| | | |
By Gary Starr For The Neville Awards
Posted June 28, 2007
This is one of our longer articles so we at The Neville Awards have made it easy for you. If you want to
take the article in small doses just click on one of the links below to be taken directly to that section.
Liberalism, Socialism, Communism
Post-war Europe is vanishing before our very eyes. Cradle-to-grave socialist entitlements, the 35 hour workweek, an everlasting, anemic, unsustainable economy model
under the stranglehold of the E.U. (European Union), an indigenous population that is not reproducing and has lost its faith,
rampant Muslim immigration from Asia and North Africa, a paralyzing political correctness that won't address immigration problem and breeds cultural self-loathing and apathy, are all combining to destroy a once
great civilization. If the situation doesn't reverse itself in ten to twenty years Europe will be "jihad central" under Sharia law.
We can see our own future playing out in Europe. Everywhere socialism and Communism have been implemented it has failed. But the liberals Democrats in Congress, and a liberal mainstream dinosaur media are determined to shove the socialist agenda
down our throats. They are insane, somehow expecting a different result, as Albert Einstein said, by doing the same thing over and over. It is a slow road to hell.
And the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberals always have good intentions and high minded ideals.
If there is a perceived problem in society fix it...generally with a government regulation or a new law added to the old law...designed to fix the same problem. With each new fix we voluntarily give up
another sliver of freedom. But it's all for the common good. The Common Good, A Level Playing Field, A Hand Up Not A Hand Out, Social Justice, Affordable Housing and Affordable Health Care, A Living Wage.
Of course, the devil is in the details. The whole point of political rhetoric is to make it unnecessary for you to have to go into the specifics before taking sides.
Facts are unnecessary to be in favor of "a living wage" or "affordable housing." The fewer facts in hand, the more you can believe in such things. Emotion and cuddly bumperstickers rule the debate.
Liberals are very good at coming up with the little "heart-tuggers". Who could be against all of that stuff?
Why, if you're against the common good there must be something wrong with you. You are a racist, a bigot, a misogynist, a homophobe, an Islomophobe, a this-o-phobe and a
And how do we we achieve the common good? We need to find an aggrieved minority that's been oppressed by The
Man. And if we find enough aggrieved minorities we can put regulations and programs and laws into place that
control how we act, think, speak and feel. We've got a program for everything and everybody and we are going to socially engineer (brainwash) you on to the right path.
The twin rubrics of political correctness and multiculturalism have brought us militant feminism, campus speech codes, affirmative action (racial quotas), "tolerance and diversity", sensitivity training, assisted suicide, selectively applied "hate crime" laws, the morphing of the narrowly drawn sexual harassment laws into the ambiguous "hostile work environment" laws, the perversion of the once-noble Civil Rights Movement into a Perpetual Victim Hustle, special interest politics, undocumented workers (illegal immigrants), the 'cloning of the American mind' in our public K-12 schools and universities, the 'feminization' of our politics, our military, our traditional religious establishments, and the rise of special interest education masquarading as serious academia -- ethnic studies, womens studies, hispanic studies, black studies, peace studies.
All for the 'common good'. And where has all of this common good taken us. We are becoming a balkanized country where each
group is out for it's own self interest. We have gone from E Pluribus Unum (From Many One) to E Pluribus Pluribus on steroids.
We have forgotten President Kennedy's admonition "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Why did we choose this road over the last sixty years? Because liberalism and socialism are easy.
We can abdicate our individual responsibility. We don't have to think on our own...let the government take care of it. Let the government tax it or regulate it. After all they know best, don't they?
Absolutley Not! The government is a slow moving, unresponsive vast beaurocracy, eager to keep it's own power base intact without having to deal with that annoying, meddlesome, great unwashed...you.
Who is promoting this brave new world utopia? It is the current Democratic Party in league with a myriad of George Soros-funded special interest groups and websites pumping out staggering sums of money
to get the socialist message out. In the words of that old Watergate phrase -- Follow The Money!!
In short, George Soros, a convicted felon in France, a man who almost brought the British economy to it's knees when he sold the pound short through his hedge fund, a naturalized U.S. Citizen from Romania who keeps his billions in off-shore accounts, is buying up the Democrat Party. Those Democratic politicians who stray from the Soros
left-wing propaganda plantation will be smeared by MoveOnorg and Daily Kos and see their campaign funding dry up. And woe to any Democrat who dares to appear on Fox News. He/she will be ex-communicated and shunned. Just ask Joe Leiberman. Soros has a radical socialist agenda and he is paying big bucks to have it implemented after the '08 election and the expected Empress Hillary coronation. Soros' Center for American Progress, run by ex-Clinton staffer John Podesta, is nothing more than a front group for the Hillary presidential campaign.
To understand how the Democratic party got this way, and to understand how the New Left has hijacked this once great party, we must begin with a short history of the
. During 1930's America a little known off-shoot of Communism called "Critical Theory" established a foothold in several of our major universities. It was promoted by German-Jewish exiles fleeing from the Nazis. They were given prominent professorships and salaries and proceeded to critize the very system and country that gave them political protection. The principle advocates were Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Walter Benjamin. Critical Theory became the guiding philosophy of the famous radicals of the 1960's, many of whom later went into journalism, academia and politics. Critical Theory has now gone mainstream infecting all aspects of our lives. A quick look at the Democratic Party Platforms of 1992 and 1996 compared to the Communist Manifesto will illustrate this point:
THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO VS. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM
As part of their Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in 1847-48 proposed the following ten goals:
In 1992 and 1996, the Democrat Party of America published party platforms, which included the following goals that are compared, point-by-point, to the ten goals of the Communist Manifesto:
|1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
||1) "We will protect our old growth forests, preserve critical habitats, provide a genuine 'no net loss' policy on wetlands."
|2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
||2) "We must... make the rich pay their fair share in taxes."
|3) Abolition of all right of inheritance.
||3) [An inheritance or 'death' tax that gives the State its share of the inheritance, has already been achieved.]
|4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
||4) [Nothing applicable]
|5) Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
||5) [The Federal Reserve has already been established]
|6) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
||6) "We will rebuild America by investing more in transportation... and a national information network."
|7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
||7) "The Democratic Party insists that corporate leaders invest in the long-term, by providing workers with living wages and benefits, education and training, a safe, healthy place to work, and opportunities for greater involvement in company decision making and ownership. Employers must make sure workers share in the benefits of the good years, as well as the burdens of the bad ones. Employers must offer employees the opportunity to share in the profits they help create. Employers must respect the commitment of workers to their families, and must work to provide good pensions and health care... The President and Vice President have created a brownfields initiative to bring life back to abandoned and contaminated property by reforming outdated regulations and providing incentives for cleanup."
|8) Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
||8) [Nothing Applicable]
|9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
||9) "It is time to reestablish the private/public partnership to ensure that family farmers get a fair return for their labor and investment, so that consumers receive safe and nutritious foods, and that needed investments are made in basic research, education, rural business development, market development and infrastructure to sustain rural communities."
|10)Free education or all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
||10)"Strengthening public schools."
What is the Nanny State?
OK, enough with the scary-serious stuff. Let us now observe the liberal Democrat in his natural environment as he (and she -- can't forget the ladies as we will be accused of being anti-women) happily and blindly goes about the business of regulating, taxing, social engineering, and fixing things up (where nothing was broken in the first place), in order to form a more perfect Ultimate Nanny State...a world where never a discouraging word is heard (unless it's some liberal whining about some perceived social injustice), no one is ever insulted or made to feel left out, where everyone is special, everyone's self-esteem is intact and no one stands out, where every child is a winner and nobody ever loses.
The nanny state is defined as "a government which gives too much advice or makes too many laws about how people should conduct their lives, especially about speech, eating, smoking or drinking alcohol." Nanny states and blue (liberal) states are a match made in socialist heaven (or hell depending on your point of view). Burlingame Vermont, Portland Oregon, Boulder Colorado are all "progressive" Nanny States. And if you're searching for the ultimate nanny state, look no farther than San Francisco. With plenty of time on their hands, and infected with a rabid case of malignant narcissism, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is obsessed with creating new laws and ordinances to control every aspect of citizens' lives.
So how does the fashionable progressive, supported by an unaccountable Liberal Media Monolith, go about implementing a "Nanny State"? Let's take the issues one by one.
Silencing the Message -- The Fairness Doctrine and the Assault on Conservative Talk Radio
A long time ago, in a political galaxy far, far away there existed just three major television networks, ABC, CBS and NBC, and two major
newspapers, The New York Times and the Washington Post, and two liberal weekly digests, Time Magazine and Newsweek.
And all was well in the land. One message, no dissent. The news was tightly packaged and spun in the liberal manner with nary a
conservative thought poking through. Yes, there were token conservatives columnists like George Will and Charles Krauthammer, tolerated by the liberal establishment, and trotted out
on the Sunday chat shows to cater to the controlling authority of the Fairness Doctrine.
And for many years the Lord High Priest of the News, Walter Cronkite (CBS), and his minions, Huntley and Brinkley (NBC) and Howard K. Smith (ABC) imparted to the people the news that fit the agenda. And the Lord High Priest Cronkite thundered at the end of each broadcast "And that's the way it is".
And it was so. For 40 years Democrat Party power in Congress went unchanged. Conservatives and Republicans knew their place and all was quiet on Capitol Hill.
And for decades all was quiet on the Network Front...
THE NETWORK NEWS HIGH PRIESTS
Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, 1956-1970 (Huntley-Brinkley Report)
John Chancellor, Frank McGee, and David Brinkley, 1970-71
John Chancellor, 1971-1976
John Chancellor and David Brinkley, 1976-1979
John Chancellor, 1979-1982
Tom Brokaw and Roger Mudd, 1982-1983
Tom Brokaw, 1983-2004
Brian Williams, 2004-present
John Charles Daly, 1953-1958, 1959-1960
Don Goddard, 1958-1959
John Cameron Swayze, Bill Lawrence and Al Mann 1960-1962
Ron Cochran, 1962-1964
Peter Jennings, 1965-1967
Bob Young, 1967-1968
Frank Reynolds, 1968-1969
Frank Reynolds and Howard K. Smith, 1969-1970
Howard K. Smith and Harry Reasoner, 1970-1975
Harry Reasoner, 1975-1976
Harry Reasoner and Barbara Walters, 1976-1978
Frank Reynolds, Max Robinson, and Peter Jennings, 1978-1983
Peter Jennings, 1983-2005
Bob Woodruff and Elizabeth Vargas, 2006
Charles Gibson, 2006-present
Douglas Edwards (1948-1962)
Walter Cronkite (1962-1981)
Dan Rather (1981-2005)
Bob Schieffer (2005-2006)
Katie Couric (2006-present)
Then the evil
Darth Vader President Ronald Reagan failed to renew the Fairness Doctrine legislation and the liberal world turned upside down.
There arose in the land a loud, brash conservative voice in the person of Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio was born. A great liberal cry was heard throughout the realm.
To much wringing of hands, tearing of hair and rending of clothes,
Limbaugh was reviled as the devil incarnate for daring to speak what many people of the realm felt in their hearts.
With the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 there appeared the legislative version of Rush Limbaugh, the evil Sith Lord Newt Gingrich,
and he engineered the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. Gingrich and Limbaugh were hailed as conquering heroes and the talk radio format began to thrive.
And the people began to turn away from the Network News Church and Mainstream Press. Ratings and circulation suffered. Stories were embellished and made up from whole cloth
to stimulate ratings. Anchor Rather, who didn't like President Bush, showed falsified documents about Bush's National Guard service. He was outted
by a blogger in pajamas and dispatched from his anchor post on a very swift boat. And the people did loudly mock Anchor Rather and the ratings continued to decline.
"What shall we do?" intoned the Keepers of CBS. Praying to the Gods of Cosmetic Diversity the answer was very clear. "Get me another liberal...a woman...
with nice legs and a short skirt.". Thus was born the
Era of Couric the Slight. And still the people turned away. "It's because I am a woman" cried Couric "that they will not watch." And frustration and anger smote the land of the liberal journalists.
The Democrats and the mainstream media no longer owned all of the media message and were devestated. They have been trying
to demean and destroy talk radio ever since without success. In 2002 George Soros funded a liberal talk radio venture,
Air America, which, inspite of four years on the air and countless favorable NY Times articles, failed miserably. They failed to compete in the market place
because of the relentless Bush bashing and America hating programming... and America tuned out. This confounded and further enraged the liberals.
How could Americans be so stupid...we have Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo.
With the return of the Democrats to congressional power (how could that happen if talk radio is so dominant) Democrats such as Dennis Kucinich, Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer (these two deny it) are openly talking of a
legislative "fix" to end the conservative dominance in talk radio. You see, talk radio has been instrumental in tying up the
"shamnesty" legislation which threatens the elites', both republican and democratic, agenda.
Sen. Diane Feinstein was recently quoted on FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace: "Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also
tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme
views without a lot of information".
All of that is the usual idiotic liberal twaddle, of course. There is plenty of information that comes from
talk radio...it's simply that Feinstein doesn't get to control the content. And that is what really drives the liberals nuts.
George Soros' Hillary front group, The Center For American Progress
recently put out a report entitled detailing the extent of the talk radio problem and how it should be corrected. Of course,
the report says nothing about instituting "balance and fairness" in the Mainstream media. A UCLA study entitled confirms the existence of liberal bias in the mainstream media. A recent MSNBC report "identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties."
What a surpise. Now that the The Center For American Progress report is out Democrats on the Hill have their talking points. Sens. Kerry and Durbin are now openly talking about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. Look for it's reinstatement should a Democrat be elected to the White House in '08.
All of this would be laughable if it weren't for the statements of some opportunistic Republican sellouts.
Trent Lott ("Talk radio is running the country") and Lindsey Graham are now attacking
talk radio because they are frustrated by talk radio's ability to get the message out about the Amnesty Bill. Without talk
radio and the conservative blogs this bill would have been law by now.
Ironically, these country club Republican sellouts were not complaining when they won in 1994, due, in large part, to talk radio getting their message out.
Obviously, the Fairness Doctrine and so-called legislative fixes are blatant attacks on free speech and the First Amendment, but liberals and elitists have always complained about such
inconvenient things as The Constitution.
In order to achieve a kind of cosmetic diversity some would artificially alter the nature of talk radio. The conservative version
thrives in the free market because people want to listen. That attracts advertising bucks and ratings. Alter the model and the rules, water it down,
and you've changed the model. People tune out, advertising dries up and the format dies. Air America went backrupt because people didn't tune in. It
couldn't compete in the free market. It was artificially propped up by a ton of liberal financing and a slew of favorable press. None of it helped and Air America went the way of the dinosaur.
When liberals don't get their way in the market, or in an election, they turn to government and the courts to "fix" the problem.
It's easy to find self-admitted conservatives in the media. They are proud of their positions. Amazingly, it's nearly impossible to find anyone in the mainstream media who will admit being a liberal. They always describing themselves
as "reasoned" or "fair and balanced". There are no shades of gray when labeling conservatives. Anyone right of center is branded as extreme. Anyone to the right of "extreme" is a Nazi.
And that is the crux of the problem. How do you prove liberal bias when the mainstream media is too embarrased to identify itelf as liberal?
Nanny State Legislation
Hey folks, what we need is...another law! More laws!! For your own good!!! For the common good!!!! For a nanny-stater a day that government doesn't erode a little more of our freedom and personal responsibility is a day without sunshine. Want to open a business? Try navigating the labyrinth of government licenses, fees, and hoops you have to jump through. No wonder small businesses are deserting over-regulated states like New York and California for more tax and business friendly states.
Do we really need to be told when we can use our cell phones, where we can smoke, when to wear a seat belt and how cold the beer we buy is? And who can honestly deny that the rediculous bicycle riding outfit currently in vogue (you know, the silly looking helmet, the tight spandex pants with the water bottle belt, optional knee-pads, and the mutlticolored form-fitting top that just screams "Look at me...I am a self-righteous jerk") wasn't designed by some nuts-and-twig-eating, tree-hugging girly man. How in the world did we survive bike riding in the 50's, 60's and 70's?
California is now gound-zero when it comes to the number of nanny state bills that have either been passed or are snaking their way through legislative bodies. School junk food bans and plastic bag recycling laws have recently gone into effect. San Francisco even wants to impose a 17-cent fee on shopping bags in grocery stores. And the ordinance would cover both paper and plastic, so there's no chance of picking the free one. The fee would be initially confined to grocery stores reporting income of over $2 million a year, but mention has been made of possibly extending it to other businesses, such as pharmacies, department stores and other retail stores. And we can't forget the evil tobacco scourge -- smoking is banned in restaurants under state law.
San Francisco and Los Angeles are tripping over themselves to get on the anti-tobacco bandwagon. A proposed San Francisco smoking ban would apply to all parks, public squares, sports facilities and any other outdoor spaces owned by the City. Smoking is currently banned in nearly all outdoor dining areas of Beverly Hills. Burbank, Calabasas and Santa Monica, all in the Los Angeles area, also have outdoor smoking bans.
For the nanny-stater Global Warming is the dream issue. We are commanded by the powers that be to: "Lower that carbon footprint!...Recycle that bag!!...Don't use petroleum based products!!!...Ride a bike or walk to work!!!!...Shut off the lights and replace those bulbs!!!!!...Raise the thermostat in summer-lower it in the winter!!!!!!... Do as I say, not as I do. Now excuse me while I get into my private jet...I need to fly to the next rally before I fly home to my 28,000 square foot home.
The ever-popular has inspired many looney legislative proposals, most notable the banning of the incandescant light bulb in favor of the new CFL bulb. Not only does this bulb initially cost more to the consumer, it contains mercury, thus creating a disposal hazard. We had best create a new law regulating the disposal of the CFL's.
A Neville Awards Public Service Announcement: Remember campers, global warming is not inevitable...it's a choice........unless the sun decides to put out more energy as it did during the Medieval Warming Period (850-1250 AD)......followed by decreased sun energy output which brought on the Little Ice Age (1350-1850 AD).....which was followed by increased sun energy output resulting in the climate we now enjoy......are we putting out too many inconvenient truths here?
Political Correctness Ruins the Public Schools - Get 'em while they're young
Our public school systems are currently run by three zombified entities -- the teacher unions, the school boards and the teachers who are either so cowed by the tyranny of political correctness that they can't think independently, or they actually believe the leftist nonsense they espouse. So we end up with a system that is more concerned about Little Johnnie's self-esteem than whether he is equipped to handle life when it comes at him. We have to make sure the students feel good about themselves so we have eliminated real grades, score keeping in sports, and any number of other ways to measure actual acheivement. We award 9th place trophies in "competitions" so everyone can feel like a winner and no one's feelings will be hurt. God forbid some kid should feel disapointed and have to try little harder. And have you ever wondered why every kid who gets into trouble is a straight A student according to the parents? That's because no one is getting bad grades anymore.
In the last 20 years the concept of "zero-tolerance" policies have taken root as well, thus eliminating the need for teachers and administrators to actually think. There are zero-tolerance policies for weapons, drugs, social interaction, speech...you name it. The result is students are sent home for bringing toy soldiers to class, bringing plastic knives and forks in a box lunch (violates the "weapons" "zero-tolerance" policy). Students are sent home for bringing aspirine to school (violates the "drug" "zero-tolerance" policy). Most recently a student in a Fairfax County Virginia middle school was disciplined for putting his arm around his girlfriend. Apparently he violated the "NO PHYSICAL CONTACT" policy of the school. All touching -- not only fighting or inappropriate touching -- is against the rules at Kilmer Middle School in Vienna. Hand-holding, handshakes and high-fives are also banned. The school's principle felt that "students should have their personal space protected and that many lack the maturity to understand what is acceptable or welcome." What pablum. What are we teaching these kids? How did we survive our own school experience back in the day?
Finally, the most insideous aspect of the PC environment in the public schools is the way the history of our country is being conveyed to the students. They are literally being taught to devalue their culture, citizenship and to hate the United States. The message being sent is that the evil Europeans came here and stole the land and murdered the native population...that the western states were stolen from Mexico...that every culture is equal and should be valued. Your taxes help pay for this treasonous claptrap. Many schools, named after one or another of the founding fathers have changed the school's name because that particlular founding father owned slaves. If the history and appreciation of one's own country and culture is not passed down intact it can be easily lost within one generation. That is how societies disappear.
Leftism On Campus -- The Balkanization of the University
If you are a member of an aggrieved minority we have a separate department just for you.
We have ethnic studies, women's studies, hispanic studies, black studies, peace studies,
muslim studies, asian-pacific-islander studies, native american studies, gay studies et al. All of this is, of course,
communist propaganda masquarading as academia. If you are a member of an aggrieved minority it's all designed to make you feel special.
And you are special because we, the oppresive, nativist, guilt-ridden majority, have been taught since elementary school to value all groups. Make no judgements.
Moral relativism at it's finest.
Simply put, our leading (and some not so leading) universities have been hijacked
by a bunch of burned out, beard-scratching sixties radicals, who, under any other circumstances, would be
unemployable in the real world. At Duke University, for example, the faculty is so left wing that
they publically convicted six Lacross players falsely
accused of raping a black stripper at a frat party, fired the Lacross coach, and canceled the season before the trial took place...
all to prove their multicultural and pc bona-fides. Of course, the case fell apart and DA Mike Nifong has been disbarred for gross misconduct. Have any of these
"professors" offered an apology to the six students? Don't hold your breath.
We also have free speech hijacked by politically correct campus speech codes. Most notable was the case of fired Harvard
President Lawrence Summers. Summers was fired for suggesting there may
be [SHOCK!!] differences between men and women. So much for tolerance and freedom of
speech among the diversity crowd.
The following is excerpted from the Washington Post, January 19, 2005:
During nearly four years as president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers
has earned a reputation for blunt, sometimes brutal comments. After upsetting
African Americans early in his tenure, he has provoked a new storm of controversy
by suggesting that the shortage of elite female scientists may stem in part
from "innate" differences between men and women.
"I felt I was going to be sick," said Nancy Hopkins, a biology professor at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who listened to part of Summers's speech
Friday at a session on the progress of women in academia organized by the
National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Mass. She walked out in
what she described as a physical sense of disgust.
"My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow," she said.
"I was extremely upset."
[the poor dear...she's just a little hysterical]
Tolerance also seems to be a problem when conservative speakers are invited to speak on campus by the few
Student Republican Clubs that exist. Speakers like Ann Coulter and Jim Gilchrist, the leader of the Minutemen, routinely are shouted down
by hostile crowds and on-campus aggrieved minority leftist maniactivist groups.
The latest idiotic pc trend is "separate-but-equal graduation ceremonies".
Back in the day there was one commencement ceremony. Everything was fine.
Hispanics sat next to Asians and Blacks and Whites.
Nobody felt intimidated to be graduating with another ethnic group.
But sixty years after the Supreme Court struck down the concept of "Separate but Equal" commencement weekend
is now a problem at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The university now has so many separate aggrieved minority graduations
that scheduling them so they don't conflict with one another is a challenge.
The women's studies graduation and the Chicana/Chicano studies graduation were both set for the same time.
The broader Hispanic graduation, "Raza," was in near-conflict with the black graduation,
scheduled an hour apart.
The organizers also sometimes argue that this commencement segragation make sense for
practical reasons. They say that about 3,000 graduating seniors show up for UCLA's "regular" graduation,
making it a massive and impersonal event. At the more intimate identity-group events,
foreign-born parents and relatives hear much of the ceremony in their native tongues.
The Filipino event is so small-about 100 students-that each grad gets to speak for 30 seconds. Probably
about how they have been oppressed while at college.
The dirty little secret for separatist graduations is, of course, the obvious and unspoken one:
assimilation is a hostile force, the domestic version of American imperialism.
On many campuses, identity-group brainwashing begins with separate freshman orientation programs for
non-whites. They arrive earlier and are encouraged to bond before the first evil, oppresive Caucasian freshmen arrive.
Some schools have separate orientations for gays as well. We can't say that...we'll be accused of being oppresive, intolerant, unenlightened racists
by the very folks promoting separate-but-equal aggrieved minority commencement ceremonies.
With all of this multicultural distraction on campus is it even possible to get a decent education when students are so busy
hating everyone around them? Is anyone learning anything?
The bottom line is this, separate-but-equal commencement ceremomies is state sponsored racism. Again, the taxpayers
are paying for this nonsense. Imagine if the white kids wanted their own ceremony. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters,
The New Black Panthers, the LA Times, the NY Times, La Raza, and every other race hustling group would descend on UCLA for their photo op.
They would be "aggrieved". And the ACLU is nowhere to be found. Why are we not surprised?
Political Correctness -- Multiculturalism -- Secularism
Wikipedia defines political correctness as language or behavior that is intended, or said to be intended, to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. It's implementation is intended to support broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. It's proponents advocate avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.
That's the politically correct definition. It is, in realty, cultural Marxism...an attempt to control free thought and speech
Political correctness and it's twin evil, multiculturalism, has brought us militant feminism, campus speech codes, affirmative action, "tolerance and diversity", sensitivity training, selectively applied "hate crime" laws, the morphing of the narrowly drawn sexual harassment laws into the ambiguous "hostile work environment" laws, the perversion of the once-noble Civil Rights Movement into a Perpetual Victim Business, special interest politics, the 'feminization' of our politics, our military and our traditional religious establishments.
Black is white and white is black…the Orwellian "newspeak" nightmare scenario come to life.
The tyranny of the pc police prevents us from talking truthfully about serious issues that affect "aggrieved minorities". Rather than confront problems these groups resort to name calling. If you oppose illegal immigration and want border enforcement you are branded as a bigot by La Raza and MEChA. A discussion of affirmative action and problems in the inner city will get you the racist label from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. If you support a tough war on terror CAIR will call you an Islamophobe. If you are against gay marriage you are a homophobe. Dare to question the "facts" on Global Warming and you are branded a "Climate Change Denier" (as in Holocaust Denier).
The mayor of Los Angeles says he wants solve the gang problem but won't say that 25% of the prison population in Los Angeles are illegal immigrants that belong to gangs because it "doesn't advance the discussion." A politically incorrect comment in the workplace lands you in tolerance/diversity/sensitivity training, what used to be called Communist Indoctrination, re-education or brainwashing in the old Soviet Union. In state after state gay marriage initiatives have been defeated by overwhelming majorities. A recent ruling by the Massachussettes Supreme Court upheld gay marriage in that state and the citizns are not allowed to vote on the matter.
Leftists always want to shut down debate. These groups can't win on the merits of the argument so they resort to name calling or deny that the problem doesn't exist and run to the courts to get their way.
Feminization of the culture is also part of the pc agenda. The public schools have been marginalizing boys in an effort to "curb aggressive tendencies". In sixty years the media has gone from "Father Knows Best" and "Make Room for Daddy" to
"Father is a Dysfunctional Dolt Who Can't Find His Ass With Both Hands and a Flashlight". In both commercials and programming men are depicted as incompetent,
clueless, weak, buffoonish, and unable to deal with their children. With the rise of militant
feminism women moved into the workplace in droves. They were sold a bill of goods that they "could have it all"... a fulfilling work and
home life. Women were portrayed as capable of building skyscrapers with a roll of scotch tape and some toothpicks. At the same time they were
commanded to raise well-adjusted kids, with or without a father, while putting in an 80-hour work week. Superwoman and supermom combined.
Creeping secularism has also become fashionable in the last few decades among Leftists. Supported by the ACLU there has been an unrelenting war against Christianity under the guise of religious freedom. Somehow Christians don't come under the classification of protected a special interest group in the pc world view. The result has been the slow banishment of Christmas from the public arena and the public schools. Christmas Break is now the Winter Break. Manger scenes are banned but the Muslim Crescent and the Menorah are allowed. Christmas carols...out. Christmas trees and decorations...take 'em down. "Merry Christmas" has been replaced by the politically correct "Happy Holidays".
There has been some blowback. Shoppers began to boycott stores that instructed employees not to use the dreaded "C" word. Amazingly during the 2006 Christmas season the "Merry Christmas" greeting made a comeback. For retailers the free market and the bottm line rules all...anathema to any leftist. Presidential candidate John Edwards had to fire two far-left bloggers on his staff that insulted Christians only after it became potential embarrassment for him. A supportive mainstream media was on the story until they were fired. The press quickly dropped the story and played down the firings. Once the War on Christmas became an albatross for the Left they denied there was any attempt to ban Christmas. What a bunch of liars and Grinches.
There are also some small cracks beginning to form in the pc monolith. On June 28, 2007 the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision threw out school desegregation plans from Seattle and Louisville, but without a majority holding that race can never be considered as school districts try to ensure racially diverse populations.
In writing the majority opinion Chief Justice Roberts held that both plans, which categorize students on the basis of race and use that in making school assignments, violate the constitution's promise of equal protection, even if the goal is integration of the schools.
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," Roberts wrote.
Liberal Media and the Sin of Omission
If the Liberal Media wasn't in the tank for the New Left and the socialist agenda of the Democrats almost none of these issues that we've talked about would get any traction. Our schools and universities would not be little islands of socialist indoctrination, the War on Terror might have a better chance of succeeding because the reporting would not be relentlessly negative and the
liberal smear merchants would not be able to get their message out as easily.
Sadly, this is not the case. The three major networks, the major newspaper and weekly digests report the news that fits the agenda. This is called the "sin of omission". If it doesn't fit the preconceived notions, or it embarrases the left it is generally ignored.
Most importantly, the "sin of omission" puts the country at risk. For Democrats to win the big prize in '08 they must convince you, the voter, that there is no War On Terror. To do that the press must be complicit in playing down the threat at every opportunity.
Whenever there is a report of a foiled terror plot the standard response is to:
This was the standard media line with the airline plot in 2005, the Fort Dix Six and the latest plot to attack JFK Airport. The NY Times even went so far as to bury the JFK story on page 37 of the June 3rd edition. The other liberal major papers had the story on page 1 but without the banner headlines. To emphasize the story would remind us that there actually are people who want to kill us and that we are at war. But that doesn't fit the surrender agenda. Liberals don't want us to be reminded that they are perpetually waving the white flag. Of course if anyone had said, in the summer of 2001, that a plot was uncovered indicating that some guys with box cutters planned to hijack some airliners and fly them into the World Trade Center the response would have been exactly the same.
- Not mention that the perps are Muslims
- Claim the perps are inept…how could a bunch of rubes like this pull anything off
- Claim the perps have no funding
- Claim the perps weren't organized
- Claim the plot was only in the formative stages.
Consider these examples of Liberal Bias:
- Nine black youths attack and beat three white girls on their way to a Halloween party in 2006 in Long Beach. The incident barely causes a ripple in the mainstream press and media. Though the black youths are charged with a hate crime they receive only probation and counseling. Imagine if the scenario were reversed. We would have wall-to-wall coverage in the media and Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters and the New Black Panthers would have camped out at the Courthouse. The national press virtually ignored the story.
- Three white Duke University Lacrosse players are accused of raping a black stripper at a frat party. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the New Black Panthers are calling for the students' heads on a plate before the all of the facts are known. Ultimately the case falls apart and the over-zealous liberal DA Mike Nifong has been disbarred for gross misconduct. No one in the media apologizes to the Duke Lacrosse players for convicting them prior to any trial. The press is less than eager to cover this aspect of the story. It is buried in the middle pages of the papers.
- In its endless quest to appear sensitive and achieve the ultimate cosmetic diversity while echewing diversity of thought, the Democratic Party has radical imam Husham Al-Husainy, of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center, a Shi'ite mosque in Dearborn, Michigan give the invocation at the . The mainstream press doesn't report it.
- Charles Rust-Tierney, past president of the
Virginia branch of the ACLU and a former public defender in the District, was arrested
and charged with possessing child pornography. Mr. Rust-Tierney was identified in court
documents as having coached various youth sport teams in and around Arlington County. While Virginia ACLU President
he led the effort to block internet filters for the Loudon Co. VA public library computers. The mainstream press virtually
ignores the story because it goes against the leftist agenda. The press couldn't get enough of the Ted Haggard and Mark Foley scandals...but these offenders were
There is, of course a Catch-22. We can't seem to find any liberals in the United States. How do you prove liberal bias in the media when the accused doesn't admit they are liberal? With control of the message they have defined themselves as centrists and progressives, in touch with the mainstream. But the numbers belie the claim. Viewership and circulation have been plummetting for years. The powers that be claim (1) people don't read any more (2) it is the rise of the internet and the blogs (3) conservative talk radio dominates the message (if they are the mainstream how does talk radio dominate the message?). Well, they had their chance. Air America was soundly rejected by the listening public. Liberals and conservatives alike avoided the idiotic programming and tuned out in droves. We suspect the folks just don't like being lied to and gravitate to the media alternatives. But the Socialists in our midst don't like free speech and are are coming after the alternative media outlets. They want to revive the Fairness Doctrine which would effectively derail the conservative talk format as we know it. They want to go back to the good old days of Walter Cronkite. They want the control back.
Not a pretty picture. Think of the old photographs of the European capitals under Soviet domination during the Cold War. Cold, gray, bleak...boring and lifeless.
Life without the freedom to make our own choices may be safer, but it isn't worth living. Nanny State finger-wagging is pernicious benign facism and the end result is "for-your-own-good" and "for-the-common-good" legislation. The nanny-staters are ever ready to impose their preferences over our own in areas of life as personal as what we think, say, eat, what we watch on TV or listen to on the radio, and the activities we permit our children to enjoy. The world envisioned by the nanny-staters may well be one in which we all live a year longer, but each passing moment would be a bland, joyless, transfat-free, sensible one. We would soon be praying for that shot of whiskey, a drag off a cigarette, and a huge slice of butterfat chocolate cake.