On January 15, 1999, David Howard presumably woke up, had his breakfast and coffee, and headed for work in the administration of Mayor Anthony Williams in Washington, DC. Howard had a meeting that day with two of his staff, Marshall Brown and John Fanning. The topic of the meeting included the very small budget and Howard noted that he would have to be very “niggardly” with the funds available. Brown, who is black, was offended and reportedly stormed out of the office. Niggardly of course means stingy, dates back to at least the 13th century, and has no relation whatsoever to the racially charged “N-word.” Howard resigned under pressure and Williams, covering himself in ignorance and ignominy, accepted the resignation. In early March 2008, Geraldine Ferraro, former vice-presidential candidate and supporter of Hillary Clinton, stated:
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.
The outcry from the Obama camp was immediate and furious. As a result, Ferraro stepped down from Hillary’s campaign, where she was a member of the finance committee. Ferraro did not, however, go “gentle into that good night”:
Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist. I will not be discriminated against because I’m white. If they think they’re going to shut up Geraldine Ferraro with that kind of stuff, they don’t know me.
Even as a conservative I know that Ferraro is not a racist, yet the allegations have been rampant. Bill Clinton was accused of racism for his comments immediately after the South Carolina primary vote when he said:
Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ‘84 and ‘88, Jesse Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here.
Hillary’s supporters have also made claims, not of racism, but of sexism. Kerry Howley, senior editor at Reason, writes:
Hillary is getting much sympathy from pundits and bloggers about the image problem that women leaders face. Most women have had that “shrill and strident” label smacked on their forehead at one point or another. They also know what it feels like when the young, handsome, Harvard-educated golden boys like Barack Obama take home all the prizes. These problems aren’t isolated to liberal women.
Add to this useful list of the worst jobs in the world: consultant to any candidate with breasts. Show emotion and you’re weak; show strength and you’re a collection of servos. Respond to attacks with emotion and you’re “angry”; respond with equanimity and you’re cold and distant. Shy from war and you’re too feminine to lead; embrace it and you’re the establishment’s whore. And the worst thing you can do? Acknowledge, in any way, shape, or form, the existence of sexism in these United States.
And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on! (With apologies to Cher). Racism, sexism! Sexism, racism! This was bound to be the charge floating around when two highly intelligent, highly motivated, strongly liberal candidates slug it out for the nomination. Both have, at one time or another, been asked to “drop out” in favor of the other. “Dream tickets” have been proposed with one or the other at the head of the ticket, and yet this is not likely to happen with two very strong egos on the line. Both have, in fact, agreed to the so-called “dream ticket” scenario — but only if they are at the head of the ticket. Both have stated that they are in it to win.
So much for which candidate can bring us together! Obama, running as a black man, cannot not use the racism accusation when things aren’t going his way or when the opposing camp says anything even mentioning race, color, ethnicity, religion, etc. Hillary, similarly, cannot not use the sexism or misogyny accusation when any group of men “pile on” or express doubt about Hillary’s competence to be the president. Well, I would suggest that mentioning Obama’s race is not racism any more than disliking a particular female candidate is misogyny. Yet, when either party makes its claim, the other says something to the effect of: “Suck it up. If you can’t handle this, wait till the ‘Rethuglicans’ pile on with their dirty tricks.” Of course, that is presuming that the Republicans plan to run that kind of race and we haven’t yet seen that.
In early April, one of Obama’s delegates to the Democratic National Convention, Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski, noted children playing on a small magnolia tree were damaging the tree or could fall and hurt themselves (which it was depends on who told you the story). Stating that the children were acting like “monkeys,” she was ticketed for “disorderly conduct,” which in this case is defined as saying or doing something that “alarms or disturbs another.” I suspect we should note that the children were African-Americans and that the person reporting the alarming or disturbing racist remarks was an African-American mom who has had prior run-ins with Ramirez-Slinwinski. This was of sufficient magnitude to have the Obama team ask Ramirez-Sliwinski to step down as a delegate:
Moving to nip in the bud some potential bad press, White House hopeful Barack Obama’s campaign persuaded a delegate to step down after she was ticketed for calling her neighbor’s African-American children “monkeys.”
I read the quote, and she didn’t call them monkeys; she said they were acting like monkeys. I guess in a highly charged, close, and contentious race, it doesn’t really matter, does it? Perhaps all of the remaining Democratic primary votersof us need to vote for “none of the above.”
Originally posted at Pajamas Media during the primary season. Change at the bottom added and given that Obama and McCain are now the two candidates, nothing changes in the proscription.
1
Hear ye! The racism/sexism stuff is overriding the actual policy and debate and drowning out any voices of sanity. Any time some politician is involved in an important philosophical discussion, it is debased and we are dumbed-down by it.
Posted by: QuickRob at Thursday, July 03 2008 08:34 AM (U8I/b)
Another excellent social salvo, GM; what you have described is part of the continuum to silence free expression by appealing to a one-sided moral authority.And let me say that if I was in the market for a moral compass, the liberal camp is the last place I’d look.Let us recall that the first individual to bring up race was not-so-cleverly-disguised statement that race would no doubt become an issue in the presidential election.
Meanwhile, as liberals rend their clothing over perceived racism, we note that the party who enslaved free blacks with Jim Crow laws now employs racial separation and socialist dependency to achieve the same end.Who benefits more from Afrocentric mythology (even if their love affair does not extend to the point of actually returning to those roots) than black community leaders and liberal politicians?People easily led are as easily led astray – but it is working.
Semper Fi
Posted by: Mustang at Thursday, July 03 2008 12:11 PM (BFb1r)
3
Getting kind of lonely at Baseball Wars...I'm starting to feel you guys think politics is more important
Posted by: jim hitchcock at Thursday, July 03 2008 02:30 PM (Ypm74)
I am an instructor at a community college. I tell all my students that I am neither a racist nor a sexist....why? I don't like anybody. I am equally hateful to everyone. They are much younger than I and have less money. Does anyone want to trade places? They decline.
I call the females: Ma'am, and the males: Sir. They call me: Sir.
*************************
Note: The Regimental Sergeant Major, whilst addressing the Gentlemen Cadets at The Royal Military College, Sandhurst stated:
"I will call you Sir, and you will call me Sir. The difference being - you mean it and I don't."
*************************
Behind my back, they - doubtless -call me all sorts of things. Further, the use of filthy language will not be tolerated and wearing clothing with flithy language that offends me will cause me to file a formal complaint. While that is happening, they will have already been shown the door.
I do not have "classroom management" problems. Come to class, read the assigned reading, take notes, ask questions if you're unsure of anything. Of course, most have heard so many "barking dogs" that it is all "white noise" to them. Roughly half pass my classes. However, none engage in uncivil behavior in the classroom.
Just wanted to vent. Thanks. Now, I will go back to grading today's final exam. Yippee. BTW, I am niggardly in my praise, i.e. you really have to earn it.
Posted by: Tad at Thursday, July 03 2008 07:27 PM (wW/+j)
6
Folks, I"ve had many a breakfast with Tad. He is every bit of totally Awesome! I'm proud to call him friend.
Posted by: GM Roper at Friday, July 04 2008 07:29 AM (S60yG)
7
(Inward Voice) "..totally Awesome?", does that mean GM thinks I am fat? On the other hand, if he thinks I am really a cool hombre, maybe I can get him to pay next time. Well, GM, is a neat guy, but his carries one of those change purses. I've never seen him part with money that he doesn't have to. His idea of a tip is: "Look before you leap." "A penny saved, is a penny earned." Stuff like that. His second job is writing those sage sayings in Chinese fortune cookies. Note: Have YOU every seen someone Chinese reading those things?
Posted by: Tad at Sunday, July 06 2008 05:49 PM (5QdhY)
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he
was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens
to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the
concept.
Posted by: Orpha at Friday, November 16 2012 04:45 AM (mysAj)
The percentage of African-Americans playing Major League Baseball is at an all-time low and Gary Sheffield says he has a theory why that's the case.
In an interview with GQ magazine that's currently on newsstands, the typically outspoken Tigers designated hitter said Latin players have replaced African-Americans as baseball's most prevalent minority because they are easier to control.
Detroit Tigers star Gary Sheffield insists he meant "nothing derogatory" toward Latin players when he said Major League Baseball found it easier to "control them" than blacks.
"The subject was players of my race and what we deal with and why they don't look in the inner cities for that same talent that they do in other places," he said. "(Latin players) have a backing, a support when they come off the island, and black players don't. As far as authority figures, we're only going to respond to people who care about us. That's what I meant by it."
There are different opinions on racial opportunities in baseball. My belief is that there are relatively fewer blacks in baseball because black athletes in the U.S. today tend to migrate towards basketball and football, whereas athletes from Latin America concentrate in baseball, if they don't pursue soccer. In any case, I like Shef and see nothing wrong with him expressing an opinion that opens discussion and might bring about positive changes.
Buying Liberal Offsets? This Is The Place!
Are you sometimes ill at ease - even in Massachusetts - with the liberal tone of political discourse? GM and the WideAwakes are ready to help with the sale of Liberal Offset Certificates.
Yes that's right, you can still say that the War in Iraq is wrong and as long as you have bought a sufficient amount of offsets your patriotism cannot be questioned. Walk around freely yelling "Bush lied - people died" and if you are confronted by a conservative, whip out your Liberal Offset Certificate and put them in their place. In fact you can spout almost any nonsense you want and as long as you have bought a Liberal Offset, nobody can say a thing.
Here's how it works. When you hold liberal beliefs many people believe you are simply insane, and Liberal Offsets counter that simply by taking the money you have paid for the Offset and...well, much like Carbon Credits nobody is really sure how paying some Voluntary Guilt Tax is supposed to offset the pollution you create, but believe us it does. Just ask Al Gore.
Liberal Offsets work the same way.
When you buy a Liberal Offset that allows you to spout insane viewpoints Justin from Right ON The Right, Kender from Wide Awakes Radio and, indeed the ENTIRE Wide Awakes Radio crew will continue to hold view points that are based in logic and argue from a position of Common Sense and Patriotism.
It is that simple.
Now you can hold positions that directly contradict each other and not have to explain the disparity between them.
Each Liberal Offset Certificate comes personalized with the name of your choice. For a limited time each Liberal Offset you buy will have 4 FREE Offsets added to each order, for a Grand Total of 5 Liberal Offsets for the amazing low price of $5.00 plus shipping. That is 125 hours of argument for each certificate. That should be enough to last until the 2008 Presidential election. Handling Charges are included in shipping.
Peter Porcupine, Right on the Right, Mr. Ogre of the Carolinas and the other Wide Awakes will continue to pump rational argument into the hyperbaric chamber of liberal thought, in order to keep balance and rationality alive. For instance, Peter Porcupine will even provide cogent arguments agaisnt the banning of dihydrogen monoxide, and other such substances.
A link to obtain your certificate is HERE - Kender will help keep the progressive movement from spining off any number of cliffs with this handy trade-off.
Posted by: John Kaiser at Wednesday, May 23 2007 01:36 AM (Fecvw)
5
The post is written in very a good manner and it entails much useful information for me. I am happy to find your distinguished way of writing the post.
Posted by: nfl jerseys at Wednesday, November 21 2012 08:46 PM (SCDKS)
Sarkozy To The World!
Reading the oh-so-well-written Volokh Conspiracy today (H/T Instapundit) we find this article: "France will not abandon the women who are condemned to the burqa" which contains the following translated selection of Nicolas Sarkozy's first address to the French people:
La France sera aux côtés des infirmières libyennes enfermées depuis huit ans, la France n'abandonnera pas Ingrid Betancourt, la France n'abandonnera pas les femmes qu'on condamne à la burqa, la France n'abandonnera pas les femmes qui n'ont pas la liberté. La France sera du côté des opprimés du monde. C'est le message de la France, c'est l'identité de la France, c'est l'histoire de la France."
In English: "France will be at the sides of the Libyan nurses locked up for eight years; France will not abandon Ingrid Betancourt; France will not abandon the women who are condemned to the burqa; France will not abandon the women who do not have liberty. France will be by the side of the oppressed of the world. This is the message of France; this is the identity of France; this is the history of France."
Whoa Mr. President Elect Sarkozy, are you out of your mind? Why that is so UN-PC you are sure to cause riots in Iran and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and the West Bank, let alone Gaza that French folk will be unsafe for decades to come. Why, you might even have rioting in Paris!
On the other hand, damn, isn't it nice to see someone from la belle France thinking in classical liberalism for a change instead of that so called progressive stuff that passes for liberalism?
1
I wish him well...as France riots and youths set fires, because they face the SO UNFAIRNESS of potentially being made to work 40 hours a week AND the potential of not having mandated UNION membership. Poor French.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Raven at Friday, May 11 2007 09:27 AM (Xolse)
The phrase "stone age" has been labelled offensive by anthropologists who say it should not be used to describe living peoples. It also says that "primitive" or "savage" are no longer acceptable terms for such groups of people.
Such terms damage the welfare of tribal people, say anthropologists. "All anthropologists would agree that the negative use of the terms 'primitive' and 'stone age' to describe [tribal peoples] has serious implications for their welfare," says a statement from the anthropologists' professional association.
ALL anthorpologists? What a special group to have unanimous agreement or, at least, to have the leftists say so.
So, today, how would this cramp the style of Gen. Curtis E. Lemay, who said "We should bomb Vietnam back into the 'stone age'" "Paleolithic" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Anyway, watch what you call people. There are some who get offended (video) by insinuating that they are "pretty boys" or anything else that you call them.
Are we going to hear from the insurance caveman on this? (Go to his site and entertain yourself checking out his pad. Just don't say that the decorating scheme appears "stone age.")
What picky, insensitive words am I going to have to watch out for tomorrow?
1
The ironies of life will vindicate you, GM. Tribal peoples exposed to Western ways often adopt them, and then refer to the ways of their immediate forebears as "stone age," or similar. You don't have to say it. They'll say it for you.
2
AVI, Woody posted that... but, I'll have to confess that I too think most of the savages of the far left's tribe of stone-age thinkers are not to be trusted with anything remotely resembling the reins of government. Having said that, I'll now turn myself over to the PC police.
Posted by: GM at Thursday, March 08 2007 01:16 AM (S60yG)
3
Should we be offended when the left calls us Neanderthals? Maybe they need to be made aware of this issue.
Posted by: Woody at Thursday, March 08 2007 02:28 AM (v5VVJ)
4
GM - the left isn't "stone-age thinkers", they are "stoned-age thinkers."
When I worked at a camp three summers during college, I was affectionally called "Troglodyte" because of my size and the popular song at the time. Now, I'm offended! I need to track the other camp counselors and campers down and extract an apology.
Posted by: DADvocate at Thursday, March 08 2007 02:39 AM (AIolm)
Wimping Out to PC - NCAA Ignores Fans and Tradition
Fans and alumni are disappointed when economic considerations imposed by an elite, out-of-touch national ruling body kill their college tradition. It started with this, NCAA Drives Indians Off College Campuses, and continues with this latest victim:
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. (AP) -- The University of Illinois will drop its 81-year-old American Indian mascot, Chief Illiniwek.... The move makes the school eligible to host postseason NCAA championship events, but it angered many Illini fans who say the chief honors American Indians.
The NCAA in 2005 deemed Illiniwek -- portrayed by buckskin-clad students who dance at home football and basketball games and other athletic events -- an offensive use of American Indian imagery and barred the university from hosting postseason events. American Indian groups and others have complained for years that the mascot, used since 1926, is demeaning.
"The Chief Illiniwek tradition inspired and thrilled members of the University of Illinois community for 80 years," Board of Trustees Chairman Lawrence Eppley said in a statement. "It was created, carried on, and enjoyed by people with great respect for tradition, and we appreciate their dedication and commitment. It will be important now to ensure the accurate recounting and safekeeping of the tradition as an integral part of the history of the university."
What's next? Are the Islamic students going to demand that they quit playing with a "pigskin?" Will the National Anthem and military flyovers be banned to appease the Left? I would be happy if they moved the drunks to one section so that they wouldn't spill their drinks on me. Oh, and they need better hot dogs. What bothers you that we can get the NCAA to address? They seem to have time on their hands.
These a**es won't be happy until all people are women, and the only sports allowed are volleyball and soccer.
Volleyball is cool if chicks are playing, though, you gotta admit.
Soccer is for sissies.
Dan Patterson
Arrogant Infidel
Posted by: Dan Patterson at Saturday, February 17 2007 04:55 AM (NyVIk)
2
I wonder when they'll go after the "Volunteer" at the University of Tennessee. Many do not realize it the the part of the origin of the name comes from the number volunteers from Tennessee who signed up for the War of 1812 and the Mexican War.
Honoring war heroes is very bad now days. Honor war heroes who fought and killed Mexicans is down right racist!!
Plus, isn't a guy running around in buckskin jacket and pant with a coonskin hat denigrating (I hope everyone knows the real non=-racist meaning of this word.) to the original white settlers of Tennessee. Davy Crockett must be spinning in his grave.
Yes, the idiocy marches on.
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
* Albert Einstein
Posted by: DADvocate at Saturday, February 17 2007 06:32 AM (V1HEg)
3
As a resident of Champaign, I have seen the battle of the Chief from the beginning.
Those who oppose him as a minority stereotype raise what I consider a good point:
Would Chief supporters be agreeable of other minority mascots such as the Dancing Negros, or the Cheapskate Jews?
That is the argument as put forth by the native Americans who oppose the Chief and his totally bogus "Indian dance."
Posted by: dan at Monday, February 19 2007 04:22 AM (1lOj6)
4
dan, one difference is that your examples are intended to be derogatory while a mascot related to fighting Indians is meant to instill pride to the team and fear to the opponents.
There is no end to some people being "offended." However, I can look through the rhetoric and see that it has nothing to do with offense and everything to do with feeling important and politics.
Take a look at this list by Tom McMahon to see how many ways there are for someone to be offended. Why we would run out of names by catering to every little claim of insult.
Posted by: Woody at Monday, February 19 2007 08:29 AM (v5VVJ)
You Can't Keep A Good Pig Down
The good folk at Qatar Living recently did a post on the absolute stupidity of censoring a child's book:
In Qatar there is only one decent bookshop (that happens to be a Saudi chain) that has a few shelves of English books. Shopping there is hit or miss - you don't go there to look for a title. You go there in the hope of stumbling upon something interesting.
The kids selection is not bad though. The other night we saw Disney's "My Very First Encyclopedia with Winnie the Pooh and friends". We grabbed it and thought it was exactly what we needed for our daughter - not only does she love Winnie the Pooh but she's also started taking a keen interest in nature.
We flipped it open and noticed that some of the pages had been vandalised with a black marker. We figured it must have been bought and returned after some kids had got there hands on it. Further inspection made us realise that this was actually systematic. Someone had deliberately "censored" out each and every picture of Piglet from hundreds of pages in the book with a black marker (my guess is that the book got caught by Saudi Censors enroute to Doha).
Camper (the author of the post) provided a photo of the censored material.
Now, I don't know about you, but the deliberate defacement of a child's book like this would make me very, very curious as to what was inked out and would make me that much more interested in the topic than anything they could have done otherwise.
Being the curious sort that I am, I decided to call up the 100 Acre Wood and ask for my friend Piglet to see what Piglet thought about the whole brouhaha.
Ring, Ring, Riiiiiinnnnnnggggg!!!
Voice answers:
Helloooo? Christipher Robin here."
Me:
Christopher, it's me, GM. May I speak to Piglet please!"
Christopher:
Oh, hello GM, sure, let me get Piglet for you."
Piglet:
GM, so nice to hear from you once again. How have you been doing my friend."
Me:
Piglet, I'm doing fine. The wife and daughter are well also."
Piglet:
Oh GM, I'm so very glad to hear that. What can I do for you this fine February morning?"
Me:
Well Piglet, this is maybe a little insensitive of me, but I was wondering what you thought of having your picture magic markered over in Qatar?"
Piglet:
Oh yes, I read about that on one of the blogs just this morning with my cup of tea. I had Pooh over and we made scones with his favorite hunny. Well, GM, to be honest, I didn't think much of it. The people that did that really have no idea what they are doing, they are so confused and so backwards in their thinking. Besides, the last time I checked I was just a little insignificant cartoon.
"Oh, wait, they get really upset about cartoons don't they GM, well, as Pooh says, "Oh Bother."
Me:
But Piglet, do you mean to say that it really doesn't bother you at all? That you don't think it is anything to be worried about. After all, you live in England where there is a lot of unrest about what is going on in the Muslim world."
Piglet:
No GM, it really doesn't bother me. You see, I snuck into that bookstore in Qatar, you know the one owned by a Saudi chain and I fixed the problem I think. Here, let me share my "fix" with you. I'll send you an email with a picture of the fix."
Me:
Thanks Piglet. I knew I could count on you to figure something out. You know, if those folk had half your smarts, they wouldn't be as backwards as they certainly seem to be. Well, good bye my friend."
Piglet:
Good bye GM, and thanks for thinking of me. You know, we really must get together some time soon. When will you be back near the 100 Acre Wood?"
Me:
You never know Piglet, sometimes I just turn up and it may be there soon. Good bye again."
To see Piglet's solution, exactly as he emailed it to me, continue reading
more...
He's always welcome in Cincinnati, the city where I work, which is also known as Porkopolis. Every spring Cincinnati has the Flying Pig Marathon. (May 6 this year)
We love pigs!!! How can the Muslims be so insensitive to the feelings of our porcine friends? This is beyond belief.
Posted by: DADvocate at Sunday, February 04 2007 05:59 AM (7BUyX)
8
So, Muslims don't watch "Green Acres" with Arnold the pig? What a sacrifice.
Posted by: Woody at Sunday, February 04 2007 09:27 AM (v5VVJ)
9
oh no the fix isn't showing... where did the picture of the fix go? i need to know!
Posted by: ida at Friday, October 10 2008 09:45 AM (+eO2c)
10
Ida, scroll down the sidebar a ways.... when you see piglet, you'll see the fix.
Posted by: GM Roper at Friday, October 10 2008 06:20 PM (tLNCB)
Violate PC Speech - Go to Jail
Want to know how bad penalties have gotten for violating politically correct speech codes? Consider this matter involving a fourteen year old female student in the U.K.
A 14-year-old British girl was arrested for racism when she asked to work on a project with English speaking students. It seems she was to work on this project with 'Asian' students (that's PC code for muslim) and only one of the group spoke English. The group was supposed to discuss the project.
She went to speak to her teacher ...."I said 'I'm not being funny, but can I change groups because I can't understand them?' But she (the teacher) started shouting and screaming, saying 'It's racist, you're going to get done by the police'."
Codie said she went outside to calm down where another teacher found her and, after speaking to her class teacher, put her in isolation for the rest of the day.
A complaint was made to a police officer based full-time at the school, and more than a week after the incident on September 26 she was taken to Swinton police station and placed under arrest.
"They told me to take my laces out of my shoes and remove my jewellery, and I had my fingerprints and photograph taken," said Codie. "It was awful."
After questioning on suspicion of committing a section five racial public order offence, her mother Nicola says she was placed in a bare cell for three-and-a-half hours then released without charge.
How typical of the Left--punish everyone who doen't conform to their demands, and how typical of schools to allow themselves to be their tool for enforcement. Political correct speech is nothing but a weapon of the Left to stop debate from the Right, and it never applies to the Left--but, you knew that. However, the Left considers every foul word to be acceptable and even applauded when flaunted in public or used to describe President Bush.
1
Wow! Very scary. This sort of thing could well happen in our schools and more. You see the beginnings already. Men are afraid of "sexual" harassment accusations for innocuous comments. "Niggardly" and "denigrate" have been accusees of being racially denigrating terms (joke intended).
The left is working hard to create a totalitarian environment where everyone must act as the left says they should. Yet they call Christian conservatives fascists and Nazis.
Posted by: DADvocate at Saturday, October 14 2006 09:42 AM (S8pmH)
Fox baseball broadcaster Steve Lyons has been fired for making a racially insensitive comment directed at colleague Lou Piniella's Hispanic heritage on the air during Game 3 of the American League championship series.
In the second inning of Friday's game between Detroit and Oakland, Piniella talked about the success light-hitting A's infielder Marco Scutaro had in the first round of the playoffs. Piniella said that slugger Frank Thomas and Eric Chavez needed to contribute, comparing Scutaro's production to finding a "wallet on Friday" and hoping it happened again the next week.
Later, Piniella said the A's needed Thomas to get "en fuego" - hot in Spanish - because he was currently "frio" - or cold. After Brennaman praised Piniella for being bilingual, Lyons spoke up.
Lyons said that Piniella was "hablaing Espanol" - butchering the conjugation for the word "to speak" - and added, "I still can't find my wallet."
"I don't understand him, and I don't want to sit too close to him now," Lyons continued.
Fox executives told Lyons after the game he had been fired.
Okay, maybe I'm insensitive or just don't see it. What's the big deal? Is it what he meant, how it was interpreted, is it someone being over PC-sensitive, and does it warrant being fired?
I'm so tired of worrying about someone whining if I don't say something just right.
Posted by: Woody at Saturday, October 14 2006 11:13 AM (v5VVJ)
3
I'd be surprised if Pinella was offended. He's a tough nosed guy who's said his share of inappropraite and worse comments.
Posted by: DADvocate at Saturday, October 14 2006 11:28 AM (S8pmH)
4
That was a stupid move on the teacher's part to put her in a group of largely non-English speaking students. Or there is a natural discord between her and the teacher that caused the teacher to put her in a difficult situation. One of my teachers was unusually mean to me in school for no apparent reason. I had never done anything to cause her to treat me the way she did, but she was the authority figure and I had to endure it for the entire year.
I have to wonder, too - if the students had been Russian or Chinese, rather than "Asian", would the teacher have flipped-out and had her arrested? I doubt it. The political climate as it is in the UK tells me the teacher would have behaved differently.
Posted by: Oyster at Sunday, October 15 2006 01:38 AM (YudAC)
5
We live in challenging times ... STUPID people are now the majority making rules which are unjust.
Posted by: bee at Sunday, October 15 2006 08:54 AM (EU7y4)
6
It's hard to judge what happened in the class without having been there. The words alone (which also are in dispute) do not convey the tone of voice or concurrent non-verbal behaviors.
Having been around teens (and having been one myselft), I've heard too many times defenses along the lines of "I only said..." which conveniently ignored the larger context. My reading of the story provides several hints which suggest that the student may not have been quite as innocent as she claims, that the interactions (on both sides) may have been more toxic than the reporter's reconstruction after the fact.
That is, this may not be the best example of PC run amok.
Nonetheless, absent a threat of violence (which no one appears to have suggested), the school officials clearly engaged in extreme overreaction to have the student arrested on a criminal accusation, interrogated, and held in a police cell. And why was there a week delay preceeding this first resort to the criminal justice system without a school investigation? Surely a school-conducted hearing should have been a prior step if the student was felt to have engaged in misconduct.
Looks more like another case of craven school adminstrators with their proverbial heads up their posteriors...
Posted by: civil truth at Sunday, October 15 2006 11:43 AM (9f35F)
7
CT: You're right. There is likely much more to the story. I'd be willing to bet this is not the first situation to occur between this student and this teacher - which ever one is at fault. I'm a little concerned with the fact that the non-english speaking students are referred to as "Asian". Yet the teacher says the girl used the word "black". Someone is not being honest about the actual "race" of the other students. If they were black, then why does the article refer to them as Asian? If they were Asian and not black, why would the girl call them black? Yet, it is said the other students spoke Urdu, which is the language spoken in Pakistan. Is it possible that they were considerably dark skinned Pakistanis? Or East Indians which speak Hindi-Urdu? I don't know.
The girl could be fundamentally racist, but the issue was the fact that they didn't speak english. Did she simply say, "those black kids"? If so, that's not a racist remark in itself. But maybe the teacher took it that way. There are far too many questions. Had this girl had a bad experience in the recent past with these boys? Who knows?
Nevertheless, the reaction by the teacher was totally uncalled for. If she was making a racist remark, suspend her from school, give her detentions, community service or whatever depending on school policy. But arrest? Good lord.
Posted by: Oyster at Monday, October 16 2006 04:07 AM (2nvgP)
8
If you read the story closely, you will note that it wasn't the first teacher who initially punished her, but it was the one who found her outside and distraught. I have found in my dealings with educators that they ALWAYS side with each other. The only way to defend the teacher is to make the student look as bad or guilty as possible, which they did with isolation and with jail.
I once had a problem where a teacher, sure that he was Sherlock Holmes, said that my daughter had plagarized an essay because the paper it was printed on was smeared like a copier can do and he surmised that she copied someone else's paper. Well, at the time, the blade on the laser printer drum needed changing, and it gives the same smeared appearance, as its all just toner. What an idiot.
My daughter was Nat'l Honor Society ,etc. and was crying, which made me livid with the teacher with whom I demanded a meeting. We set it up and it did turn out to be a set-up. My wife and I were outnumbered by six teachers and administrators, who ran guard for him and one of them did most of the talking for him. I should have walked out before it started.
In the end, we were vidicated and the teacher was told to apologize to my daughter, but he never did and they never followed up. Oh, near the end of the meeting, when my wife explained how he must not know our daughter very well to accuse her and that she (my wife) personally saw her write the paper (which was in my daughter's style of writing), the same teacher said something which in essence was calling my wife a liar! At that moment I did stand up, pointed out his latest blunder, and we walked out to a stunned table of "edukators."
Oh, before this started, my daughter had a solid A average in the class, but it dwindled through some creative and harsh grading to an 89 average and a B. What a jerk. A no-class classroom teacher--and, he's a lot like many others--and he's still there, probably not qualified for anything else. Government schools could use better teachers, and I would put them on an incentive basis rather than everyone getting the same compensation.
I wish I could say that I feel better, but I don't.
Posted by: Woody at Monday, October 16 2006 05:23 AM (v5VVJ)
Posted by: Angel at Monday, October 16 2006 02:52 PM (p6ddN)
10
The post is written in very a good manner and it entails much useful information for me. I am happy to find your distinguished way of writing the post.
Posted by: nfl jerseys at Thursday, November 22 2012 01:30 AM (SCDKS)
It seems that a policeman in England, who happens to be a muslim, has been excused from having to guard the Israeli Embassy on "moral grounds,"
PC Alexander Omar Basha told chiefs he was unable to carry out duties at the London embassy — a top terror target — due to moral grounds after Israeli bombings in Lebanon.
DSD is obviously upset about this, but also upset by a Tory, specifically one Richard Barnes:
Richard Barnes, a Tory member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, accused senior officers of lacking tact. He said: ‘I think it was crass management in the first place. They should have recognised there could have been a problem and not suggested this officer be posted at this embassy."
"The Met keep banging on about diversity, but this case shows they have learned very little at all."
Officer Barnes, this is not about "diversity" this is about "Political Correctness" and it is monumentally stupid. As DSD notes:
The Tory Party has purely and simply endorsed racism here. The idea that any public servant is free to make moral judgments and then decide to exclude their service from those they deem unfit, immoral or evil for that service is a truly disgusting and pernicious one."
"I got mugged last week, and my mum last year. So I'm not serving you in this Post Office cos you're black and so were the muggers."
"So what if someone ripped off your veil and spat in your eye? I may be a copper but I dont like Muslims, I was on a tube train on 7/7."
"No, I'm not letting you through the ticket barrier - you're obviously a Sikh judging by that turban, and Sikhs killed the Prime Minister back in India, the bastards. As a good Hindu I reserve the right not to let you on the train."
"No way son, I know this is a youth club for everyone but well, you have to understand that as a Jew I feel you bear some responsibility for what is happening to the Palestinians. So you're not getting in."
DSD is right on the money, but the original jerk in this little drama, Alexander Omar Basha is not only wrong, he is so far off the mark as to be ludicrous. Which of course, brings me to a "moral" argument from the other side of the coin:
1
As someone from the left might explain the clip, "It's for the childrennnnnn."
Posted by: Woody at Saturday, October 07 2006 02:13 AM (v5VVJ)
2
More evidence that England has entered a long and dark night of submission to the dictates of Islam. What will be left of the place in, say, 10 years? or 5?
What will the rest of the continent look like? Will its people gently go into slavery?
Posted by: Mike Austin at Saturday, October 07 2006 03:42 AM (Ih/+T)
Posted by: Jeremayakovka at Saturday, October 07 2006 07:36 AM (q9+vw)
4
Perhaps, unlike the author of the post, the Chief Constable has decided it is better to reduce tensions than to aggravate them. If he has incidentally given America's professional hysterics something to type feverishly about, well that's gravey on the pudding, isn't it?
Posted by: Jassalasca Jape at Saturday, October 07 2006 09:25 AM (IafVm)
5
JJ, so, you are willing to allow individuals in public service to choose who they will serve? I truly hope you don't need someone that decides you aren't the right race/religion/sex/culture/ethnicity. That would be a shame wouldn't it?
Oh, and the Chief Constable won't be reducing tensions, in the long run, he will be aggrevating them.
Professional Hysteric signing off.
Posted by: GM at Saturday, October 07 2006 09:47 AM (S60yG)
6
jj: you're lack of depth of thinking is astounding. did it ever cross your mind that it is not a good thing to allow public servants to DISCRIMINATE against certain groups of the citizens they have sworn to serve? do you really believe that is a precedent that should be set?
Posted by: ric ottaiano at Saturday, October 07 2006 10:34 AM (1lMgI)
Perhaps, unlike the author of this post, the Chief Constable has overlooked the fact that any first responder whose religious beliefs preclude him being prepared to lay down his life for the general good of the Nation doesn’t belong in the “first responder” business in the first place. A proper course of action, indeed the ONLY course of action I would consider, is affording the patrolman the opportunity of expanding his horizons in another line of work. That would certainly reduce tensions and improve the police department, wouldn’t it?
I suspect that you probably think that a Muslim-American serving in Armed Forces should be allowed to decide whether or not he will accept deployment in a combat zone where he is likely to be required to shoot the living hell out of another Muslim. Such a person would certainly be permitted to apply for “conscientious objector” status, but I would have to wonder why he joined the service in the first place.
Patrolmen in Great Britain may be required to take an oath – I don’t know if they do or not. But let’s assume for a moment that they do take an oath. What should we say about persons who affirm an oath of service and then refuse assignments based upon religious conviction? I’ll give you a hint – they deserve chastisement.
What should we really think about the Chief Constable? Lacking quality leadership, he should consider early retirement. Lacking leadership, he is worthless in that position and he may in fact be the reason why his force is “aggravated.”
Posted by: Mustang at Saturday, October 07 2006 10:41 AM (/Ocrj)
The Path To 9-11: The Left Is A Comedy For Our Times
The subject of 9-11 is frought with pathos. It is both a sad remembrance and an act of war. But, on the 5th anniversary of this tragic day, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) has decided to show a production of a "Docu-Drama" called "The Path To 9-11". Now, in and of itself, that is nothing remarkable, the history of the socalled "docu-drama" is long and comical for its historical inaccuracies and/or outright fiction, witness the productions of "Death Of A President" in England for example (which many have defended on the grounds of "free speech").
Yet, let a shibboleth of the left be challenged (Clinton was a terrific - though perhaps oversexed president) and watch the fur fly. The reaction of much of the left is almost comical, nay, it is entirely comical and I'll take a few snippits from here and there to prove my point.
First up my friend Marc Cooper (a self identified "progressive") posts "The ABC's of Panderning" in which he states:
L.A. Times media columnist Tim Rutten perfectly nails the shameless shlockmeisters at ABC who think it's just spiffy to capitalize on the pain of the 5th anniversary 9/11 to broadcast one more manufactured piece of dreck -- a two part "docudrama" on the Twin Tower attacks powered by blatant right-wing spin.
Now, Marc is a friend of mine, and my 'blogfather' if you will and I highly respect him and his blog (though that does not apply to some of his more vociferous commenters). But gee could the rhetoric be more appalling, could the prose be a little more turgid? Understand please, as a progressive, Marc is no friend of the Bushes or the Republicans, but having said that, he is no friend of the Democrats either.
More amusing (if that is indeed the word) are some of the comments from that blog entry. This one for example:
NeoDude Says:
September 9th, 2006 at 9:14 am
When has Right-Wing Nationalists (SALUTE!!!), in any Western tradition, not exploit a national tragedy?
Oh gosh, "Right-Wing nationalists." Codewords for fascists perhaps? Oh, the humanity!
How about this one (if you are a fan of conspiracy theories you will LOVE this one):
r. l. c. Says:
September 9th, 2006 at 10:14 am
It really is obvious what happened here. These projects don’t get made overnight and when ABC Entertainment (NOT the news division) OK’ed this Bush was riding high - just been reelected and had increased majorities in both houses of Congress. And what were the pundits saying? Why the GOP wiould be ruling the roost for a long time to come and the Dems were in “Disarray” (a town near Vegas, I believe). So why not get in bed with right wing crazies? They would be in position to help the Mouse with issues like Intellectual Property and Media Ownership. Its not personal, just business.
(Hell Robert Iger was a Clinton Contributor, as were a lote of ABC/Disney Execs)
Sure the Dems would complain but what could they do? Well its now two months from an election that will probably produce a tsunami for them and the miniseries don’t look so hot now does it? That is what happens when you listen to experts!
Can you say "off base?"
But Marc's commenters are rational compared to others (although that is obviously not saying much). For example, Ann Althouse has a terrific post on some of these left-wing rantings here and she has a link pointing to something called "AMERICAblog" with some suggestions to sue, boycott etc Disney, ABC and Apple because of the so called docu-drama. A sample:
Certainly we're going to be live-blogging the show, Sunday and Monday. I'd appreciate those of you in Australia and New Zealand, if the show does air there shortly, please give us feedback as to what they cut and what's still in the show? It will give us a window as to what defamatory material Disney/ABC insisted on keeping in the show, which will help the lawsuits and our organizing.
Secondly, when the show airs in the US, if Disney/ABC still run it, I want to be sure a number of us are live-blogging it to list the defamation and the errors. If Disney/ABC insist on making a cartoon out one of the blackest days in America history, then we will hold them responsible."
Aren't these the same guys who "demand" freedom of speech on campuses and other venues? Does that apply only to speech from their side? Funny, I thought that speech was free for ALL OF THE UNITED STATES. I guess not. But I digress, as funny as the posting is, some of the comments (over 380 of them) are even funnier (or would stranger be a better word choice?) For example, this little bon mot:
I think iTunes is a really good place to hit Steve Jobs and Apple. It is direct and to the point, and it is not platform-based.
It is OUTRAGEOUS that they are offering this as a free download.
They would notice immediately if there was a slack-off in sales.
I have already written to Steve Jobs and the iTunes crew about this.
samia | 09.09.06 - 6:38 pm |
Wow, but this is mild compared to:
It appears that the governments use of the MSM for propaganda distribution is becoming extremely transparent. If we, as Americans, cannot stop this from happening, or becoming any worse, then we have lost the control of our public servents, and more drastic actions must be taken. Boycotts/leaflets/emails/videos/ demonstations etc.
Joe Danger | Homepage | 09.09.06 - 6:43 pm |"
Joe Danger, what a nom-de-pixel that is. Ok lets see, the government controls the MSM enough to make it a propaganda arm of the Bushies. So, how did the NYTimes sneak by with those "expose's" of our efforts to listen in to Al Qaeda or monitor financial transactions? Hmmmmm?
OK, how about this one:
As well as an organized and long-term boycott of Disney and ABC, we should use this opportunity to call for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.
nervesofsteel | 09.09.06 - 6:50 pm |"
OK, now that really is scary. The fairness doctrine was less about fairness than it was a way to silence the broadcasters (radio and TV) from airing any "political" speech because the so called doctrine would allow opposing views time on air. General Managers would have a scheduling nightmare and we'd loose talk radio and have to go back to elevator music. No thanks! One more reason not to elect Democrats or liberal Republicans. Oh, and by the way, the above commenter's nom-de-pixel is "nervesofsteel" More like "nerves-of-tinfoil." What a frightened little bunny!
The latest (well, maybe not the absolute latest) lefty "talking point" (I'm being generous here you understand) is that this is NOT the same as Michael Moore's fatuous "Farenheit 9/11" which everyone now says was a "polemic." A polemic?
WordNet
po·lem·ic (p-lmk): adj : of or involving dispute or controversy [syn: polemical] n 1: a writer who argues in opposition to others (especially in theology) [syn: polemicist, polemist] 2: a controversy (especially over a belief or dogma)
Really, seems to me that at the time many on the left didn't see any controversy at all, it was truth and a terrific slam on the Bush Administration (note: Marc Cooper, always his own man, saw it different and the vast majority of his commenters agreed - at the time, not now; now it's just a polemic).
Again, I digress, the whole point of this little exercise is to point out the utter insanity of the left in regards to this docudrama. Reminds me of the "revised" words of the Bard: "The left doth protest too much, methinks."
Update, I've only scratched the surface of the left's response to "The Pathway to 9-11" but James Joyner at Outside The Beltway has looked at how "The Left Remembers 9-11." It's an excellent read and I'm in awe of his article.
It's just fine and dandy for Michael Moore to release a money-maker in the theaters and expound his brand of leftism, but it's not at all acceptable for ABC to show a FREE docudrama, with all the usual disclaimers (I'm guessing on that last part).
Of course, anything that doesn't fuel Bush Derangement Syndrome absolutely must be forbidden to air.
Now, for the real issue...The left doesn't want anything to air which might remind us of who did what on 9/11. We might become "Islamophobic"! Furthermore, we are AT WAR--the enemy is supposed to be demonized.
Posted by: Always On Watch at Sunday, September 10 2006 11:49 AM (GIL7z)
And true... Conservatives will register our disapproval while acknowledging the right of our opponents to free speech.
The left, on the other hand, breaks down into a quagmire of a hundred thousand scheming cabals fantacizing different ways to gag the opposition, and their political leaders get into a frenzy trying to misuse their congressional authority to stifle free speech.
I think an apt title for a book about today's Democrats would be "Party Without A Conscience".
Posted by: Seth at Sunday, September 10 2006 11:50 AM (4OJoa)
3
I was right! ABC ran a disclaimer crawl at the top of the screen right before the film started. I'm watching it.
Posted by: Always On Watch at Sunday, September 10 2006 12:02 PM (GIL7z)
4
Ah yes ... the Hipocracy Party (AKA the Democrats). Everyone has the right to free speech just so long as the message reinforces BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). We really do need to remove these people from office. They are a major threat to our liberty, and have no place in a free society.
I'm a registered Independent, and these censorship antics have driven me solidly into the ranks of those voting straight Republican in this next election. May the Democrats go down to crushing defeat. I also don't like a one-party system either, but the alternative of putting them into office is magnitudes worse, IMHO.
Posted by: Vulgorilla at Monday, September 11 2006 03:30 AM (5AfaV)
5
I watched the first part of the movie. Usually I don't stay up that late, but I had no trouble staying awake to watch every minute.
Expecting CAIR to object. Maybe they already have; I'll check CAIR's site.
I'll be watching the second part tonight.
Posted by: Always On Watch at Monday, September 11 2006 04:15 AM (GIL7z)
6
G.M., the only sense that a rational person can make of liberals is that liberals are not rational and make no sense.
Consider these quotes from Ann Coulter. They spell out the hopelessness of dialogue with liberals.
“Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.”
"Liberals hate America, they hate 'flag-wavers,' they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."
"Democrats cannot conceive of 'hate speech' towards Christians because, in their eyes, Christians always deserve it."
"One begins to appreciate why Democrats aren't wild about any political system that permits people to vote. Liberals would have no chance of advancing their bizarre policy agenda if Americans were allowed to have a say in the matter. So they manufacture phony 'constitutional rights' in which the Constitution always sounds suspiciously similar to the ideological agenda of the ACLU."
"This is liberalism's real strength. It is no longer susceptible to reductio ad absurdium arguments. Before you can come up with a comical take on their worldview, some college professor has already written an article advancing the idea."
"Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said any assumption that the US would not use force against North Korea would be a mistake. Such bellicosity frightens liberals. The left's reaction to nutty despots is: he might hit me, so I'll be nice. Rumsfeld's idea is: He'll hit me? Maybe I'll hit him. The beauty of that approach cannot be denied."
"'Stupid' means one thing: 'threatening to the interests of the Democratic Party.' The more Conservative the Republican, the more vicious and hysterical the attacks on his intelligence will be."
"Much of the left's hate speech bears greater similarity to a psychological disorder than to standard political discourse. The hatred is blinding, producing logical contradictions that would be impossible to sustain were it not for the central element faith plays in the left's new religion. The basic tenet of their faith is this: Maybe they were wrong on facts and policies, but they are good and conservatives are evil. You almost want to give it to them. It's all they have left."
"No matter what the evidence, liberals insist that only their tender ministrations are capable of calming murderous dictators. Negotiation and engagement are said to 'work' because, after Democrats spend years dillydallying with lunatic despots who threaten America, eventually a Republican president comes in and threatens aggressive military action. In a fascinating fifty-year pattern -- completely indiscernible to liberals -- murderous despots succumb to 'engagement' shortly after a Republican president threatens to bomb them. This allows liberals to hail years of impotent negotiation and engagement as a foreign policy 'win'."
Liberals never argue with one another over substance; their only dispute is how to prevent the public from figuring out what they really believe. Meanwhile, it is a source of constant alarm to conservatives that the public will not understand what they really believe."
"If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you've said -- unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It's like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder."
Posted by: Woody at Monday, September 11 2006 11:56 AM (v5VVJ)
7
I think the objections are fairly simple, though distressing, to understand. Many people have a framework of how things have gone wrong. The data in this film doesn't fit that framework. Therefore, it must be the data, not the framework that is wrong.
All people with opinions do this to a certain extent, and few of us change our minds overnight. What is worrisome from the left is that they do not seem to be affected at all by contrary information. Reasonable people, when confronted with something completely at odds with their beliefs, take more modest positions. They resolve to explore the data more closely. They seek out advice from people they know to be intelligent. They might modify their views somewhat, acknowledging that their favored position has some soft spots, even if it is basically truer than the alternatives. They examine the assumptions that went into their original framework.
We do read some folks on the left who do these things. But not enough, not by a long shot. Most of what we see is a continual retrenchment in the old positions, refusing to acknowledge any possibility of wrong.
Posted by: Raven at Monday, September 11 2006 12:25 PM (S/UQw)
9
Hiya GM!..u made my day by commenting at my site!..thank u for your support during Sept 11..too bad the lefties in collusion with the Mainstream mafia and now the networks chose 9-11 to defame and distort yet again..and this surprises us WHY?..great post!
Posted by: Angel at Monday, September 11 2006 01:43 PM (Q3CPK)
10
AVI - I read your comment at "captainsquarters" after his post of his opening speech at the recent panel discussion he attended. It was so well put, I think I'll give you the biggest kudos of the week and copy it here as I think GM, Woody and others will see the wisdom in it:
"I'm glad you brought up the Civil War in the discussion. It is a salutary reminder that wars are seldom clean, straightforward affairs. The war in Iraq has been judged according to a standard unknown in history, both in the expectations of moral rightness and the execution of the war. Our moral justification is great, but no nation behaves entirely without evil , and no enemy is completely without some fair complaint.
But noting that there is no black and white in the world of nations and conflict does not mean that all grays are the same. Refusing to make such distinctions is to refuse to make moral distinctions in the real world at all.
There is much speculation on the right of what drives these false dichotomies of the left. Is it pure partisanship? Is it a failure to understand moral distinctions? Does the hope of swaying the political debate cause people to make statements in more extreme form than reason supports? Are there hidden motivations which prevent certain facts from being recognised?
Perhaps it doesn't matter. Perhaps there are never going to be more than a few who honestly disagree and seek to discover the truth in each other's presence."
Again, kudos, sir. And thank you for a cogent and reasonable point.
Posted by: Oyster at Tuesday, September 12 2006 04:19 AM (pm3S6)
11
The post is written in very a good manner and it entails much useful information for me. I am happy to find your distinguished way of writing the post.
Posted by: nfl jerseys at Thursday, November 22 2012 01:34 AM (SCDKS)
Mo(re)-HAM-Add(ed)
Put your cursor on Mo-Ham-Add and he will oink with pleasure, keep tickling him and he will get muddy... then, click on the "more" box in the right hand corner and clean him up with a spray bottle, then feed him an apple. Mo loves this kind of treatment.
1
This "toy" service has evolved since I found it about 18 months ago. Scroll down about 18 inches (maybe more) on OLD STUFF and find my "dead" penquin?!
Posted by: chrys at Sunday, June 25 2006 09:06 AM (p6fwA)
A Lexicon For The Left
I absolutely LOVE liberals. If it weren't for liberals those of us who can think rationally would have nothing to laugh at. For example, I was reading about the Governor of Maryland today and the words used for him was "Moderate." Now, the Governor of Maryland is a Republican, he is also conservative and has beaten back many of the really stupid, anti-business, anti-citizen, anti-just about everything except taxes, and that he has beaten back many pro-tax initiatives of the heavily Democratic legislature. So, to tick off the conservatives, who are somewhat upset with some of the Governor's actions, they call him a "Moderate." As if that will keep the conservatives from voting for the only Republican Governor elected in a very blue state for some time. So, let us begin:
Abortion: Does not exist, in its place is an action of a woman exercising her right to privacy and full control over her body. Full control over her body does not apply to the concept that unprotected sex may lead to pregnancy and if it does, it’s the damn guys fault anyway.
Cold Blooded Murder: Prejudging any action by a soldier in a combat zone if and only if done before an investigation is concluded, charges have been filed or guilt (if any) ascribed to a specific individual. If a Republican administration initiates an investigation before anyone else knows about a suspected illegal action but charges are not filed against the President, Vice President, Karl Rove or a high ranking General, then it is called a Cover-up.
Cover-up: See Cold Blooded Murder immediately above.
Culture of Corruption: Any Republican for any reason or for no reason at all. This opprobrium does NOT apply to Congressman Jefferson (D., La.) or Congressman Jim Moran (D., Va.) or any other individual at the local, state or national level if they have a D behind their name.
Free Speech: Any thing uttered in any circumstances by a Democrat. Given the same circumstances when uttered by a Republican it is called Hate Speech.
Hate Speech: An utterance by a Republican that points out the error of thinking as applied to “affirmative action,” “abortion,” or “the marriage amendment/laws,” or anything else the Democrats dislike.
Indictment: Any legal action that should have been taken against Karl Rove but wasn't (See also Culture of Corruption above).
Democratic Moderate: A Democrat who toes the Democratic Party line and adopts the Democratic Party Talking Points regardless of that individuals voting pattern (Republicans use the term Liberal). This applies to everyone except Joe Lieberman (D, Conn.) who is according to the Kossacks and DUers a turncoat. It does not apply to Senator Zell Miller (D., Ga.) who gave a fine address at the Republican Convention in 2004, he is also a turncoat.
Moderate: A conservative Democrat who they don't want to use, or a liberal Republican they want to stay put. Sometimes it also means a conservative Republican who has some "moderate" bits to his record so the other Republicans won't vote for him. (and yes, him as used here, is the inclusive pronoun - PC language be damned)
Pro-choice: Any action taken to insure that the prospective mother does not give a live birth. (See also Abortion)
Tax cuts for the rich: Oh, this is a goody. Of course the Democrats cannot explain why the amount of taxes paid by the rich has increased, nor can they explain why tax revenues have substantially increased to the point where the deficit may be halved 3 years earlier than forecast. According to the Democrats, if you make more than the poverty level, you are rich and all of your income should be turned over to them for them to decide how it should be spent. If you are Paul Krugman, you are just clueless anyway.
Speaking Truth to Power: A term that originally meant telling someone in power something they didn’t want to hear and that could get the speaker tossed in jail, or executed or loss of something significant. For Democrats, it is applied to scoundrels such as Jack Murtha (D., Pa.) who mouth off at the administration about anything that the Democrats think will elect them in the fall or give them back the White House in 2008.
Whistle blowing: An act by a Democrat or Democrat sympathizer that exposes anything a Republican administration does, up to and including exposing national security information that would land anyone else in jail. This specifically does not apply to anything a Republican does, that is called illegal outing of a covert operator (read spy) in order to get even with a former ambassador who lied about his actions anyway and has been exposed by numerous bodies as a liar. When legal charges are applied to members of the media it is called “suppression of free speech.”
This concludes today’s lesson, I’ve talked about these things in the past and this message/lesson has been brought to you as a public service. If you have additional words to add please add them in the comments section. That’s all of my time and I thank you for yours.
1
I've seen ther term "courageous" applied to people who used to be Republican or in the military and turned on them, like Sen. Jim Jeffords or Wesley Clark. But, Sen. Liberman isn't labeled as courageous and is villified when he takes a stand for the war. I wonder why.
Also, "racial discrimination" and "affirmative action" are the same thing, but used differently by the left.
There are also two types of "lies." One doesn't count because it was told by a President who denied justice to a woman when he lied under oath. The other you mentioned, which is called a lie by the left but isn't.
How about "working Ameircans?" People who are Democrats are called working, but people like you and me who work our tails off are called "privileged."
Oh, that brings me to "less fortunate." People are "less fortunate" because they made bad life choices. I'm "fotunate" because government hasn't taxed everything that I own, yet.
Finally, our soldiers are "baby killers," but abortion doctors aren't. Go figure.
Posted by: Woody at Tuesday, June 20 2006 02:59 PM (v5VVJ)
2
Thanks for a thought provoking post. I continue to enjoy this blog - the first I turn to on a daliy basis and the only one that I consistently read completely through. I appreciate the time that GM and Woody devote to the process.
Posted by: MLSmith at Wednesday, June 21 2006 12:21 AM (P6qLO)
3
Good list GM and Woody!
1. Gun control- Most democrats and some repubs: abolish 2nd Ammendment.
Most repubs and some dems: Good shot
2. Universal healthcare- Dems: a right to free healthcare for everyone, even if they can pay some or all health insurance.
Repubs: 6 month long waiting list to see docs. and alot of new taxes.
.
Posted by: Ben USN (Ret) at Wednesday, June 21 2006 12:28 AM (GUCXb)
MLSmith... thanks, truly the highest compliment one can pay to a blogger.
Posted by: GM Roper at Wednesday, June 21 2006 12:31 AM (S60yG)
5
Cynthia McKinney = not racist. Quote: "This whole incident was instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female black congresswoman."
Corrine Brown = not racist. Quote: "racist" "bunch of white men" and "you all look alike to me."
Steve Gilliard = not racist. Quote: "Simple Sambo wants to move to the big house."
The Black Commentators, Glen Ford and Peter Gamble = not racist. Quote: "Even in feigned pain, the Right’s Black minions (minstrels) give themselves away." And here's another gem: "Propping up a new black "leadership" (consider Armstrong Williams, Janice Brown, Condoleeza Rice and other "pet negroes") by white conservatives,..."
The mantra? "Black people can't be racist." In other words, if one accuses others of racism, they can't be racist themselves.
Even an ex-KKK member who has no problem using the "N" word, Robert Byrd, = not racist.
Racist - def. 2 Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Now if these people above, blatantly using race as their argument, and even depicting their targets as Uncle Toms, minstrels, Sambos, "pet negroes", etc. because of their political persuasion isn't racism then what the hell is it?
Posted by: Oyster at Thursday, June 22 2006 03:03 AM (yM03s)
Posted by: Raven at Thursday, June 22 2006 08:25 AM (8evl6)
7
The Poor: Anyone who makes less than someone else and votes Democrat.
Posted by: Ogre at Thursday, June 22 2006 09:02 AM (Yw8Is)
8
The post is written in very a good manner and it entails much useful information for me. I am happy to find your distinguished way of writing the post.
Posted by: nfl jerseys at Wednesday, November 21 2012 09:12 PM (SCDKS)
Academic Reform -- Can We Trust the Professors?
I've never suggested reading an op-ed from "The New York Times"-until now. And, I'm doing this because an op-ed contributor got something right rather than half-cocked in the wrong direction. What's even more scary to me is that I even agree with a statement in the article by radical Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. The issue has to do with problems in the field of academics--partly about the forced resignation of Harvard University's PresidentLawrence H. Summers, who was tarred and feathered by liberal professors, and it has to do with the future of who runs our universities. The current crisis should force academe to re-assess and reform itself--but it likely will not. If not, maybe contributors to the university might re-assess where their money goes and maybe someone else will step up to the plate to reform out-of-control professors. Here are selected passages from the article, but be sure to read all of it to get the full message from an excellent piece.
Academic, Heal Thyself
The New York Times, 03/06/06
By Camille Paglia, Op-Ed Contributor and
University Professor, University of the Arts in Philadelphia
What went wrong at Harvard?
...Larry Summers, a former Treasury secretary, assumed the presidency with a high sense of mission. ...But whatever his good intentions, Mr. Summers often inspired more heat than light. His stellar early career as an economics professor did not prepare him for dealing with an ingrown humanities faculty that has been sunk in political correctness for decades. As president, he had a duty to research the tribal creeds and customs of those he wished to convert. Foolishly thinking plain speech and common sense would suffice, he flunked Academic Anthropology 101.
...(T)he controversy that will inevitably symbolize his presidency was the manufactured outcry early last year over his glancing reference at a conference to possible innate differences between the sexes in aptitude for science and math. The feminist pressure groups rose en masse from their lavishly feathered nests and set up a furious cackle that led to a 218-to-185 vote of no confidence by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences last March.
...Mr. Summers's strategic blunders unfortunately took the spotlight off entrenched political correctness and changed the debate to academic power: who has it, and how should it be exercised?
...It now remains to be seen whether Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences is capable of self-critique. Will its members acknowledge their own insularity and excesses, or will they continue down the path of smug self-congratulation and vanity? Harvard's reputation for disinterested scholarship has been severely gored by the shadowy manipulations of the self-serving cabal who forced Mr. Summers's premature resignation.
...If Harvard cannot correct itself in this crisis, it will signal that academe cannot be trusted to reform itself from within.
Unfortunately, I'm betting that the faculty will only get worse from this "victory." In one divergence from the writer, I don't even want them or trust them to reform and keep power. They've had their chance and it's been too long. Maybe it's time to take away the somewhat phony and over-used "academic freedom" shield and make professors responsible for their words and actions. Maybe it's time to dismantle tenure and make them earn their jobs like we do. If you do a good job, you can come back the next day. If you don't, then you're gone...and, you don't get an extra year and a big pay-off like Chief Ward Churchill did from Colorado.
But, what's the first step and who is willing to take it? Who will have the nerve after this?
1
Dershowitz is his own man, and doesn't feel obligated to toe a party line. I have many times agreed with him. He is sort of a left-libertarian (like Paglia, perhaps), very smart, and more than a little sure of himself.
He is liberal on the basis of first principles, not because he is just anti-conservative. That's becoming rare these days.
2
Right. And the NYT is going to review and revamp their editorial processes. Still waiting.
These professors are labeled as radical for a reason. It's one thing to employ radical ideas in seeking out progress and another to be radical in seeking a path to past and present failed social experiments.
The ironic part is that these guys are poking holes in their own boat. Don't they know that?
Posted by: Oyster at Monday, March 06 2006 11:55 AM (YudAC)
3
My take, and some personal observation, is many professors are mostly children with extensive vocabularies.
One wonders where they get their egos. In the "soft" sciences, a mostly sheltered life and not much real experience...but with someone's money and someone's time, they have a doctorate (awarded, please note, by other lefties) and now feel qualified to blather on about damn near ANY subject.
Gad, it must make real professors ill.
Posted by: Tad at Monday, March 06 2006 05:54 PM (aIFaX)
4
yeah, Tad. It would be a travesty of democracy if citizen from across the country found ways to share their political views - even those who aren't political experts. We're lucky it's only college professors so far. Soon it could end up being accountant and psychologists or any shmo who signs up with blogger. Oh wait.
What a lame article. When the whole brouhaha originally arose, there were a number of interesting perspectives: female science professors who felt that Summers' conjecturing (blathering on about damn near ANY subject, as it were) undermined the trials they'd face trying to break into the male-dominated fields of science and math. There were those who felt that the academy should be primarily a place for unbridled thinking (the protection of that "academic shield" Mr. Roper hates) and that Summers shouldn't be taken to task for even crass questions. Regardless, this essay you've linked to hardly offers any real critique or understanding of differing perspectives. Instead, it demeans the arguments of the peeved by suggesting their anger is mere, "entrenched political correctness." They are guilty of "ideological groupthink," we are told, though the faculty split 218-185 in a vote of confidence, hardly the stuff of groupthink. Both sides have a real point in this debate. Paglia foolishly flushes one perspective and you all sing her praises. Hogwash.
Posted by: Mavis Beacon at Monday, March 06 2006 06:20 PM (KzxRH)
5
Mavis, Paglia isn't exactly one of "ours." Most of the arguments and perspectives that you noted were lacking have been presented numerous times by others since Lawrence Summers' "mistake" of saying the truth that men and women come with a different set of tools in academics. There was no need to present them again.
This article addresses who should or should not be trusted to determine the direction of universities. Clearly, to me, it's not the entrenched, self-servinig professors. If someone doesn't wake up, major contributions to universities, if they don't dry up, will be designated primarily for the business schools and athletic departments--which actually accomplish something of value to society and the alumni.
"Academic freedom" doesn't mean what it originally did. Now, it is just a shield to deflect arguments that professors should be teaching their subjects rather than focusing on their politics--almost always left-wing and out of the mainstream. It keeps the professors from admitting and defending their indoctrination efforts. Talk to me about academic freesom after the professors teach the basics, for which they haven't seemed to do a very good job since about the mid-1970's.
The vote represents "group think" when you break it down between departments and find that the humanities vote in concert and the way they are taught to vote--always radical left. The vote shouldn't have even come up, much less be a vote of no-confidence. Only radical, group-think, block voting made that possible. It is a very rare professor who will stand up for what he believes this day if he thinks that it will draw attention from the politically correct departments. The article mentioned that none would speak to the school newspaper for that fear.
It seems to me that most professors couldn't make a living in the outside world if their lives depended on it, so they have to find comfort and dollars within the walls of academe.
Maybe it's time to put "term limits" on professors just like U.S. Presidents and just like we should for those in Congress. Eight years and you're out. Go make a real living for four years and then re-enter the universities--smarter for seeing the reality of the outside world.
Posted by: Woody at Tuesday, March 07 2006 03:41 AM (v5VVJ)
6
When personal politics starts to penetrate academia, the truth suffers. Both right and left are at fault here. The irony of it is that the discipline of economics, Summers' background, has been perverted by right wing ideology, just as much as the humanities have been perverted by left wing ideology.
So where does the truth lie? In many cases, I'm sad to report, science tends to support the right wing position. Yes, there truly are innate differences between humans, and many are genetic in origin. But that doesn't give the right wingers carte blanche to exploit other humans as they have so routinely done down through the ages, and contimue to do.
Respect at an individual level is what is needed, while observing the fascinating and never ending differences between individuals. It's an old saw, but every individual is unique. Put technically, within-group differences are usually much larger than between-group population differences, which are the well spring of mindless prejudice and discrimination.
Posted by: Alan Robinson at Tuesday, March 07 2006 03:46 AM (e8FU3)
7
When I query faculty as to the purpose of the university I am told it is "to create and disseminate knowledge". This being the case then is it not the responsibility of the university (the faculty) to ensure that such knowledge contributes to the ongoing development of the society in which the university resides and for which it is educating the future leaders?
The self-serving attitudes of tenured "children with extensive vocabularies" with no accountability clearly fall well short of this standard. Worse, this abrogation of societal responsibility has resulted in the continuing degradation of "education" - the process of acquiring knowledge and development.
Students, particularly at graduate level, have an expectation that faculty will indeed deliver both knowledge and development. The rapid growth of for profit providers, accredited online providers and inhouse "corporate universities" reflect the migration of value in a university education, a migration fostered by faculty who fail to practice what they teach.
Posted by: Peter Withers at Tuesday, March 07 2006 06:56 AM (DvjCS)
8
Mavis, I keep rereading your post and trying to find a way it is not contradictory. Does the president of a university have the right to voice an opinion? If yes, what is the basis for forcing him out on that basis? If no, then where do the other academics derive their permission to speak.
You seem to be saying that it is the job of the academy to protect some ideas from being challenged, so that they may blossom as hothouse flowers.
Side point -- the trials of breaking into male-dominated fields -- you are clearly assuming without sufficient evidence that the popular explanation, that women are being kept down and kept out, is the true one; many educated women have that subjective impression, but evidence for the proposition is proving elusive.
Tag! You're It!
Well...it seems that the anti-fun police have struck again, this time at Adams Elementary in Spokane, WA. Apparently, Principal Mary Perrizo-Weber decided that there was a dire problem of children being "coerced" into playing tag. Yep, you see, if one child runs up to another and touches him while simultaneously voicing the phrase "Tag! You're It!," that is coercion. Therefore, out of fear of multi-billion dollar anti-Tag lawsuits that are apparently sweeping the nation and in order to keep children safe from anything that might resemble competition or fun, she banned it (video on Fox News).
Fortunately for potential future victims of schoolyard skullduggery, she rejected the obviously ridiculous petition circulated by 3rd Grader Kuby Boyd and signed by 45 other potential bullies which suggested that those playing the game too aggressively be punished. Thank goodness she had the fortitude to stand fast against such pressure. I mean really, do you know how bad it makes kids feel when they are being punished for doing something wrong. They could be scarred for life. It is much better to just nip any problems in the bud before they could happen.
However, for some reason she has seen fit to continue allowing children to play football. At least she has banned them from running when they play it. Who knows what kind of self-esteem damage could be suffered by a child that could not run as fast as the other children. That is the kind of thing that creates future serial killers. In fact, it is well known that Ted Bundy once lost a race from the fence to jungle gym in 4th grade. The rest is history.
1
First it's tag, then playing house for Kindergarteners (which is called family life center here), and then when everyone thinks the worst has been done to public education, they will introduce Islamic Jihad into Pre-K.
Yep, Tag is harmful.
Posted by: Tish at Monday, February 20 2006 01:25 PM (mWNqK)
2
Just another educator with a degree minus the education or in plain language, another person too stupid to function anywhere except as a teacher. Those who can do, those who can't, teach.
Posted by: scrapiron at Monday, February 20 2006 06:54 PM (ccSyJ)
1. You don't have to have an MA in Ed to become a principal.
2. You have to have a JD.
3. If 2. above is made the standard, then all school administrators could tell all the other lawyers to shove it. They wouldn't be so timid about running schools with common sense.
4. It'll will never happen. The NEA and all Lefty folks are like termites in old wooden houses. They've found a real home. Are all teachers and administrators bad? No. I suspect that the majority are just bailing so fast that they've not the time to STOP the dumbing down and the "caving" that is routinuely done.
5. I rather think that very many graduated from the Neville Chamberlain School of Education.
Posted by: tad at Tuesday, February 21 2006 04:06 AM (oKpHD)
4in order to keep children safe from anything that might resemble competition or fun, she banned it
According to this story the ban was already in effect before Mary Weber ever became principle. She just reminded the students of the ban.
Posted by: E. Nonee Moose at Tuesday, February 21 2006 05:40 AM (CK7f1)
to Mikes America