When PC Isn't
I recently listened (raptly) to Bill Maher's "When You Ride Alone You Ride With Bin Laden." It's great stuff, tweaking authority and conventionalism at every turn. The title jabs us for our absolutely inexcusable waste of gasoline, driving alone in highly-inefficient automobiles, with extremely subsidized gas prices.
A significant fraction of the gas profits go straight to terrorism. Diamond sales, likewise - so much for those incredibly obnoxious Valentine's season radio commercials.
I gather that tweaking was also a mainstay of Maher's former tv show. I don't believe I ever saw the show, and I only marginally became aware of him as a result of his eviction from prime time. He took on a sort of martyr cloak for me as a result of that ejection. I didn't know details, but I knew that there was a very disturbing apparent violation of Amendment 1 rights. He said and asked stuff that made his employer uncomfortable, not hewing to the politically correct line and possibly even tweaking the government in power - i.e. the god to whom his employer kowtowed.
Not a new story.
But this was almost certainly criminal censorship, excused because of the events of 9/11, i.e., the devastating attack on our country that the bush administration (the kowtow-ee) had at best been too lazy to prevent. Of course anyone with an IQ over 100 has gotten beyond "too lazy" by now, given all the evidence.
Maher's aversion to the concept of political correctness is at the heart of much of his schtick (no criticism implied by term). That can present a challenge for a progressive like me, raised with PC up there with the golden rule. The topic comes up frequently in his book, and I admit to feeling a bit chastened. We can't be cowering in the corner, flogging each other for violating political taboos. Nor can we sit on the sidelines, too timid to call crap for what it is despite PC issues. You got me there, Bill, for sure.
Where we differ is on his characterization of the Koran and the basics of Islam as being both violent and intolerant. He makes some strong statements about their monolithic antipathy and antagonism towards the USA. It seems very clear to me that the vast majority of Muslims have no violent disagreement or conflict with us - and consequently we should not be feeling antagonistic towards them. Of course as our "pre-emptive war" goes on and expands we can naturally expect that thinking folks in the Middle East, Muslim or otherwise, will increasingly begin to doubt our motives, potentially hate us, and eventually decide that violent counter-measures may be appropriate. Bill, please re-read Karen Armstrong's "Islam, a Short History" and contain your testosterone, baby.
That said, I'm certain (and I believe Maher would agree) that we have promulgated far more terrorism recently than we have been subjected to. In the cold terms of deaths of innocent civilians, we have far more blood on our hands from indiscriminant bombings in Iraq, including cluster bombs in urban areas and use of depleted uranium than were involved in 9/11 and all prior "terrorist" attacks that killed American citizens. What the hell were we doing in planning this that we decided that wild bombing in cities was appropriate? Given that the elitists in power knew they were going to war whether they had a good justification (or proper support from congress or the populace) or not, it seems clear that this is the classic war crime. Bombing civilians indiscriminantly. No serious attempt to limit damage to military targets.
Why is that not a subject of discussion? The government that supposedly represents You is a more significant terrorist than all of the "them" terrorists!
Please think about that for a moment.
And then share your thoughts with someone else.
What wound me up here was this article about the ludicrous debacle over edgy historical posts by blogger staff hired by the John Edwards campaign. In case you are unaware (bless you), there was a full-out swift-boat style (i.e., gutless, totally unfounded, and cowardly) orchestrated attempt to whack the candidate over this, pretending a tone of PC that in fact most of the sleazy attackers have never subscribed to themselves. From what I can tell this is a bunch of Rush Limbaugh/Bill Donohue/Bill O'Reilly suckups, desperate to preserve their partying access to that wonderful group of "moral high-liners"!
The candidate's group from what I understand shuddered briefly, perhaps to the point of even initially firing bloggers, but then regained footing and fired back, with bloggers back on staff.
So it's good to be seeing some push-back.
And I greatly applaud the recognition of the concept of "Conservative Correctness," though I think "Regressive Correctness," RC, is the proper term. RC is the destructive shibboleth we must be far more concerned about than PC right now. But neither is good for free-thinking and democracy.
A significant fraction of the gas profits go straight to terrorism. Diamond sales, likewise - so much for those incredibly obnoxious Valentine's season radio commercials.
I gather that tweaking was also a mainstay of Maher's former tv show. I don't believe I ever saw the show, and I only marginally became aware of him as a result of his eviction from prime time. He took on a sort of martyr cloak for me as a result of that ejection. I didn't know details, but I knew that there was a very disturbing apparent violation of Amendment 1 rights. He said and asked stuff that made his employer uncomfortable, not hewing to the politically correct line and possibly even tweaking the government in power - i.e. the god to whom his employer kowtowed.
Not a new story.
But this was almost certainly criminal censorship, excused because of the events of 9/11, i.e., the devastating attack on our country that the bush administration (the kowtow-ee) had at best been too lazy to prevent. Of course anyone with an IQ over 100 has gotten beyond "too lazy" by now, given all the evidence.
Maher's aversion to the concept of political correctness is at the heart of much of his schtick (no criticism implied by term). That can present a challenge for a progressive like me, raised with PC up there with the golden rule. The topic comes up frequently in his book, and I admit to feeling a bit chastened. We can't be cowering in the corner, flogging each other for violating political taboos. Nor can we sit on the sidelines, too timid to call crap for what it is despite PC issues. You got me there, Bill, for sure.
Where we differ is on his characterization of the Koran and the basics of Islam as being both violent and intolerant. He makes some strong statements about their monolithic antipathy and antagonism towards the USA. It seems very clear to me that the vast majority of Muslims have no violent disagreement or conflict with us - and consequently we should not be feeling antagonistic towards them. Of course as our "pre-emptive war" goes on and expands we can naturally expect that thinking folks in the Middle East, Muslim or otherwise, will increasingly begin to doubt our motives, potentially hate us, and eventually decide that violent counter-measures may be appropriate. Bill, please re-read Karen Armstrong's "Islam, a Short History" and contain your testosterone, baby.
That said, I'm certain (and I believe Maher would agree) that we have promulgated far more terrorism recently than we have been subjected to. In the cold terms of deaths of innocent civilians, we have far more blood on our hands from indiscriminant bombings in Iraq, including cluster bombs in urban areas and use of depleted uranium than were involved in 9/11 and all prior "terrorist" attacks that killed American citizens. What the hell were we doing in planning this that we decided that wild bombing in cities was appropriate? Given that the elitists in power knew they were going to war whether they had a good justification (or proper support from congress or the populace) or not, it seems clear that this is the classic war crime. Bombing civilians indiscriminantly. No serious attempt to limit damage to military targets.
Why is that not a subject of discussion? The government that supposedly represents You is a more significant terrorist than all of the "them" terrorists!
Please think about that for a moment.
And then share your thoughts with someone else.
What wound me up here was this article about the ludicrous debacle over edgy historical posts by blogger staff hired by the John Edwards campaign. In case you are unaware (bless you), there was a full-out swift-boat style (i.e., gutless, totally unfounded, and cowardly) orchestrated attempt to whack the candidate over this, pretending a tone of PC that in fact most of the sleazy attackers have never subscribed to themselves. From what I can tell this is a bunch of Rush Limbaugh/Bill Donohue/Bill O'Reilly suckups, desperate to preserve their partying access to that wonderful group of "moral high-liners"!
The candidate's group from what I understand shuddered briefly, perhaps to the point of even initially firing bloggers, but then regained footing and fired back, with bloggers back on staff.
So it's good to be seeing some push-back.
And I greatly applaud the recognition of the concept of "Conservative Correctness," though I think "Regressive Correctness," RC, is the proper term. RC is the destructive shibboleth we must be far more concerned about than PC right now. But neither is good for free-thinking and democracy.
posted by Sir Gumbo at 9:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home