Sunday, February 29, 2004

 

FOOD CORRECTNESS

"Obesity" as a new tool for the dictatorial class:

"Government on all levels has also been gradually restricting health insurers’ ability to charge overweight people higher premiums. This means the guy who works out five times a week and watches his diet is increasingly being asked to pay the same amount of money for health insurance as the guy who loafs on the couch and dines on bacon sandwiches. ...

The aim of Jennings and these lifestyle activists is to shift responsibility for individual health away from individual Americans, and onto the American public as a whole. Once that happens, the case for massive government intervention in what, when, where and how we eat falls on a more receptive audience.

If I’m paying for my neighbor’s high cholesterol, I’m more open to the idea that perhaps government ought to start regulating what he eats. If we’re all paying for one another’s trips to the doctor, we’re all more likely to support government regulation of what McDonalds can and can’t put on its menu, what Safeway or Kroger ought to stock on their shelves, and maybe it’s not such a bad idea to ban Kraft and Nabisco from advertising cookies and corn chips — especially to kids.

Conversely, if I know my health is my own responsibility, and that my medical bills will be coming out of my own savings account, I’m a little more likely to take care of myself.

Personal responsibility goes hand in hand with personal freedom. We can’t regulate away responsibility without regulating away consumer and personal choice. Worse, countries that have attempted the social engineering efforts now advocated by Jennings and his ilk (Sweden, for example) have seen poor returns, leaving the citizens of those countries both overweight and less free.

posted by jonjayray 12:17

|

Saturday, February 28, 2004

 

GUN CORRECTNESS

These PC wackos just love punishing kids. Only the pressure of publicity caused them eventually to back down.

A third-grader at Sun Valley Elementary was suspended this week for bringing a G.I. Joe toy handgun to school. Austin Crittenden, 9, and his family say the school in eastern Birmingham went too far by sending him home for bringing a tiny plastic handgun that accompanied a G.I. Joe action figure. "It's about an inch long," said Vicki Stewart, the boy's grandmother and guardian. "(The principal) had to tape it to a piece of paper to keep from losing it."

The length of the suspension has yet to be determined, said Birmingham City Schools spokeswoman Michaelle Chapman. Possible punishments for a Class III violation such as this one include expulsion and alternative school, she said.

There have been questions recently about whether strict adherence to such codes has gone too far, especially after a Clay-Chalkville teen was sent to an alternative school for violating the school's zero-tolerance policy after being caught taking a Motrin. Last April, two boys at Oak Mountain Middle School received one-day suspensions for playing with toy guns one had brought for a project on Treasure Island. A 10-year-old was arrested in October at an Alabaster school, accused of threatening someone with a toy gun.

It's not just Alabama: Last month, an 8-year-old was suspended from a Spokane, Wash., public school for taking two similar G.I. Joe guns to school.

In cases like this, it's up to the community to let schools know how they feel about the policies, said William Modzeleski, associate deputy undersecretary of the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. But it's the schools' responsibility to use common sense enforcing them, he said. "The punishment has to fit the crime," he said. "On some zero-tolerance policies, the punishment far outweighs the crime."

More here

posted by jonjayray 13:14

|

Thursday, February 26, 2004

 

STUDENTS FIGHT PC DISCRIMINATION

"A conservative group at Texas A&M University has established a $10,000 essay contest for students who disagree with affirmative action. The Young Conservatives of Texas are asking prospective writers to discuss 'how you or a family member have overcome institutionalized discrimination and/or the stigma imposed by policies giving preference to particular racial and ethnic groups in college admissions, employment, and other competitive arenas.' YCT established the contest in response to Texas A&M's 'Graduate Diversity Scholarships' and new race-based hiring quotas in the College of Engineering."

More here

posted by jonjayray 16:59

|

 

IMMIGRATION CORRECTNESS CRUMBLING

"Governments across Western Europe are rolling up the welcome mats. The stunning decision by the Dutch government to expel an estimated 26,000 rejected asylum applicants last week was only the latest in a series of actions by European Union countries to tighten border controls and limit immigration to some of the world's most generous social-welfare states. Even center-left and leftist leaders such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson have in recent days responded to popular pressure to check uncontrolled flows of cheap labor -- not only from developing countries but from some poorer Central and Eastern European countries set to join the European Union on May 1."

posted by jonjayray 16:59

|

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

 

SOWELL ON THE INSANE CORRECTNESS OF EQUALITY

Some ethnic groups have an average age that is a decade older than the average age of others, and whole countries like Germany and Italy have average ages that are two decades older than the average age in Afghanistan or Yemen. Is that a level playing field? No! It is an unfair advantage to those with more experience and the increased capabilities that come with experience.

Other differences are due to the sins of man - discrimination, conquest, slavery and more. Yet, whatever the sources of the differences among people, those differences are huge and the economic consequences are huge.

None of this is hard to understand in itself. But much of it gets confused and twisted by the rhetoric, the visions and the crusades of the intelligentsia, politicians, mush heads and hot heads.

Even our courts of law are ready to consider different distributions of groups in employment as evidence that the employer discriminated, since it is apparently beyond the pale to consider that the groups themselves may differ, whether in quantifiable ways like age or in intangible ways like attitudes.

So deeply ingrained is this egalitarian dogma that different rates of passing tests from one group to another are taken as evidence that something is wrong with the tests. Different rates of promotion at work or in school are taken as virtual proof that the employer or the school is doing something wrong.

Best-selling author Shelby Steele has argued persuasively that whites are afraid of being considered racists and blacks are afraid of being considered innately inferior - and that both do many foolish and counterproductive things as a result. Such attitudes apply even beyond racial issues.

A nation's laws and policies need to serve more serious purposes than allowing people to escape their psychological hangups. The time is overdue for these laws and policies to be based on realities and geared toward consequences.

More here

posted by jonjayray 12:09

|

 

Quakers

Excerpts from a sarcastic article by Mike Tremoglie:

In keeping with the current trend to remove all names that are, or could be, considered offensive to ethnic, racial, religious, or gender groups, The University of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and all corporations and concerns must remove the word "Quaker."

The University of Pennsylvania football team is called the Quakers. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is called the “Quaker State.” There is also the Quaker Oats company and dozens of other businesses and concerns using the name Quaker.

However, there is one problem with this name. The name is an ethnic slur and should be banned from sports.

The Encyclopedia Britannica states, “George Fox, founder of the (Society of Friends) in England, recorded that in 1650 “Justice Bennet of Derby first called us Quakers because we bid them tremble at the word of God.” It is likely that the name, originally derisive, was also used because many early Friends, like other religious enthusiasts, themselves trembled in their religious meetings.” Webster’s dictionary confirms that the term Quaker was originally a religious slur.

It is shocking that Penn, an institution so politically correct that it once suspended a student for calling someone a “water buffalo,” permits the use of such a slight. All citizens of Pennsylvania should, in the spirit of reconciliation, demand that Penn and these other institutions bowdlerize this name.

posted by jonjayray 12:07

|

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

 

MARTIN LUTHER KING FAILED

My problem with Martin Luther King Day is that it celebrates a civil rights revolution that achieved the opposite of King's intention. Today we are judged by the color of our skin. This conclusion is inescapable wherever we look.

Those with darker skins have become "preferred minorities" with rights to employment, promotions, training programs, university admissions, and federal contracts that are greater than those of "whites." New crimes known as "hate crimes" are being created that only "whites" can commit and only "preferred minorities" can suffer. If a "white" assaults a "black," the charge will be assault and a hate crime. If a "black" assaults a "white," the charge is only assault.

"Preferred minorities" have special rights to be offended that "whites" do not have. Indeed, a "white" who offends a "black," whether intentionally or unintentionally, can be charged with racial discrimination or with a hate crime. Preferred minorities can call whites names, but whites cannot call preferred minorities names. Ordinary language has become a minefield for whites, who must tiptoe around, aware that the slightest mishap can bring a lawsuit or destroy a career.

These persecutions happen in the name of "diversity," but diversity suffers. There can be black fraternities and organizations, but not white ones. Southern cultural symbols, together with all symbols of the South's defense of states' rights, are headed down the memory hole. Is there never to be an end to Reconstruction?

Whites are demonized in movies, theater, rap lyrics, and school textbooks. Christopher Columbus and the American Founding Fathers have been reduced to evil racists who practiced white male European hegemony over minorities and women. Any textbook author who described preferred minorities in comparable language would be driven from academic life.

Was there ever a time when whites were taught to judge blacks by the color of their skin? Many people may have had prejudices that produced a similar result, but blacks were not demonized. If we insist that blacks were demonized, how is it an improvement to demonize whites? Today, blacks are taught skin color judgments, just as feminists teach gender judgments, and communists teach class judgments. Whites are taught the same skin color judgments, which explains the predominance of "white guilt."

More here.

posted by jonjayray 14:08

|

Monday, February 23, 2004

 

SOVIET-STYLE BRITISH SOCIAL WORKERS

Ken McLaughlin says that any "backlash" against Political Correctness has a long way to go. Excerpts:

Issues of academic independence and freedom of speech have routinely been dismissed by social work academics as liberal ideas that are rooted in Western values of freedom, tolerance and individualism. Defending freedom of speech and academic independence became equated with upholding Western racism

Most importantly, talk of a PC backlash overlooks how these 'radical' theories and practices are now embraced by most sections of the British establishment. It is not only the social work profession that talks about endemic, institutional or unwitting racism - the police and judiciary are just as likely to use such language.

For all its talk of empowerment, anti-oppressive theory betrays contempt for the masses, whose behaviour and thoughts do not match current middle-class ideals. Its conflation of words and action, public and private, political and personal in social work theory has provided the authorities with ever increasing justification for intruding in people's lives.

posted by jonjayray 11:46

|

 

WHY WE MUST RESIST THE JOKE POLICE

By CHRISTIE DAVIES (Excerpts)

AN IRISHMAN went into a shop and asked for a bar of soap. The assistant asked if he would like it scented. "No, I'll take it with me now," was his reply. How do you conduct a census in Scotland? Drop five pounds in the street and count the crowd. How do you get a Welshman on to your roof? Tell him the drinks are on the house.

These jokes might be in the robust tradition of British humour, but they could not be broadcast today. Indeed. anyone telling such gags at a public function or in the office could be reprimanded or, even worse, might be asked to explain themselves to police or Britain's Commission for Racial Equality.

After months researching the way politically correct censorship is constraining our right to make jokes in public I have concluded that one of Britain's greatest assets - its sense of humour - is under threat from the malign and growing influence of the political correctness demagogues.

A vibrant sense of humour is a sign of a tolerant, open society: a powerful, self-confident civic culture knows jokes are not a danger to the social order but an indicator of its health, for true comedy flourishes where freedom is at its strongest; It is the totalitarian regime which usually has the greatest fear of public laughter. That is certainly the lesson of British history.

For centuries. the British sense of humour has been recognised across the world. It helped produce the bawdy delights of Chaucer, the unforgettable characters of Dickens, the wordplay of Shakespeare, the hilarity of the Ealing films such as The Lavender Hill Mob and The Ladykillers and the brilliance of television shows such as Fawlty Towers.

Poking fun at national stereotypes, sniggering at established mores and laughing at calamities are central parts of this tradition. It was one of the reasons Britain. unlike most other European nations in the 1930s, did not have a significant Fascist movement. The British found all those uniforms, rallies and goosestepping rather comic.

Today, the freedoxn to make jokes is being curtailed; self-appointed guardians of acceptable thinking. It is doubtful if Fawlty Towers could be made now, with its running joke about the idiocy of the Spanish waiter Manuel and its hilarious attack on the Germans...

Broadcaster Robin Page utters a quip at a countryside rally about the rights of one-legged black lesbians in the West Country and is placed in a police cell for using offensive language. And prison officer Colin Rose is sacked for telling an Osama bin Laden joke because the governor feared it might have been heard by Muslim visitors.

There has always been, in British culture, a tension between the attitudes of the establishment and public humour.... But today politically correct censorship is far more pervasive, reaching into every aspect of society...

The official crackdown on jokes is riven with double standards. Our airwaves are awash with obscenities and sex, yet officialdom becomes hysterical at any joke which might touch on a stereotype. Those from groups deemed to be "oppressed" can say what they like. But woe betide an "oppressor" trying to do the same.

So Christianity is an easy target for comedians (The BBC is about to broadcast a series called Popetown, ridiculing Catholics) but they never dare to attack Islam.

This hypocrisy should end. It is time we stopped being so fearful about officialdom and started to reclaim our sense of humour. Without it, we lose not only our jokes but one of our essential liberties.

The above article appeared in the Brisbane (Australia) "Sunday Mail" on February 22, 2004 (p. 58) but does not appear to be online anywhere other than in these excerpts. Christie Davies is a well-known academic expert on humour

posted by jonjayray 11:45

|

Sunday, February 22, 2004

 

A PARTIAL BACKDOWN

From "Opinion Journal"

"The thought police are on the defensive on at least one liberal college campus. An instructor at the University of North Carolina's Chapel Hill campus "has apologized after a student said during a class discussion that he opposed homosexuality--and found himself singled out by the teacher for hate speech," reports the Raleigh News & Observer:

In an e-mail message sent Feb. 6 to her "Literature and Cultural Diversity" students, the lecturer, Elyse Crystall, wrote, "[W]hat we heard [T]hursday at the end of class constitutes 'hate speech' and is completely unacceptable. [I]t has created a hostile environment." Crystall went on to name the student, identified as Tim, and said he was a perfect example of the topic of discussion during class: privilege.

She referred to Tim as "a white, heterosexual, [C]hristian male" who "can feel entitled to make violent, heterosexist comments and not feel marked or threatened or vulnerable."

On Monday, Crystall apologized in another e-mail: "I regret that my e-mail to you last week crossed a line and inhibited free discussion," she wrote. "And I am sorry if anyone was offended by my e-mail; my intention was to promote respectful conversation among us, not to censor anyone. We should not make specific examples of anyone, and I should not have named anyone.""

posted by jonjayray 13:21

|

 

FEMINISM AMOK

I don't often agree with Quiggin but I think he has a point here:

"In the middle of yet another scandal about American college sports, the NYT chooses to run an editorial calling for cheerleading to be recognised as a competitive sport (It is implied, though not clearly stated, that this sport would be open only to women).

I prefer watching cheerleading to watching American football and I have no problem with claims about its athleticism and so on. And I'll concede Allen's arguments that injuries might be reduced if the activity were run on a more professional basis (of course she doesn't use the dreaded word 'professional', anathema to the NCAA).

Nevertheless, this seems to me to be a case where unsound premises have been pushed to their logical conclusions, with predictably bizarre results."

posted by jonjayray 13:20

|

Saturday, February 21, 2004

 

AMERICAN INDIANS TOTALLY INCORRECT

From an American Indian blogger

"Indians have been outlawed in California. Jacki Goldberg, the great white `Indian killer,' finally counted coup. The California Assembly just passed a law (AB 858) which will make it illegal for all public schools in the state to use the name "Redskins" in any context, for any reason. No Redskins allowed in Central Valley.

At least, no white people will be allowed to play Indian anymore.

But if you have "black" skin, you might get by with it. Outkast, the hip-hop group, performed "Hey Ya" just last week, as they received the Album of the Year award at LA's Grammys. And their "Indian" outfits were more inauthentic and insulting to Indians than any mascot that has ever been banned.

Did Assembly member Ms. Goldberg not write up that law quite accurately? Is there some confusion over who can play Indian and who can't?

Goldberg has been trying to ban the use of American Indian names, mascots, and logos for two years. In 2002, she couldn't find enough Indians to protest. Indians simply weren't offended. Later, her AB 2115 called for the elimination of any name or image that could possibly be associated with American Indians, like "chiefs," "warriors," and even "braves." When it was voted down, Indian students and tribal elders of the Pala Reservation rejoiced. Their Fallbrook Union High School has used the name "Warriors" since 1936.

But Goldberg is relentless. She doesn't want a single visible sign of Indians in her state. She revived her first failed bill, AB 858, and began another onslaught. This time she scored. The bill passed January 29, 2004, and may be implemented in 2006. Goldberg doesn't want another nickel of public funds used to preserve Indian names or images.

In her imagination, Indian images are irreparably damaging, humiliating, and derogatory, and must never again be seen in public.

In her "white" judgment, Goldberg doesn't even want Indians to play Indian at our own schools, or schools where many Indians attend. She turned a deaf ear to the Pala Reservation elders before, but, to get her AB 858 passed this time, she conceded that schools located near "Indian-controlled land," whose Indians mascots had been endorsed by Indians, would be allowed to keep their own image. A noble gesture, Jackie.

(Wait. "Indian-controlled land"? Is Goldberg out to remove Indian "reservations," too? Such devotion must bring a great sense of cultural security to all Indian country.)"



And a comment with some relevance to the above from "Opinion Journal"

First Lt. David Hoe, a member of the U.S. Army's 608th Ordnance Company, has an inspiring letter to the editor in the Washington Post:

I want to thank the Washington Redskins cheerleaders for visiting us in Fallujah, Iraq, on Valentine's Day. I find it odd and impressive that the first entertainers to risk boarding a Black Hawk helicopter to fly into the most restive and hostile town in Iraq were cheerleaders. Not to discredit their visits, but we have all become accustomed to watching on TV as celebrities such as David Letterman, Robin Williams and WWE wrestlers land at the airport in Baghdad, smile for the cameras, entertain a few soldiers from the 1st Armored Division and then fly home.

The Redskins cheerleaders had the courage to take a daytime helicopter ride over Fallujah to visit with the soldiers who are fighting in the front lines of this war.

Sort of puts all the whining about the Redskins' "racist" name in perspective, doesn't it?

posted by jonjayray 14:23

|

Friday, February 20, 2004

 

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS ABOUT POWER

American political scientist Paul Gottfried argues that "multiculturalism" has very little to do with immigrants (in Australia polls show only 3% of immigrants consider racism a problem ) and everything to do with a new class of post-socialist leftist bureaucrats, lawyers and academics. As their old socialist dream of economic control has gone down the drain, these "born again" interventionists seek new frontiers for power in regulating personal behaviour.

posted by jonjayray 15:21

|

Thursday, February 19, 2004

 

ONLY "EQUALITY" IS CORRECT

Sowell says (Excerpts): The reigning dogma of our time is equality -- and anything that seems to go against it creates an automatic response, much like the conditioned responses of Pavlov's dog....

It is an undeniable fact that different groups have different performances across a whole spectrum of activities. Does anyone seriously believe that whites usually play basketball just as well as blacks? Is anyone surprised when Asian American youngsters walk off with science prizes, year after year?...

Those who are politically correct may try to claim that these are all "stereotypes" or "perceptions" but hard data show the best selling beers in America to be those created by people of German ancestry. It is the same story on the other side of the world, where China's famed Tsingtao beer was also created by Germans.

What upsets some people is the inference that performance differences reflect innate differences in potential. But there are huge differences in all the things that turn potential into performance.

Back in the early 19th century, a Russian official reported that even the poorest Jews there somehow managed to have books in their homes and "their entire population studies," while books were virtually unknown among most of the surrounding population.....

Recognizing the equal humanity of all peoples, and a need to treat everyone with decency and compassion, is very different from insisting on a dogma that their performances are all equal.

It is not just a few readers but government agencies and the highest courts in the land that dogmatize against any recognition of differences in behavior or performances among groups. Statistical differences in outcomes automatically fall under suspicion of discrimination, as if the groups themselves could not possibly be any different in behavior or performance.

Any school that disciplines black boys much more frequently than Asian American girls can be risking a federal lawsuit, as if there could not possibly be any differences in behavior among the children themselves. Employers can be judged guilty of discrimination, even if no one can find a single person who was discriminated against, if their hiring and promotions data show differences among ethnic groups or between women and men.

The biggest losers from these dogmatic notions are people who very much need to change their behavior, but from whom that crucial knowledge is withheld by their "leaders" and "friends."

posted by jonjayray 13:29

|

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

 

A RARE WIN

Wallpapering over "old history"' with new: "In late September of 2003, a now familiar scene played out at a School Board meeting in Richmond, VA. A board member, who is apparently a black activist, was attempting to obliterate one aspect of Southern history for another part of Southern history. Specifically, board member Carol Wolf wanted to change the name of Stuart Elementary School (named for J.E.B. Stuart, the dashing Confederate cavalry general) to Hill-Tucker Elementary (after Oliver W. Hill and Samuel W. Tucker, two prominent Richmond civil-rights lawyers).

Surprisingly, this effort went down to a resounding defeat. Across the South there has been a systematic effort to eradicate not just some, but practically all history prior to the 1880's, and in some cases history prior to the 1960's (except for references to slavery, for which black activists want money from the government). Time and again we see political correctness run amuck as the names of schools, streets and bridges are changed, losing the link to our past in favor of honoring someone of a more recent past, and maybe even someone still alive.

I have no complaint with the desires of people to honor those who have contributed to society and have had an impact on how we conduct ourselves as a people. What I do object to is the biased, bigoted manner in which one group is stomped underfoot for the sake of propping up the socialist ideology of egalitarianism. Granted, concerning schools, as a neighborhood changes, and the ethnicity or racial makeup of a neighborhood changes, it is not unreasonable to point out that the name of a school might not hold the significance it once did to the people attending it. However, many of these schools suffering name changes are old and will most likely be replaced in the not too distant future. Why slap one part of the community in the face with forcing this change when the change can come naturally when a new facility is built and the old one is demolished due to age and unsuitability for use? Why must the change be forced in such an antagonistic way as to perpetuate hostilities between the races?

It's not just the schools. Why must a road name be changed erasing the heritage of one aspect of the South for another aspect. Why must the older parts of our Southern heritage go to the back of the bus for the more recent parts of our heritage?

posted by jonjayray 11:35

|

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

 

BBC Censors Discussion of Multiculturalism:

News release from the Libertarian Alliance (U.K.) -- Feb. 16, 2004

Today, Dr Sean Gabb, Director of Communications for the Libertarian Alliance, was invited to take part in a discussion of multiculturalism on the BBC World Service. Also taking part was Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a regular columnist for The Independent. Dr Gabb was taken off air just half-way into the discussion and told he was no longer required.

The Libertarian Alliance is urgently seeking a tape of the discussion, with a view to lodging a formal complaint against the BBC, which is funded by a compulsory levy on all homes which have a television set. For the moment, here, quoted from memory, are some of Dr Gabb's comments on air:

"I do not necessarily object if people want to come to this country to look for a new life. I do object if they want this at my expense - at my expense as a tax payer, and at the expense of the constitutional rights which are my birthright." "Every so often, someone stands up and tells us what benefits we have had from diversity. Such may be, but we must also consider that part of the price has been a police state. In this country, we have severe restrictions on freedom of speech, on freedom of association and on freedom of contract - all in the name of good race relations." "The Libertarian Alliance believes in repealing all the race relations laws and in shutting down the Commission for Racial Equality."

When Yasmin Alibhai-Brown objected that this would remove all controls on racial attacks and on discrimination, Dr Gabb replied: "Yasmin, are you saying that the white majority in this country is so seething with hatred and discontent that it is only restrained by law from rising up and tearing all the ethnic minorities to pieces?" Her answer was yes, though she seemed to think better of this answer immediately after. She did not deny that the white population was only kept in line by criminal laws to restrain them from attacking ethnic minorities. When Dr Gabb asked if she seriously believed he wanted to murder her, his microphone was turned off and he was "released" from his engagement with 20 minutes of discussion still to run.

The Libertarian Alliance, which believes in freedom of migration, and is opposed to all forms of collectivism, including racial collectivism, finds it disgraceful that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is allowed to make racist comments against the white population of this country, while a liberal defender of civil liberties, freedom of association and free speech is censored. How would it be, if a white person had said that blacks were only kept from raping and looting by fear of the police?

Indeed, the BBC's decision on what it is "politically correct" to broadcast underlines Dr Gabb's comment on the programme that the price of multiculturalism appears to have been censorship and the creation of a police state.

Dr Sean Gabb is available for media comment on 07956 472 199 or by email at sean@libertarian.co.uk. He is the Director of Communications for the Libertarian Alliance and edits its journal “Free Life”. His latest book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: The Real Battle for Britain, is available from Hampden Press at www.hampdenpress.co.uk.

posted by jonjayray 12:33

|

 

WHAT'S SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE IS SAUCE FOR THE GANDER

"A student group at Roger Williams University is offering a new scholarship for which only white students are eligible, a move they say is designed to protest affirmative action. The application for the $250 award requires an essay on 'why you are proud of your white heritage' and a recent picture to 'confirm whiteness.'"

More here

posted by jonjayray 12:32

|

 

AMERICAN INDIANS WITH GLASS JAWS

To use a boxing expression

"CBS apologized Friday to American Indians angered by OutKast's Grammy Awards performance, which featured feathers and war paint. ... As the final act of Sunday's Grammy telecast, OutKast's Andre '3000' Benjamin and several dancers swirled wildly around a green tepee as he sang 'Hey Ya!' Costumes included war paint, feathers and fringe. The San Francisco-based Native American Cultural Center, calling the performance racist, urged a boycott of CBS; OutKast; Arista, their record company; and the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, which sponsors the Grammys."

More here

posted by jonjayray 12:31

|

Monday, February 16, 2004

 

NEW YORK FOLLIES

New York State Education Department censorship

Extract from: "You Can't Say That"

By DIANE RAVITCH

"So here is how New York made itself an international joke. The state's guidelines to language sensitivity, citing Rosalie Maggio's "The Bias-Free Wordfinder," says: "We may not always understand why a certain word hurts. We don't have to. It is enough that someone says, 'That language doesn't respect me.'" That is, if any word or phrase is likely to give anyone offense, no matter how far-fetched, it should be deleted.

Next the state asked: "Is it necessary to make reference to a person's age, ancestry, disability, ethnicity, nationality, physical appearance, race, religion, sex, sexuality?" Since the answer is frequently no, nearly all references to such characteristics are eliminated. Because these matters loom large in history and literature -- and because they help us to understand character, life circumstances and motives -- their silent removal is bound to weaken or obliterate the reader's understanding.

Like every other governmental agency concerned with testing, the New York State Education Department devised its own list of taboo words. There are the usual ones that have offended feminists for a generation, like "fireman," "authoress," "handyman" and "hostess." New York exercised its leadership by discovering bias in such words as "addict" (replace with "individual with a drug addiction"); "alumna, alumnae, alumni, alumnus" (replace with "graduate or graduates"); "American" (replace with "citizen of the United States or North America"); "cancer patient" (replace with "a patient with cancer"); "city fathers" (replace with "city leaders").

Meanwhile, the word "elderly" should be replaced by "older adult" or "older person," if it is absolutely necessary to mention age at all. "Gentleman's agreement" must be dropped in favor of an "informal agreement." "Ghetto" should be avoided; instead describe the social and economic circumstances of the neighborhood. "Grandfather clause" is helplessly sexist; "retroactive coverage" is preferred instead. The term "illegal alien" must be replaced by "undocumented worker."

Certain words are unacceptable under any circumstances. For example, it is wrong to describe anyone as "illegitimate." Another word to be avoided is "illiterate." Instead, specify whether an individual is unable to read or write, or both. Similarly, any word that contains the three offensive letters "m-a-n" as a prefix or a suffix must be rousted out of the language. Words like "manhours," "manpower," "mankind" and "manmade" are regularly deleted. Even "penmanship," where the guilty three letters are in the middle of the word, is out.

New York identified as biased such male-based words as "masterpiece" and "mastery." Among the other words singled out for extinction were white collar, blue collar, pink collar, teenager, senior citizen, third world, uncivilized, underprivileged, unmarried, widow or widower, and yes man. The goal, naturally, is to remove words that identify people by their gender, age, race, social position or marital status.

Thus the great irony of bias and sensitivity reviewing. It began with the hope of encouraging diversity, ensuring that our educational materials would include people of different experiences and social backgrounds. It has evolved into a bureaucratic system that removes all evidence of diversity and reduces everyone to interchangeable beings whose differences we must not learn about -- making nonsense of literature and history along the way."

More here (Subscribers only)

posted by jonjayray 13:03

|

Sunday, February 15, 2004

 

EAST GERMANY FED UP WITH PC SCHOOLING

They had a gutful of that under Communism

Germany is quietly moving away from PC in education: "How pleasant at last to find a place where political correctness is actually in retreat, where old values are treasured, common sense is respected and history is not treated as a rubbish dump to be forgotten, but as vital, irreplaceable experience. Welcome to the former East Germany, struggling to rebuild civilisation in the ruins of Socialism...Here, until 1989, political correctness took solid form; equal this, equal that, equal the other. Every slogan on every daft radical demonstration you have ever seen was turned into official policy. Everybody was so equal they had to put up a large fence and build miles of minefields to keep them all in, and keep them all equal.... Herr Box and two colleagues who also experienced the old days, Christine Michaelsen and Verina Runge, all independently agreed that the new system was both far better and more equal in outcome than the comprehensive system which it replaced. They are particularly pleased that bright children no longer have to be held to the pace of the slowest in mixedability classes, and can move ahead from the earliest possible age."

posted by jonjayray 13:26

|

 

BRITAIN'S POLITICALLY CORRECT "FAMILY COURTS"

"Jenkins notes that many reforms introduced in the name of child protection in recent decades have involved sweeping attacks on traditional Anglo-American legal rights and protections. These rights include: the right to due process, the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, the right to be tried in public, the right to confront one's accusers, and the right to 'equality of arms' (that is, not to be tried under significantly less advantageous conditions that those enjoyed by one's opponent). Other protections, such as restrictions on the use of hearsay evidence, the right to consult the expert of one's choice, and even the right to communicate in confidence with one's lawyers (legal professional privilege) also suffered.

Such traditional legal protections were challenged by what Jenkins calls 'therapeutic values, the sense that neutral professionals were working in the best interests of the child and should not be hampered by outdated technicalities' (6).

Our child welfare courts have therefore become accustomed to a model of therapeutic jurisprudence, in which the best interests of the child are paramount (7). This has certain analogies with a Soviet-style conception of justice, which emphasises outcomes over processes, and which requires the judge to carry out social policy, rather than act as an independent arbiter.

At present, parents accused of posing a threat to their child must take on not one, but two arms of the state: the local authority, and the Orwellian-sounding CAFCASS, which acts for children. One or more social workers, or experts, may interview a parent, but no tape-recording is made. Sometimes the parent is not allowed to have anyone else present, even to take a note. Parents accused of posing a risk to their child may also be pressed to admit 'guilt' in order to get the child back. As many parents recognise, this is a catch-22.

If social workers decide that a child should be removed from its parents because there are concerns about its safety, they can get an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) from a magistrate, without the parents having the right to be heard in opposition. The evidence put before the magistrates is not formally recorded in an affidavit, and the order can then be presented as a 'fait accompli'. This can set in train a destructive downwards spiral of intervention, culminating in official demands that the child should be separated permanently from its parents by adoption. Even newborn babies can be taken away at birth and subsequently put up for adoption: an extraordinarily harsh measure, which has been criticised by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (8).

Family courts in this country operate in a climate of extreme secrecy. Both press and public are routinely excluded. Sometimes parents may be injuncted from telling anyone that child protection proceedings have been initiated against them. They are not supposed to show documents in the case to anyone else.

It is hardly surprising if abuses occur. In May 2003, a judge noted examples of a social worker lying both to a child's mother and even to a court, on the instructions of two superiors. The judge castigated the social worker for a 'grossly unprofessional and wholly improper stratagem' and the local authority for 'wholly unprofessional and quite shocking conduct' (9). It seems that nothing was done to punish the local authority, however, beyond the judge's 'censure' and an order that the local authority pay legal costs. This seems woefully inadequate".

More here

posted by jonjayray 13:26

|

Saturday, February 14, 2004

 

PC TRUMPS SCIENCE

The scientist behind Kennewick Man writes his side of the story: "Kennewick Man, the ancient skeleton found in the Columbia River with a spear point in his hip, had an adventuresome life more than 9,000 years ago. He's at the center of more tumult in death, as American Indians backed by the federal government battle scientists for possession of his remains.... To the eye as well-trained as Owsley's, Kennewick Man's bones could indicate what he ate, how he lived and what life was like 450 generations ago. That spear wound, for example, apparently healed: He lived with a stone point in his hip for a while.... Owsley, like the first expert to examine the bones, paleontologist consultant James Chatters, could see that Kennewick Man's skull is unlike the skulls of American Indians. It most closely matches a people from northern Japan called the Ainu... He highlights the irony of the U.S government standing in the way of scientific progress." For more on the Kennewick man controversy see here, where it says: "Indeed, the remains seemed more 'Caucasian' than Indian" and here

And WHY is everyone so keen to get him reburied? Because his bones suggest that "Native Americans" were themselves once conquerors:

What is "native American?" "When two teenage hikers came upon the remains of a man's skeleton on the banks of the Columbia River in 1996, little did they know they'd set off a controversy over the meaning of 'native American.' Radiocarbon dating confirmed that the bones -- named 'Kennewick Man' after the nearby town in Washington State -- were between 8,340 and 9,200 years old. Initial research found the man to have Caucasoid features, different from today's native Americans although similar to the Ainu people, an indigenous group in northern Japan. Further testing suggests he may have been a Pacific Islander."

posted by jonjayray 11:43

|

 

ANOTHER SMALL WIN

Maybe the Fascistic PC Juggernaut is at last being stopped

Victory for free speech at William & Mary: "A student group, the Sons of Liberty, saw its satirical protest unlawfully halted by W&M in November; it was one of many such protests nationwide that were shut down on campuses this past fall. While W&M allowed the group's bake sale to proceed without incident this time, W&M President Timothy J. Sullivan issued a statement denying that his administration acted improperly in stopping the same protest just months before."

posted by jonjayray 11:41

|

Friday, February 13, 2004

 

HOW DELINQUENT CHILDREN ARE TREATED IN MODERN-DAY BRITAIN

They are put into local council "care" and then this is what happens at the institutions concerned:

"All of the children take drugs. If they didn’t when they arrived at the home, peer pressure ensures that they soon do. And there is perpetual sex and violence. In one home the going rate for a blow job was 75 pence. Then a new girl joined and undercut the price, charging only 50 pence. So the others kicked her head in. If you’re not appalled at the moral issue here, you might at least be outraged by such illiberal protectionism.

All the social workers can do is watch — they have no leeway. ‘There is absolutely no sanction. If they say they’re going out at ten o’clock at night, then we can’t stop them. We can ask them politely not to, but this, you know, doesn’t really work,’ said one residential care worker. So a 14-year-old rent boy is allowed to go out to meet paedophiles — as happens every night in one of the homes I’m dealing with here — and all the social workers can do is inform the police that there is a missing person and hope that he gets picked up before he’s turned another few tricks. But they rarely are picked up by the police.

‘We know this kid is in touch with a paedophile ring, a central telephone number he can call which will provide him with lots of work. We know this, but there’s not a thing, legally, we can do about it.’

There was the case recently of a promiscuous 14-year-old girl who was receiving letters from a paedophile serving time in prison for his activities. The social workers knew about the letters and so did the prison authorities. But the prisoner could not be stopped from sending them because this would infringe his human rights. And the girl could not be stopped from receiving them because that would infringe hers.

‘The letters said stuff like, oh, I’ve heard you’re a good shag, I can’t wait til I get out, here’s what I am going to do to you,’ said one of the social workers, shaking his head in exasperation. ‘And there is absolutely nothing that we can do about it.’

The greatest threat the staff can impose upon the kids is to withhold the use of the house PlayStation, unless a kid has pawned it for drug money (which was the case in one of the homes). Oh, and they can also stop up to two thirds of their weekly allowance (of up to £7.40). But a few blow jobs can sort that problem out pretty quickly, even at just 75 pence per go. And so the children laugh at such threats....

But the real scandal, of course, is the total absence of any means by which these children can be persuaded to change or modify their behaviour. A deliberate, institutionalised absence. Anything which might instil fear into the children — fear of opprobrium or sanction — is specifically outlawed.

‘When we were kids we would get up to all sorts of mischief but there was a line beyond which we would not go — because somehow we knew it was too wrong. These kids have none of that. None of it at all. There is no line.’ Another social worker explained: ‘The real problem is that the children are never identified, by society or, as a result, by themselves, as perpetrators. They are identified only as victims. And that’s how they see themselves. They can do no wrong, only have wrongs done to them. They have a peculiar, warped view of the world.’

All of the social workers I spoke to were united in one belief: that a ‘short, sharp shock administered very early on’ would possibly save them from their later, ultimately self-destructive behaviour. One social worker told me, ‘How about a boot camp for a few weeks? Instead of this, they get a nice house with a Jacuzzi, video player, PlayStation, guaranteed income and total and utter freedom. Why should they do as they’re told, if the greatest sanction we can hold over them is to cut their pocket money?’

Another social worker, who has been in the business for six years and has been a school governor for 14, blamed the heads of the social services departments. ‘There is no support from the senior managers,’ he said — just a conviction that one must adhere to an outdated and discredited ideology.

More here

posted by jonjayray 16:52

|

 

THE REAL MOTIVE BEHIND PC

Peter Hitchens reflects on the recent discovery that there are in fact vey few homosexual couples in Britain:

"Almost all the supposedly persecuted minority groups in modern Britain are the excuse for social change, no other reason for it. I suspect most homosexuals do not want or need this new law. In the same way, few women want to be firefighters or soldiers or fighter pilots. And most black Britons want above all to be treated just like everyone else, not given special attention because of the colour of their skin.

The invention of persecuted minorities has been going on for decades because their alleged oppression provides the pretext for accelerating social change. If we really wanted the happiness of minorities, the liberation of women or the abolition of racial discrimination, we would not adopt the aggressive and divisive policies that we do. These suit only the militant and the extreme, often at the expense of the normal.

Why is it assumed that all women want to be wage slaves or single mothers? Research published last week shows that many just want to stay at home and look after their children, but cannot afford to.

Why is it assumed that all homosexuals want to make a public declaration out of a private matter? Why are rioters, rather than family-minded churchgoers, assumed to be representative of Britain's black population?

The answer is that our old friend, the non-existent ultra-sensitive disabled black lesbian, is at work - the revolutionaries' constant excuse for forcing unwanted change on us and silencing those who object by accusing them of being 'bigots'.

Most of us wish to be kind and tolerant, and quite right too. The cleverness of political correctness is that it harnesses this generous impulse for a mean end. It uses it to camouflage a relentless assault on all we have and are, from marriage and family to love of country."

posted by jonjayray 00:12

|