Racial media parity?

In an "ah-ha!" tone, my Republican agents have been feeding me recent news stories about the Australian white guy murdered, and the Oklahoma white guy murdered, both by "racists." Even though there is no indication these were racially motivated crimes.

Then we have FOX rushing to the scene, asking if the media coverage of the Oklahoma murder of Christopher Lane compares to the media coverage of the murder of Trayvon Martin.

None of this makes rational sense to me, I'm sorry.  I'm not being partisan here; this is just dumb.

It seems that we've moved on from insisting on some kind of "objective" left-right balance in news coverage of events, to insisting that we establish a black-white balance of media coverage of crime.

Why is this utterly pointless and stupid?

First, because you and I don't control the media.  But of course FOX and talk radio know that.  They play up the black-on-white crime, then accuse the "liberal" media of downplaying it.  Do I have to explain how self-serving and slanted that is?

Second, because so many thousands of murders escape the national media. We had more than 11,000 firearm homicides and more than 16,000 total homicides in the U.S. in 2012.  How many of them can you recall hearing about on the evening news or talk radio?  Exactly.

Third, these stories on FOX, the Blaze, etc. always mention Trayvon Martin, as in, "The media was so obsessed with Trayvon Martin... but they ignore THIS?!"  

First, refer to point #1.  Second, I challenge you to show me the black George Zimmerman. That's right, show me the case of the black man who murdered an unarmed white man and claimed it was in self-defense, despite police dispatchers telling the black man to leave that white man alone. Then the black man is set free, despite no contest that he shot and killed that white man, a white man who never bothered him or sought him out.

Yes, please, send me the link to that story, my Republican friends.  I can't wait to read all about it.

But until then, please do me a favor and shut up about race.

And fourth, most black crime is black-on-black.  That's a tragedy. Just like all crime is a tragedy. But what the hell does this have to do with the media or political correctness?

White people, stop pretending whites are an aggrieved minority and not an entitled majority who hold the keys to everything valuable in American life. Whining is un-American.

None of you whining whities would trade places with a black or Hispanic American for a minute, and that's all you need to know about race relations in the U.S.  

UPDATE (08.23.2013): OMG, this is so outrageously dumb: "A dead Australian is just the price you pay to be politically correct."  Yep, FOX's Greg Gutfeld said it.  

Oh no, I'd better stop being so liberal and PC, or else piles of dead Australians are going to start washing up on U.S. shores!....

PC police strike Dr. Laura

Good riddance to that mean old hag Dr. Laura. You can now catch her on ham radio, where she promises to use the N-word at least 11 times a day.

Notice that it took no act of the government or the NAACP to get her off the air, just a few big sponsors bailing out.

So when you say you don't trust the mainstream media, you're really saying you don't trust the corporate media and their corporate sponsors to give you the unvarnished truth.

Being all about business and the bottom line, they don't like to make waves or be too controversial. Hence the mainstream media is inherently conservative.

Dr. Laura to End Show Amid N-Word Flap

August 18, 2010 | Associated Press

URL: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/17/dr-laura-announces-end-radio/

American Conservative: Helen Thomas a victim of PC

BTW, have you noticed how Americans are nervous about using the word "Jew," instead they usually say "Jewish"? (Jews excepted.) There's nothing wrong with either J-word. Because you could be Jewish without being a Jew, if you're a convert. And I suppose you could be a Jew who isn't Jewish, if you're not religious. I'm just sayin'.... But hey, don't take this the wrong way, I don't want to lose my job!

Helen Thomas and the Media's Double Standard

By Jack Hunter

June 15, 2010 | The American Conservative

Even among Israel's harshest critics, I'm not aware of anyone serious who believes or espouses what veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas said recently—that Israeli Jews should return to their nations of origin in Poland, Germany, and elsewhere in Europe, where they or their ancestors resided prior to World War II. Such a statement grossly ignores the almost unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust and Thomas should be ashamed and embarrassed for even making it.

But if we are to be honest, Thomas's sin had more to do with who she dared to criticize than what she actually said. For instance, what if Thomas had suggested white Australians should return to where they came from, out of respect for the occupied Aborigines? Or perhaps white Americans should vacate parts of the Southwest United States that once belonged to Mexico, or even go back to Europe altogether, giving the Chicora and the Cherokee back their rightful land? Of course, these suggestions are as silly as what Thomas said, but it's hard to imagine anyone being forced to resign over them. It's also not hard to imagine some pundits on the Left, or perhaps leaders for Hispanic-advocate groups, making such statements about the U.S. in particular, with little or no repercussions.

Writing for the LA Times, UCLA professor Saree Makdisi notices a blatant double standard concerning the Thomas controversy, "(If) it is unacceptable to say that Israeli Jews don't belong in Palestine, it is also unacceptable to say that the Palestinians don't belong on their own land… Yet that is said all the time in the United States, without sparking the kind of moral outrage generated by Thomas's remark." Makdisi notes that when Israel was created in 1948 "Europeans and Americans were, at the time, willing to ignore or simply dismiss the injustice inflicted on the Palestinians, who, by being forced from their land, were made to pay the price for a crime they did not commit." Makdisi then goes on to outline many instances of well-respected pundits and politicians making the same sort of harsh and unreasonable—and outright racist—comments Thomas did, only with the criticism directed at the Palestinians, concluding, "An endless deluge of statements of support for the actual, calculated, methodical dehumanization of Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular goes without comment; whereas a single offhand comment by an 89-year-old journalist, whose long and distinguished record of principled commitment and challenges to state power entitles her to respect — and the benefit of the doubt — causes her to be publicly pilloried."

My purpose here is not to defend Thomas, or even Israel or Palestine, but free speech. Being politically incorrect should mean more than a politician's willingness to oppose some liberal policy or some shock jock's eagerness to make a crude remark. Political correctness implies many things, but perhaps the best definition is that some subjects are so beyond reproach that to even "go there" means the inquisitor should be immediately discredited, read out of polite society, or as in Thomas' case, forced to end their career. Challenging the status quo—the alleged role of the press—necessarily requires questioning the very premise upon which our conventional wisdom rests. How can anyone possibly challenge the status quo without occasionally saying, thinking or writing things that sometimes stray outside the limits of respectable opinion? The very notion seems impossible.

While I don't condone her controversial comments I also don't condone the overreaction to them, and I'd rather have an army of Helen Thomas's speaking their minds and saying plenty of stupid things, than a press so constricted by fear that it never challenges convention. Liberal columnists at the New York Times and elsewhere have made sport out of saying horrible and nasty things about white Southerners—people like me and my family—and pundits on the Right have been known to say horrible and nasty things about blacks and gays and others. Yet, it's hard to recall a reporter of Thomas' stature being taken down for one admittedly dumb comment, which leads me to believe her greatest sin was "going there," or going too far, on a subject that is widely considered no-go. This is unacceptable and like white Southerners, blacks, gays, and all the rest, Israel too, should not be beyond reproach.

Defending the importance of having a free press if not Thomas, "The Daily Show's" Jon Stewart recently asked, "When does America's unwavering defense of Israel begin to compromise our unwavering defense of free speech?" Answer: with the forced resignation of Helen Thomas.

Cult of PC silences retired US general

Oh no, the PC Police have claimed another victim!

Seriously though, this story illustrates the point I've made again and again that political correctness is no scourge of civilized free speech; in fact, it's just an amalgam of various modern social mores that tell us when somebody is acting or talking like a d**k.

The fact that "outspoken" types so quickly cave in to the Cult of PC when public attention is drawn to them only shows that they know they're being d**ks, and they are more concerned with preserving their reputations than being all "iconoclastic" or whatever.

I might actually have grudging respect for the other side if there were real anti-PC types who unapologetically espoused racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and all other varieties of political incorrectness, and willingly suffered the resulting blows from polite society. But nobody seems willing. It just goes to prove my point that d**ks feel free to speak like d**ks among other d**ks, but as soon as you put them in polite or mixed company, they prudently censor themselves.

US general apologises for blaming gay Dutch troops at Srebrenica

By David Charter
March 30, 2010 | Times Online

URL: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7081700.ece

YouTube: HC protestors mock old man with Parkinsons

I think it's just swell and not at all hypocritical that most of the old folks protesting HC reform in this video benefit from Medicare (aka socialized medicine).

This video has gone viral though because of the heartless d***heads who tell an old man with Parkinson's that "there's nothing for free over here, you have to work for everything you get," and then mock him by throwing money at him, presumably to pay for his lifetime medical bills, as he sits silently, passively on the pavement. I guess trashing Michael J. Fox wasn't low-down enough for their side.

UPDATE 03.24.10: The guy who threw the dollar bills and heckled the old man has been identified as Chris Reichert, a registered Republican in the Columbus, OH area. Now Reichert is scared, apologetic, and planning never to go to another political rally again. Too bad. I really wanted this heckler to be an unapologetic, mean-spirited Republican who'd reply, "Yeah, I heckled that cripple, so what? Now get off my lawn before I shoot you in the face!" Chalk up another victim of the Cult of PC, who couldn't withstand his overwhelming desire not to be viewed as a complete a**hole by the entire world for saying what he actually believed.

What a sad day for free speech.

Mocking man with Parkinsons over health care
March 16, 2010 | YouTube

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmaKRwUoAIU

FOX and the self-deputized 9/11 police

So FOX and FOX's Glenn Beck have made themselves the official enforcers of 9/11 grief.

I guess the question is: Should 9/11 be an official holiday? And if not, what is the politically correct way to observe 9/11, if at all?

Make no mistake: if 9/11 is not going to be an official holiday, then we're talking about political correctness -- only it's a form of PC that most PC-haters have no problem with.

I mean, look at FOX's silly story below, criticizing Google for not commemorating 9/11 on its search engine. Never mind that Google, a private business, markets itself to the entire world as quirky, fun, non-political, and global, not as solemnly patriotic and American. No, the 9/11 police are having none of it. Google must conform.

So let's take a poll, or have a referendum, or ask our Congress to vote yea/nay on making 9/11 an official holiday. Because I, for one, don't like unofficial, politically correct holidays. Nor do I like creating official holidays, like MLK's birthday, which most Americans do not care to observe. What's the point of forcing it on people? MLK was a great man, but too many Americans don't think his greatness merits a government holiday. Likewise, 9/11 was a great tragedy, but I don't see many Americans doing anything special to commemorate 9/11, so why should prominent businesses and public figures be held to a higher standard of "grief conformity"? These forced public displays remind me of the USSR and Red China.

It's not like we're going to forget 9/11 happened. Right?


Google Ignores 9/11 as Other Search Engines Commemorate Solemn Anniversary
September 11, 2009 | FOXNews

Heroism and the language of Fascism

If you wanna test your real opposition to "political correctness" and the insipid leveling of American thought and culture, read this op-ed. If you find yourself nodding in agreement, you passed.

(BTW, I don't mean to sound too sexist, but I'm surprised that this particular opinion was expressed so well by a woman. I mean that as a compliment.)

Heroism and the language of fascism
Civil service is commendable, but worshiping soldiers and police for doing their duty has gotten out of control.

Rosa Brooks
August 3, 2007 | Los Angeles Times

'Everyone's a hero, everyone's a star," sings Jon Bon Jovi on his 2005 album, "Have a Nice Day." It's an insipid song, but a fitting anthem for what has become a thoroughly insipid age.

Once upon a time, you had to do something truly exceptional to qualify as a full-fledged hero: single-handedly hold off a battalion of enemy soldiers to allow your platoon to escape, or rescue 100 children from a Nazi concentration camp. But today, just showing up at your Army recruiting station makes you an instant hero -- and getting yourself hurt or killed doubles your heroism, even if you were sound asleep when your supply convoy went over an IED.

The empty rhetoric of heroism is everywhere these days. You know what I mean. Pat Tillman -- the former NFL star -- is "an American hero," apparently because he volunteered for duty along with several hundred thousand other people, then had the misfortune to be accidentally shot by his own side. Every wounded service member is a "hero" too: Sen. Hillary Clinton proudly sponsored the "Heroes at Home Act of 2007," intended to improve medical care for wounded military personnel, and the Defense Department recently sponsored the "Hiring Heroes Career Fair" to encourage companies to hire wounded veterans. No soldier left behind!

Bah, humbug.

Before you run me out of town on a rail, let me be clear: I respect the service and sacrifice of the troops. It takes guts to volunteer for the military. Injured service members deserve top-quality care, and the families of those killed deserve our deepest compassion. Soldiers, firefighters, police and many others accept risk and privation to serve the public, and we should be grateful.

But it's a big mistake to mix up the idea of service -- or the idea of sacrifice and suffering -- with the idea of heroism.

As most dictionaries explain, true heroism involves "extraordinary courage, fortitude or greatness of soul." So firefighters who take unusual risks to save others can legitimately be called heroes -- but just showing up for work and turning on a fire hose when required isn't quite enough. Similarly, suffering doesn't magically turn an ordinary person, however beloved, into a hero. Some of the office workers who died on 9/11 were truly heroic, sacrificing their own chance of escape to help others. But many of those who died never even got a chance to be heroic.

Distinguishing heroism from service and suffering is important for two reasons. First, it's always worth fighting the Lake Wobegon effect because, in a world where "all the children are above average," the truly special child gets no recognition, and genuine acts of exceptional courage are trivialized.

Take Jason Dunham, a 22-year-old Marine corporal who, in 2004, threw his helmet and then his body on top of an Iraqi insurgent's grenade, saving the lives of the Marines around him. Dunham died of his wounds and became one of only two soldiers in the Iraq war to be awarded the Medal of Honor, the highest military decoration in the United States. But in a world where every service member is a "hero," how many Americans have heard of Dunham's fatal courage?

There are plenty of other genuine heroes whose names will never be recorded, like the utility workers described by a Cornell University research team: On 9/11, "they went into the flooded Verizon building just north of World Trade Center 6, risking electrocution in chest-deep water and kerosene to shut off the building's massive circuit-breakers by hand." But when each of the thousands of stockbrokers and secretaries in the World Trade Center qualifies for the "everyone's a hero" award, why bother to identify those whose actions were unusually selfless?

But there's a deeper reason to be wary of the "everyone's a hero" rhetoric. Simply put, it fits neatly alongside other terms beloved of the powers that be, such as "warrior" and "the Homeland": It's part of the language of fascism.

For a chilling account of another society in which "the devaluation of the concept of heroism" was "proportional to the frequency of its use and abuse," check out Ilya Zemtsov's "The Encyclopedia of Soviet Life." In 1938, Zemtsov notes, the Soviet Union instituted "the title 'Hero of Socialist Labor'. . . . Thousands of those heroes emerged. . . . The hero was supposed to die in the name of Stalin during wartime [and] give his or her all in labor on communist constructions. . . . [But] a person upon whom the title 'hero' is bestowed has often performed no heroic deed whatsoever, but may receive the title . . . merely in return for displaying loyalty and/or diligence. . . . With time, the awarding of the title came to be used as a token to be disbursed or withheld according to political considerations. . . . "

In other words, comrades, whenever it seems as if they're handing out "hero" medals for free, look out: There's usually a hidden price.

Re: PC Culture vs. Culture of Umbrage

You know what worries me more than America's PC culture? Like Muslims in the Mideast, Americans have developed a hair-trigger sense of personal affront. This phenomenon certainly reinforces PC culture, but it's not the same thing. For example, your conservative friend wouldn't call MSU's Prof. Wichman "PC," (and after all, it is conservatives' prerogative to define what is PC), even though Wichman exhibits the same eager readiness to be offended as MSU's Muslim Students' Association.

The gist of Wichman's letter wasn't so much "Muslims are hypocritical, so your protests are meaningless" it was "Muslims are hypocritical," and it "offends me" (quote). His taking offense at people who were ridiculous to take offense in the first place is ridiculous.

(As somebody who frequently comments on current events -- often with much feeling and ire -- I do support one's right to get angry and argue, but that is not the same as sobbing, "You're wrong, and it offends me!")

Certainly, America's craven and lawsuit-abiding Lib'rul Media, Left-Wing Academia, and Lib'rul Activist Judges enable this "Culture of Umbrage" (to coin a term). Yet conservatives seem to have no problem competing for the title of "America's Most Offended" as they try equally hard to co-opt the media, public universities, and the courts to protect them from all forms of "disrespect" -- personal or impersonal, real or unintended.

Americans -- left, right, and middle -- are becoming a nation of petulant crybabies who collapse in whining tantrums when anybody points a finger in their faces and says, unapologetically, "you're wrong!" We can't stomach or tolerate real debate anymore, so we attack our opponents' backgrounds, their religion, or their "hidden meanings" to shut them up and tear them down.

Debate, get angry, protest -- but don't ask me to pass the Kleenex when I disagree with you! When it comes to political debate, don't expect me to give a damn about your precious feelings!

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From:
Date: Jun 27, 2007 1:20 PM
Subject: Fw: Hooray for Michigan State University
To: Undisclosed-Recipient

This is a true story... check it out at snopes.com


Tells Muslims to Leave Country Hooray for Michigan State University!

Well, what do we have here? Looks like a small case of some people being able to dish it out, but not take it.

Let's start at the top.

The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman. Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association. The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. The group had complained the cartoons were
"hate speech."

Enter Professor Wichman. In his e-mail, he said the following:

Dear Moslem Association:

As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the
latest in Turkey), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France. This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel your dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests."

If you do not like the values of the West - see the 1st Amendment - you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering

As you can imagine, the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well. They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded and mandatory diversity training for faculty and a seminar on hate and discrimination for freshman. Now the chapter of CAIR has jumped into
the fray. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion.

For its part, the university is standing its ground, saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks. That will probably change. Wichman says he never intended for his e-mail to be made public, and wouldn't have used the same strong
language if he'd known it was going to get out.

How's the left going to handle this one? If you're in favor of the freedom of speech, as in the case of Ward Churchill, will the same protections be demanded for Indrek Wichman? I doubt it.

Send this to your friends. Tell them to keep passing it around until the whole country gets it. This political correctness crap is getting old and killing us.

Let's hope that the Mechanical Engineering School at MSU continues to support mechanical engineering professor Indrek Wichman!