miss North Carolina, who won the Miss USA pageant because of Miss California’s political disqualification.

UPDATE V:Sometimes you read something that makes you want to stand up and applaud. This is one of those!

UPDATE VI: Donald Douglas, all-around extremist.

March 19, 2009

Kathy Shaidle: Canada’s Limbaugh?

Jason Kenney, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, spoke Wednesday at the University of Toronto, and look whose name comes up in the news coverage:

Although Mr. Kenney was heckled on the way to his car, and stopped in the hallway by an Iraq war resister who was carrying a baby while pleading her immigration case, his audience was largely supportive.
An exception came when Mr. Kenney slapped down a question from a student about the recent spate of prepared statements in the House of Commons by Conservative backbenchers criticizing Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella, in part for his campaign against right-wing blogger Kathy Shaidle, whom he accuses of racism.
“I don’t know what you’re talking about. Sorry. I take it you’re from the Liberal club, you’ve got Warren Kinsella’s talking points. Good for you. Send me a memo, I’ll look into it,” he said.
“He guessed right,” said the questioner, Gabe De Roche, recruiting manager for the campus Liberal club.

Kathy has been victimized by the “ransom note method” of smearing: Selective quotation used by political correctoids to dehumanize conservative critics of multicultural groupthink. As with the Obama administration’s attacks on Rush Limbaugh, however, when the Left targets someone who dares to fight back — and Kathy Shaidle fights fiercely — the result tends to be that the target becomes a hero to people with common sense.

In Ms. Shaidle’s case, she became a target because of her outspoken support of Israel and her criticism of the Canadian government’s use of “human rights” to stifle free speech. (Get the book, The Tyranny of Nice, which she co-authored with Pete Vere, with an introduction by Mark Steyn.)

What’s interesting to me is that I also know conservatives who have been smeared as anti-Semites (or “unpatriotic conservatives“) because of their criticism of U.S.-Israel policy. In fact, the term “ransom note method” was coined by one such, who has not taken public credit for the coinage and whose identity I am therefore obligated to protect.

The wise and informed observer recognizes in these opportunistic smears the Left’s fundamental dishonesty of discourse. The Left supports Hamas and Hezbollah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and anyone who criticizes this blood-drenched tacit alliance will be viciously smeared as a Muslim-hating bigot. But if the Left spots a conservative who happens to be critical of the U.S.-Israel alliance, then the target is smeared as a Jew-hating bigot.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. What the Left counts on is that the majority of conservatives are so cowardly that they won’t speak up against these smears, especially when it involves some conservative who isn’t part of their particular ideological clique.

It isn’t “respectable” to speak up for Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or Kathy Shaidle. You might damage your precious reputation merely by saying that Taki Theodoracopulos has a right to his own political opinions — knowing that the Left will cry, “Aha! He defends the Jew-hater!” and then combine the “ransom note method” with the old reliable guilt-by-association to accuse you of holding opinions you do not hold.

There is no safety in silence. Fuck those lying left-wing crapweasels. I’m with Kathy:

As Rhett said to Scarlett, “With enough courage, you can do without a reputation.” Welcome to The Camp of the Saints, sweetheart.

WOLVERINES!

UPDATE: OK, Cynthia Yockey’s joined up for the Fuck The Crapweasels Brigade. Now, who else has the guts to stand in defense of Kathy Shaidle?

January 27, 2009

‘Tolerance fascists’

John Hawkins at Townhall.com:

The whole point of allowing people to immigrate to this country is to benefit the people who are already here. Yet, if you try to have any sort of substantive conversation about how many people we are allowing into the country each year, where they should be coming from, or how we should choose them, the screaming starts again. “Why do you hate immigrants?”

Man, I could write 5,000 words about this. Liberals have taught Americans to view immigration as a form of charity — indeed as an entitlement theoretically owed to all 6 billion people on the planet — and even many “conservatives” now embrace this idiotic notion. But if I get started on it, I’ll have to write 5,000 words, so I won’t start.

UPDATE: Where would we be without our liberal commenter friend, Young4Eyes?

“The whole point of allowing people to immigrate to this country is to benefit the people who are already here.”
Like….slaves?
What does he mean by ‘benefit people here’?
I mean, is that an admission that immigrants are desirable for the cheap labor they provide? In that case who do they help, the business owner or the American worker losing out to the immigrant?

OK, two separate issues:

1. It has been my contention for some time that, indeed, many open-borders enthusiasts view immigrants as commodities, like slaves. You hear this every time the immigration debate boils down to economics and some useful idiot (let’s not name names) says illegal aliens are “doing jobs Americans won’t do.” Immigrants are human beings, and all human beings are culture-bearers. Immigrants thus bring with them to some degree their cultures, which inevitably brings you into consideration of Pat Buchanan’s infamous “million zulus” hypothetical. To argue immigration on the basis of a simple economic calculus is thus to dehumanize the immigrants, but as Hawkins points out, the whole issue is so surrounded by taboos that opponents of open borders are forbidden even to discuss the cultural issue, no matter how flagrantly it erupts.
2. The purpose of government is to secure peace and prosperity to its citizens. That governments ought to act on behalf of the interests of its citizens is such a self-evident truth that no thinking person would challenge it directly. The government of the United States has an infinitely greater obligation to the citizen of Kansas than to any resident of Scotland, Switzerland or Swaziland. Quod erat demonstrandum. In regard to immigration, then, if the resident of Glasgow, Scotland, propses to resettle in Russell, Kansas, then the interests of the Kansan are infinitely more to be considered than the interests of the Glaswegian. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Now, it may well be that the good folks of Russell, Kansas, will be only too happy to have this fellow from Glasgow come live amongst them. On the other hand, it may be that the Kansans think otherwise. Perhaps they didn’t mind it when at first a few families of Scots arrived, but the trickle became a flood and now their elementary schools have become overcrowded with little Presbyterian lads with their brogues and burrs and bad teeth.

There have lately been several ugly eruptions of anti-Glaswegian prejudice (a sentiment unknown in Russell but a few short years ago) and so the Scottish toughs formed street gangs to battle their tormenters. Boys being boys (and Scots being Scots) they soon got into all manner of mischief so that now the town is terrorized by MacGregors and Stewarts and Campbells, who strut around in their gang colors (tartans, of course), blasting bagpipe music from their boomboxes, and wreaking havoc amongst the townfolk.

The situation deteriorates, as one rundown part of town becomes known as “Little Glasgow,” the maternity wards overflow with knocked-up teenage Scottish girls (boys being boys, and Scots being Scots), and immigrant activists demand that Gaelic be taught in the local schools. Even though most Scottish adults are here legally and work for a living, residents can’t help but notice every time they’re in the checkout line at the grocery store and find themselves waiting behind a woman with a Glaswegian accent paying with food stamps.

“Enough is enough!” say the folks in Russell, at long last. “We’re tired of being overrun with these damned haggis-gobbling foreigners!”

Now, under these circumstances, is the obligation of the government to respond to the grievances of the Kansans, or to protect the interests of the Scots? In such a conflict, I say, the grievances of the Kansans are quite nearly everything, and the interests of the Scots are quite nearly nothing. And don’t sing me any sad songs about the poverty and misery of the Glasgow ghettos, as such misfortunes are exclusively the concern of the Scottish government (and their English overlords) and the folks of Russell cannot be compelled to accept the refugees as a matter of “rights.” Besides, what’s the good of bringing over Scots if they’re only going to recreate here the same rotten conditions that made Glasgow such a pesthole, as they inevitably will if they keep pouring into Russell in such overwhelming numbers?

I am enough of a small-“d” democrat to believe that if 51% of American voters wanted zero immigration, the government would be obliged to institute such a policy — and the Scots be damned! As it is, I think a solid majority of my fellow citizens would be satisfied if only their government would mount a serious effort to enforce our existing immigration laws and would be exceedingly pleased if the total inflow of legal immigrants could be limited somewhere at or below 500,000 a year.

Such a policy would be neither inhumane nor unworkable, and the major obstacle to its enactment is that politicians are terrified of being labeled “anti-immigrant” — an accusation made by those who routinely imply that foreigners have some “right” to settle here, a “right” which be infringed by enforcement of sound policy.

To hell with such nonsense, and to hell with any politician who refuses to save us from The Plaid Menace!

UPDATE: Welcome, Conservative Grapevine readers!

December 20, 2008

Unspeakable truth, mandatory lies

One of the weirdnesses of 21st-century life is that certain facts are politically incorrect. Notice I said facts, not opinions. Joel Stein of the L.A. Times points to one such verboten truth:

I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.

Stein backs up that statement with extensive evidence of Jewish dominance within the entertainment industry and, unlike the ADL, sees no reason to be embarassed by it. Yet, to the ADL, it is considered a sign of enlightened tolerance that 78% of people falsely believe that Hollywood is not dominated by Jews. So, according to the ADL, the alternative to delusion is bigotry. Steve Sailer observes:

In general, isn’t it weird how it has become fashionable to be naive and less worldly . . .? It used to be that people felt proud of knowing the score, of understanding the way of the world, of being clued in to how things work.
Today, though, it’s cool to be ignorant.

Ignorance as enlightment follows a definite pattern, as with the case of how Tom Clancy’s Palestinian terrorists in The Sum of All Fears morphed into neo-Nazis in the movie version. One can no longer generalize about group tendencies without inviting the charge of fostering “hate.” Kathy Shaidle notes the “moral exhibitionism” of those who react to her “matter of fact, everybody-knows statement about . . . Black culture” by condemning her as a racist. Kathy correctly locates the origin of such condemnation in modern academia. Our education system nowadays seems to emphasize a vision of egalitarian homogeneity, so that people are fungible units without any distinctive ethno-cultural traits to differentiate them.

Furthermore, academia seems to be teaching young people to argue by exceptions, to naysay any general observation by responding, “Yeah, but what if . . .?” The “what if” is always some hypothetical case intended to disprove the general observation. You see this all the time in the abortion debate.

The overwhelming majority of abortions are merely retroactive contraception to terminate an adult woman’s inconvenient pregnancy. Yet pro-choicers are always conjuring up the specter of the 14-year-old incest victim, or the woman whose pregnancy presents potentially fatal medical complications. One might allow for every such exceptional case and still prohibit 97 percent of abortions — reducing the annual number of U.S. abortions from more than a million to less than 50,000 — but in the mind of pro-choicers the existence of a relatively few exceptional cases justifies unlimited abortion.

Which brings us back around to the ADL’s survey. A certain percentage of people who would agree with the statement about show business being “pretty much run by Jews” are anti-Semites, and these exceptional cases are, to the ADL way of thinking, sufficient to justify the presumption that all who agree with that statement are tainted by anti-Semitism. (And the dangers posed by anti-Semitism are so great that, if you don’t donate generously to the ADL, tomorrow the brownshirts will be goose-stepping down Main Street.)

BTW, Barack Obama hasn’t named a single Jew to his Cabinet. Does that make Obama a Jew-hater? Why are the forces of enlightened tolerance denouncing Kathy Shaidle, when they ought to be watching out for President-Elect Eichmann?

UPDATE: Linked at Dustbury — thanks.

UPDATE II: Sharon at GPWOW:

Often, in my debates with pro-choicers, I am accused of being anti-contraception, anti-woman (indeed, frequently assumed to not be a woman), heartless, stupid and against any possible exceptions for abortion. This isn’t the case; I think contraception is a good thing if you don’t want children, and even though I personally wouldn’t have an abortion for rape or incest (perhaps not even the life-threatening pregnancy), I could allow those exceptions if it meant barring the 97% of abortions done for other reasons.
But this never seems to be enough for the hardliners. Because if you point out where you might agree with them–on contraception, for instance–they will simply keep moving the goalposts. What about the morning after pill? What about babies born to abused women? What about all those babies already born but living in orphanages?

Indeed. It’s like any other argument with a liberal. In The Vision of the Anointed, Thomas Sowell has a chapter called “The Irrelevance of Evidence” that captures this tendency quite concisely. At some point, you realize that you aren’t really arguing about abortion, or education, or immigration, or whatever the issue is supposed to be. Rather, you are arguing against the liberal’s sense of his innate superiority to ordinary people like you. This is a point he will never cede under any circumstance, and therefore argument is useless.