Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Funny. Very Funny. Hilarious really.

You do know “1984” and “A Brave New World” are on the verge of being banned from required reading in Colleges and High Schools by Conservative Groups for being UnPatriotic and UnAmerican right?

Why does it say the blog it was posted at 12:01AM on August 1 yet the comment after it was posted at 11:24 on July 31

Mike,

I agree with you in the principal of academic freedom and freedom of speech. If anyone has an opinion, they should be able to voice it. As long as a teacher is teaching his or her course well, the political opinions of the teacher should not be involved in the administration’s decisions on hiring/firing people. However, in the case of Graham, the radio station has every right to suspend him from the show. The station is profit-driven, and the best way to increase profit is to increase the listeners, which usually happens by embracing, not alienating, large segments of the population.

In response to your inability to disprove Graham’s assertion of Islam being a terrorist organization, I think that you only need look at the five pillars of the religion:
-Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;
-Establishment of the daily prayers;
-Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;
-Self-purification through fasting; and
-The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able.

No place in here is there a call for jihad or terror. This “calling” has arisen from radical clerics on the fringes of Islamic society. I constantly observe and understand that many people on the right (especially conservative talk-show hosts) like to generalize large groups of people (Muslims, gays, liberals, Europeans) to make a sensational point. However, for those of us who actually care enough about others to meet them and appreciate them, we know that the vast majority of the Muslim world is extremely peaceful and abhors the acts of terror made in their names. I could easily say that because there are acts of terror (bombing abortion clinics) made by some radical pro-lifers that Right to Life is a terrorist organization. However, I don’t like to generalize, and because I meet and appreciate people who might not agree with me politically, I know that most pro-lifers condemn bombing of abortion clinics and are very peaceful people.

The conquest of the Arab world by Muhammed to which you allude is highly comparable to the Christian Crusades. Muhammed believed that he was acting based on the word of his God and conquering people that they might be converted to his religion. Much like the Christians did during the crusades. The Christians were in fact much more territorially and power-motivated than Muhammed, in that they fought the Arabs and Byzantines largely to maintain power over the Holy Land, control the religious beliefs of people, and control powerful trade routes. Therefore, while I could say that because Christians have in the past been known to use violence to intimidate people to convert to their religion, that Christianity is a terrorist organization, but I won’t because I realize that Christianity is based on the teachings of a very peaceful, compassionate, self-giving man.

Voice of Reason: I edited it so it was fresh for August 1st. There was only 30 minutes left in July 31 anyway.

ryan: On Graham’s comment on Islam, remember I was discussing historical fact. You mention the Crusades, HOWEVER, that was purely a defensive action on the part of the Christians. Christianity DOES NOT advocate violence (thou shall not kill). The inquisitions and other horrifying bloody events that Christians did do is a distortion of the Christian religion.

Christianity is a very peaceful religion. The church was just corrupt in the case of the inquisition. The bible says thou shall not commit adultery but bishops in the 1500s used to keep concubines. It’s people that don’t follow the word that give Christianity a bad name. In the case of the inquisition, the bible also says that people should not judge their neighbors.

Mike,

You mention that Christianity does not advocate violence. I press you to find a source from the Quran (that is followed by mainstream Muslims) that specifically advocates violence. Have you ever even read the Quran? If you have, then it should be obvious that Islam, like Christianity, is an extremely peaceful religion based on faith, aid to the poor, and moral living. I suspect that you have not read the Quran. If so, I ask you how you make and/or believe such grand assumptions and assertions about a religion that you have not thoroughly researched and understood. Again, I come to the rampant use of generalization by many right wing talk radio hosts on topics of which they have almost no personal knowledge. I also doubt that this Michael Graham has ever read or even picked up a copy of a Quran.

If you would permit me to draw another parallel to your argument based on Muhammed’s conquest of vast Arab lands, I would like to bring up America’s early conquest of much of North America. If you recall, America’s “Manifest Destiny” was a supposedly divine calling for the enlightened Christian white American to conquer and control the vast lands to the west of their original settlement. Furthermore, America’s imperialistic moves in the nineteenth century in Hawaii, the Philipines, China, and Cuba were all based on the enlightened, Christian, God-commanded, white American’s benevolent desire to civilize the “savages” of these lands. Yet in the name of this benevolent cause (and in response to the obvious economic gains that could be made), Americans killed unknown amounts of Native Americans, Hawaiians, Philipinos, Chinese, and now Iraqis.

This is almost no different from Muhammed, who, having just founded a new radical ideology, desired to spread this religion through the lands and in doing so create a vast kingdomm in which his religion could be followed.

If you call either one of these terrorism, then I think you greatly misunderstand the term. They are simply imperialistic conquest based on (true/false: you decide) God-inspired “benevolent” goals.

Aldous
Enlighten me. What conservative groups are trying to remove Orwellian literature from the shelves? Conservatives have used the Orwellian literature in their behalf for years.

Mike,
Did you read all of the “Newspeak” link?
Here is a choice passage from “1984.”

Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as if by instinct, at the threshhold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors…” pp 174-5.

First, I agree with you about the issue of academic freedom. Like the infamous Ward Churchill, the professor you cited certainly has the right to express a viewpoint.

I’m not familiar with this Australian academic. I am curious about how Australians opposed to immigration square that stance with their history. For example, until recently Australia was legally considered Terra Nullius, which meant that Australia was unsettled before the British arrived, that Aborigines were considered part of the flora and fauna, i.e., not human.
I’d guess the Aborigines thought the neighborhood went downhill when the Brits showed up.

I’d also be curious to hear opponents of Australian immigration comment on the fate of the Tasmanians, and Truganni, the Tasman equivalent of our own Ishi, who was the last of the Yahis.

Crimestop.

“Is Graham then correct by calling Islam a “terrorist organization”? Islam’s early days were marked with warfare and caravan raids. By calling Islam a “terrorist organization” Graham never claimed all Muslims are terrorists, he simply implied Islam fosters the climate for terrorism.”

Mike, you fail to make a logical case for supporting Graham’s statement. Were the warfare & raids made with the intent to intimidate, or terrorize? Almost any violent conflict you’d care to name falls under the broad definiton cited.

“… Was Graham incorrect in calling Islam a “terrorist organization”? Well, I would have a hard time proving it false.”

Try harder.

Given the broad scope of the definiton, people have already observed that defining Islam as a ‘terrorist organization’ also applies to Christianity.

Both Christianity & Islam can be peaceful. Each also contains elements which inspire violence. In each case, the religion can be hijacked by a relatively small number. For example, Christianity was hijacked by Adolph Hitler Nazi propagandists, & rolled into a larger concept, a weltanschauung. In Reni Riefenstahl’s 1933 film, “Victory of the Faith” (Der Sieg des Glaubens), and in a propaganda essay of the same title, by a different author…

Crimestop.

The cases you cite, like that of Ward Churchill, are regrettable in that people suffered reprimands for expressing their viewpoint. However, they are still free to speak their piece, are they not? Comparing their situations and the idea of political correctness to “1984” is a stretch, to say the least.

ryan: Manifest Destiny has nothing to do with the Bible. As I said, and as others already have mentioned, Christians advocating violence are BASED on distortions of what Christianity is about.

And raiding caravans is a terroristic action.

Mike,
Come on.
Psalm 2:8-9
2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
@:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

The Bible is full of such violent verses. Islam also contains such violence. To suggest Islam encourages terrorism, but Christianity does not, is as good as example of ‘doublethink’ as anything mentioned in “1984.”

The best of both religions is fundamentally spiritual & peaceful. Each can be taken by extremists as justification for violence.

“And raiding caravans is a terroristic action.”

Is such a raid intended to terrorize?

When US B-52’s bombed the Ho Chi Minh trail, was that terrorism? When US troops interdict insurgent supply lines from Syria to Bagdhad, is that terrorism too?

Please be more specific, and back up the case. Maybe you’re right, but pleaase support the persuasive argument with some elaboration.

Personally, I think the original definition of ‘terrorism’ is too broad. That might be a workable starting point. Just a suggestion.

Mike,
To return to the original point:
Would you extend the same reasoning about political correctness, and the Orwellian limitation of thought, to Ward Churchill?

Can’t resist continuing:
When Bill Maher resigned from ABC, because of outrage over his referring to the 9/11 terrorists as “courageous,” was that another example of Orwellian political correctness? Did a feeling we’re living in “1984” occur then? Or does the principle only apply when agreeing with the controversial content?

Political correctness imposes limits on the acceptable range of what can be said, especially in academia. Political correctness in 2005 is tantamount to Newspeak in 1984.

Couldn’t be further from the truth. Newspeak was punishable by law, PC speech is only embarassing in certain social circles. Huge chasmic difference.

Even colleagues and former students who disagree with his stance on issues of race and immigration urged him to stay in order to defend freedom of thought and expression for all academics who might find their views at odds with the interests of the University’s administration in the future.

What a patently LIBERAL position for them to take. Tsk, tsk!! But then, they are talking University here, not 7th grade, and a liberal arts education should be tolerant, probing, and critically analytical of all points of view, now shouldn’t it?

But, was Graham incorrect in calling Islam a “terrorist organization”? Well, I would have a hard time proving it false.

Carefully observe Mike T.’s bait and switch here folks. He goes from University in Australia designed to probe and critically examine all major points of view in a discipline of study, to a HIGH SCHOOL text book, where parents sitting on school boards and in control over local education insure the appropriateness of material for students of various ages, to a commercial radio station which is in the business NOT for the dissemination of fair and balanced educational material but for Advertising Dollars which invokes its own kind of free enterprise censorship.

If I worked for radio station in Georgia or Alabama and I postulated on the basis of the Spanish Inquisition and Crusades that Christianity is a religion of torture, and conversion by death, I should think I too would be fired, don’t you? What has that to do with the State or government? We are talking free enterprise here, not state sponsored indoctrination of the masses under penalty of law. Mike T. may have read 1984, but, the way he twists its intent to further his right wing ideology is nothing short of blatant and frankly dishonest.

The comparisons between University and local radio which is dependent upon ad dollars for survival to Government sponsored group think and enforced brainwashing punishable by law is nothing short of combining false premises to reach false conclusions.

Mike T. concludes: “Politically incorrect viewpoints are no longer tolerated in a free speech society.”

How absurd in the extreme! Is he not aware the KKK still has the right to assemble publicly and peddle its message of intolerance and hate? Mike T. fails to ask: Tolerated by whom, in what venue, and punished by what Government Laws? His conclusion that politically incorrect views are no longer tolerated in a free speech society is pure bullshit. President Bush, and the GOP don’t allow non-prescripted questions or comments from the audiences of their fund raisers and political rallies. Is this Orwellian? Of course NOT! Because political parties are not hired and paid for by the government. They are free to constrain and construct the message they want imparted to their audiences free of government influence?

Mike T apparently would be the first to cry out Orwell if the government told Bush he had to accept Democrats into his fund raising and rally audiences and he could not preclude their asking him tough questions. Now that would be Orwellian. And then, for a change, Mike T. would make an accurate comparison.

Mike T., may have read 1984, but his writing does not at all understand how to appropriately apply its lessons and warnings to real life or the First Amendment, for his writing utterly fails to respect the difference between free speech protected and upheld by law, and brain washing and forced indoctrination by government which is the premise of G. Orwell. Universities are locally controlled and attendance is voluntary. Radio station audiences are free to tune in or not, and have a choice of stations with different views to choose to listen to, as opposed to 1984’s state run media. Politically correct is entirely dependent upon the concensus of the audience, NOT legislation and laws of government. A distinction obviously abused by Mike T. to make his politically distorted false conclusions.

But, hey, Mike T. is absolutely free to express his politically correct or incorrect views, right or wrong, here at WatchBlog without government interference or intrusion and that is why his comparison of politically incorrect speech to 1984 Newspeak and G. Orwell’s warnings are patently false.

Political Correctness is applied after the fact. You can shoot your mouth off any damn way you like to, but people can shoot right back.

As for his argument about Islam he’s obviously making that claim, and your defense shows a lack of understanding of the times of Mohammed. It could be said you’re practicing a kind of political correctness by implying that dark ages Arabs should act with 20th century mores about war and plunder.

By calling Islam a “terrorist organization” Graham never claimed all Muslims are terrorists, he simply implied Islam fosters the climate for terrorism.

HAHAHAHA! Talk about Newspeak! ‘cause, I’m sure when George Bush calls Al Qaeda a “terrorist organization”, he’s not claiming all members of Al Qaeda are terrorists, he simply implies Al Qaeda fosters the climate for terrorism! LOL!

Mike T.

Check your facts.

1. The Australian constitution doesn’t guarantee free speech.
2. The professor’s contract with the university proscribed him from speaking on areas outside of his area of expertise in class.
3. The professor was suspended only AFTER he launched a bitter, personal attack on on the Vice Chancellor of the university.
4. This is the same professor who wants to bring back the monarchy, and said that he would like to see Australia withdraw from the [UN] refugee convention and quit taking any refugees. He also has been quoted as saying that Chinese immigration directly threatened the “social, political and economic interests of ordinary Australians and their children”.

Anybody else notice a continuing thread in Mike T’s posts? The last one was abut how hispanic immigration is threatening the Anglo Protestant way of life. Now we get to hear how a Public Law professor in Australia is somehow qualified to speak on the IQs of Africans. And how all Muslims are terrorists.

IMHO, this is racist claptrap.

I’m not sure if “newspeak” from the book “1984” translates to “PC” speach of today, but some parts seem simular.

There is little doubt that “PC” has entered into Gov., courts, and laws.

Some acts are “freespeach”, while others are deemed “hatespeach” and laws ban those things.

In some areas you may burn leaves in your yard, thats just fall cleanup. You can burn a flag in protest, thats freedom of speach.
If you burn a cross, thats hate speach and you can go to jail for that.

What are “hate crime laws” about ?

If you beat someone up thats a crime and you can go to jail. If that person happens to be a minority or gay, in some areas you fall under “hate crime laws”, and can get much more jail time for that.

Reguardless of skintone, beating someone up isn’t an act of love, but its “PC” to pass laws based on exactly that.

It works much the same with religion.
Its “PC” for an editor of a newspaper to refer to “The Christian right” or “Bible thumpers”, if they make any slurs about Jews or the koran, they will get fired.

I won’t tolerate any form of discrimination or racism, but saying the “PC police” haven’t moved into Gov. is quite nieve.

David -

1) PC is like Newspeak. Not being PC is punishable by law in some countries. In Europe there are laws that prevent anyone to be critical of Islam even if the assertion is based off facts and analysis. Look into Oriana Fallaci. She is on trial in Italy.

2) It was not a HIGH SCHOOL history text book but a COLLEGE history text book. I clearly documenated that in my entry. And, like most mainstream history books, it has a liberal slant. But I have found the same information on Islam in countless others.

3) Some of the statements made by Fraser and Graham may be correct. Fraser stated that he made them to the best of his scientific judgment in academia. The sad facts remains, that because his viewpoints were politically incorrect he came under fire.

ElliottBay I never endorsed any ideas of Graham or Fraser - I clearly stated that. The last one was not about what you mentioned, I never claimed all Muslims are terrorists, and I never endorsed Fraser’s ideas.

There is a fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity in their origins, and it is an important distinction.

Christianity began as an outsider religion. It was persecuted for more than 300 years before it was even made legal and then it took another century before it became a state religion. For the first centuries of its existence, Christianity spread only by persuasion.

Even as a state sanctioned religion, the West never produced a truly theocratic state. Christians could always remember that they should render onto Caesar what is Caesar’s and onto God what is God’s.

In fact separation and competition between church and state is what makes Western history unique. The struggle of the Popes against the German emperors is the key theme of medieval history.

Islam was never an outsider religion. Mohammed was a political as well as a spiritual leader, who conquered others. Islam was imposed on societies by force. Individuals Muslims have suffered persecution, but the religion in general never has. I know we will try to PC this and say that Islamic conquers were tolerant. Consider the word tolerate. That is what they did. Islam was on top; others were tolerated as long as they knew their place. The analogy would be blacks in the south of the early 20th Century being “tolerated” as long as they did what they were told.

Islam does not really exist outside a state. It is only in recent times that Islamic people have come to live in large numbers in non-Islamic states and that is one of the frictions. Even in places like Holland or France, some Muslims want to live under Islamic law. We in the West find this unacceptable and it should not be a negotiable demand.

This does not mean that Islam cannot (and has not) adapted to modern secular systems, but we are not being accurate if we don’t identify the greater challenges we face when integrating Islam into our liberal (non-politcal use of the term) societies.

Mike,

You quote Newspeak in 1984 to be defined as:
“The purpose of Newspeak was to drastically reduce the number of words in the English language in order to eliminate ideas that were deemed dangerous and, most importantly, seditious to the totalitarian dictator, Big Brother and the Party.”

You claim this equates with PC language today. I would argue that it sounds much more like the way this administration punishes anyone who speaks “off message”. Any person within the administration who dares to speak against the party line is fired or ostracized (Paul O’Neil/Colin Powell). Any person outside the administration who dares to speak against the party line is attacked (Joe Wilson). Any person within the administration who screws up royally but maintains the party line is rewarded (Tenet, Bremer, Wolfowitz, et al).

It is this administration who actively attempts to cut off any and all speech that is not directly approving of its actions and policies (aka seditious speech).

Also, you state:
“By calling Islam a “terrorist organization” Graham never claimed all Muslims are terrorists, he simply implied Islam fosters the climate for terrorism.”

That’s just plain wrong. He called Islam a terrorist organization. Wouldn’t that imply that by definition that anyone belonging to a terrorist organization is a terrorist? Do you consider someone who is a member of Al Qaeda a terrorist? Or do you simply say that Al Qaeda fosters the climate for terrorism?

PC out of control? Yup. Here’s an example:

A New Jersey computer programmer who sent a private email describing lesbianism as a “perversion” has been formally reprimanded by the university where he works for violating the school’s discrimination policy, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reports.

Jihad Daniel, a programmer at William Paterson University in Wayne, N.J., made his comments in response to an e-mail he received that had been sent university-wide inviting people to a film about lesbian relationships titled “Ruthie and Connie: Every Room in the House.”

Daniel responded to the professor who sent it, saying he did not want to receive such messages about “perversions,” writing in a one-paragraph response that “the absence of God in higher education brings on confusion. That is why in these classes the Creator of the heavens and the [E]arth is never mentioned.”

The professor, Arlene Holpp Scala of the Women’s Studies department, complained that the email was threatening and went against the school’s anti-discrimination policy.

For more stupid, ignorant PC garbage like this, please go to:

link text“>Tongue Tied

Bookmark this site…and any time you think people have actual common sense, just click on the link and you’ll see how blatently stupid people still are.

Oops! I don’t mean “how stupid people still are”.

I actually meant “how intellectually under-enhanced” people still are.

LOL! A conservative defending an elitist college professor. That’s rich!

Even as a state sanctioned religion, the West never produced a truly theocratic state.

Jack, that’s an interesting statement. Putting aside the Holy Roman Empire where the Pope had the power to make or break an emperor, what about England? The king was (and still is) the head of the church, right?

And sure, we have separation of church and state now, but that wasn’t always the case in Christendom. In fact, the Pope personally ruled a large part of the Italian penninsula.

Sorry if I’m getting off topic, but…

Jack said: “Islam does not really exist outside a state.”

What an absurd statement. Islam exists without conflict in some democratic nations like Indonesia, it exists in nations which suppress religion of anykind, like China, and Islam exists in dictatorships as in some African nations, and Islam exists in America without conflict representing millions. What hat did this statement get pulled out of. As a premise to any conclusions, it invalidates all those conclusions.

And sure we have a separation of church and state?
Where in the constitution are the words “separation of church and state”?
Congress simply can make no laws regarding religion, or ban the practice thereof, however the government does deny the recognition of some, i.e. Rastfarians and Davidians.
Never mind that the real comment i had was that since i’ve been in iraq for the last 6 months the only alms giving i’ve seen was from american christians (and soldiers) to the poor muslims huddled in tents and along side the roads. I’ve seen very wealthy muslims here as well and wonder about their charity. The poster children for humanitarian relief (the benevolent [ha!] UN) are also absent.

I had thought that Mike’s article had more to do with the relationship of a book and how “PC” in todays society relates to that?

Once again, I proved myself a hayseed for my lack of spinning into something else that people fear to discuss.

like most mainstream history books, it has a liberal slant.

Ever consider the possibility that history itself has a liberal slant?

David and AP

I am not a scholar of Islam. I readily admit that. BTW I am also not a practicing Christian, so I really am not in the business of defending it. BUT there is a clear difference in the roots of the two religions. You don’t have to be a scholar in either religion to count to 313, the year when Christianity received status on par with pagan religions in the Roman Empire. The State preceded and was hostile to Christianity.

Islam started with a political dimension. Mohammed was a political leader. Henry VIII made himself head of the church in his country. But he did so for very unreligious reasons and no English monarch particularly concerned him/herself with theology.

Why is it un PC to point out the obvious differences? The authorities executed Jesus. Christianity began as an anti-state religion. Mohammed was the authority. By the time he died, he ruled Arabia, which he had conquered by force of arms. I am not saying one is better than the other. Religion (as opposed to the actual faith) picks up aspect of the society around it. Some of those habits are useful; others pernicious and some have become obsolete. Christianity as practiced in 1500 would be incompatible with modern society. Some things had to change - and they did – in the cultural practices. It was painful to some people. Islam is going through this now.

I am not a cultural relativist. Most cultures have something valuable to contribute, but there are things that are good and bad. Cultures can improve.

Imagine Christianity without the reformation, the enlightenment, the growth of democracy and the scientific revolution. Now think of Islam today and ask yourself when Islam experienced the equivalent.

Steve,
“Ever consider the possibility that history itself has a liberal slant?”

My first reaction was to laugh. Very funny! But it’s also a great question. The more I think about it, the more interesting the question becomes.

Okay, I only read halfway through before being disgusted. So if I missed something, I’m sorry.

The point wasn’t, if I’m reading this correctly, that Islam is or isn’t a terrorist organization, or that some professor is or isn’t rascist. The point was that people are being shut down because what they say isn’t politically correct.

I’m sure that these two very public incidences aren’t the only ones, and trying to invalidate his two examples does not invalidate his point.

Arguing which political party supports Orwell more also does not invalidate his point, as (It seems to me. I could be wrong; I’m not the author.) he was using the clip as a way of getting his point on free speech across, not as the be-all, end-all on his opinion.

Just the fact that so many people have popped up to argue the little bits to death in an attempt to redirect the discussion and mark his opinion as ‘wrong’ strikes me as a sort of re-speak, where you must redirect all thought until no one’s quite sure what submersive idea we were talking about in the first place.

I see many instances of, not newspeak, but places where speech is being redirected, as above, changed, or shunned. The so-called ‘Patriot Act’ for instance. I don’t support it. I’d rather be free than safe, if safety means that load of bullshit that Bush is trying to present as filet mignon. So am I un-American and unpatriotic? Quite a few would say so… Just the name implies it…

This crap about the difference between marriage and civil unions. Marriage, in the eys of the law, is property law, no matter what you call it. Calling it something else gives a different impression… Separate but equal, anyone?

Words matter. There’s a whole science dedicated to which words evoke what emotions, and how to use them to manipulate your audience. Speech writers know it and I think that the writer of the first entry knows it, too.

There’s something datk about that. If your argument carries enough weight, you shouldn’t need manipulative phrases to make your audience understand.

The Bush Administration, and alot of others with him, are all words… Sound and fury signifying nothing. Thousand points of light, anyone?

Call it what you want… Doublespeak, newspeak, re-speak, politically correct speak… I call it lack of freedom to speak…

-Rose

History has a “state” slant because it is too hard for historians to do anything else. Historians like to say things like King Charles decreed that science should be practiced and a scientific revolution ensued. Actually the revolution was probably underway and the king just got in front of the parade. Historians can’t deal with the complexity of other causes.

Beyond that, most academic historians have never run a business or been in charge of any enterprise at all besides maybe a committee or a department. They just don’t understand how these things work. Interestingly, practitioners who subsequently write history are often disparaged by the academics.

In the sense that modern liberals advocate state intervention, history has a liberal slant. Think of the case of the New Deal. The New Deal did pretty much nothing to end the Great Depression. The economy didn’t start growing again until the Euros began to gear up for war. (As JK Galbraith said facetiously, Hitler was exporting the economic recovery.) But the history books dutifully talk about all the programs as though the economy was responding to each one and finally – after about seven years – the history books record that the reforms worked.

Newspeak is a tool of oppressive governments. There is a huge difference between college campuses and federal goverments.

A federal government represent an entire nation and dictates whatever rules and enforcements they see fit to uphold their constitution and/or national philosophies.

Colleges and universities are a small subset of an entire nation to which individuals voluntarily enter and have choices among various universities espousing various philosophies for their respective campuses. Students voluntarily pay tuition to be a member of this community and may opt out any time they choose. It is in each college’s best interest (much like a private place of employment) to be sensitive to their diverse community, lest some offended individuals pack up and leave for a more friendly alternative (a strategy of the free market competition with the school down the road).

It is a fine line keeping some level of sensitivity, and also avoiding censorship of ideas. This is an ongoing struggle, but it is in the interest of serving the community and allowing everyone an equal voice.

Newspeak on the other hand is in the interest of intentional censorship for the interest of a party in power (in order to retain power at any cost necessary) and prohibiting everyone from having equal voice.

While sensitivity and censorship may be manifested in similar ways, it’s the goals behind the policies that are important(and potentially
dangerous), and it’s usually pretty obvious when the underlying goals are more akin to censorship and control than to social sensitivity.

Newspeak is only really relevant in the realm of a political party in power of a federal government. You’ve hinted at some sort of correlation between colleges/universities and government bodies, but as of now I don’t see any convincing argument that political correctness necessarily and cosistantly is used as a tool of strategic and intentional oppression by political leaders.

As I think over the history books I’ve read (and I haven’t been a college student for longer than I care to remember), I realize how many different directions those books go in when trying to apply a “left/right” slant to them. You can’t write about the American Revolution without talking about how the Enlightenment thinkers (who are in high vogue among today’s “right”) influenced people like Jefferson. You can’t write about the Russian Revolution without talking about how Marxism presented a utopian ideal to Lenin and Trotsky. The only history books out there with a definite “leftist slant” I can think of is Zinn’s “People’s History of the United States,” which happens to be one of the few that tried to avoid a “state slant.”

I agree with Jack that history books (at least those covering the past 200 years) have a “liberal” slant, but only because the history it covers showns a world growing progressively more “liberal.” (I like to put “Liberal,” “conservative,” “left” and “right” in quotation marks because those terms are hopelessly charged with bias For example, I refuse to put European social democracy anywhere close on the same political political spectrum as Soviet communism.) Maybe in 100 years or so, when every mover and shaker of the Goldwater-Reagan-Bush era is long gone, history books will show a more “right” slant to reflect the thinking of those who were in power at the time, regardless of the thinking of the the leadership around us in the year 2105.

Jack, thanks for your response and elaboration. Yes, of course, Islam is a different religion than Christianity. Yes, the history of Islam is different from that of Christianity. And you are absolutely correct in placing religion in context of the society/nation and historical period in which it exists.

Christianity as practiced (secretly) in Russia since Stalin was a very different Christianity than was practiced in England during the same period. But that is the point, isn’t it. Religion and the practice of it is conditioned and shaped by the society-historical period and all of the myriad events occuring in that period.

And that was my point. Islam can be a religion of peace, tolerance, and mercy, just as Christianity can be a religion of torture, oppresion, and war. It depends far more on the social and historical context than it does on the seminal founding text of the religion.

Politically correct (to tie this into the topic) is also defined by the context. Take the statement: “The uneducated, uncaring, and non-voting people who identify with this political are a dead weight on the democratic process.” Now this statement is prima facia true. Now consider this statement made before a Republican rally by a noted liberal speaker, or vice versa. Political correctness is defined by context of speaker and audience to a large extent and has nothing to do with newspeak of 1984.

That is why it was prudent for the TV station to remove the show host to see if his statement hurts ratings and costs the station advertising dollars. Now if Rush Limbaugh made that statement, ratings would probably increase. Context is primary in defining political correctness.

Steve, very astute observation. I agree.

Newspeak is political correctness. This is a candid observation I am making. In newspeak certain phrases are not allowed to be said, therefore they cannot be thought. It seems that there is some conspiracy going on here… how it becomes impossible to be critical of multiculturalism.

Consider this:

(From the Telegraph) Teacher who challenged multiculturalism had to sacrifice his job

Fear of being labelled racist has helped to ensure that few have dared to put their heads above the parapet and challenge the orthodoxy that Britain is a multicultural nation and must behave like one. Ray Honeyford, a Bradford headmaster, was one of the first and most significant critics to challenge publicly multiculturalism’s central tenet that all cultures in Britain are equally valid and no single tradition should be dominant.

As the head of Drummond Middle School in Bradford, where 90 per cent of pupils were Asian, Mr Honeyford was concerned about the consequences of encouraging children to cling to their own ethnic group rather than integrate.

In a series of articles published in the Right-wing Salisbury Review in the early 1980s, he criticised Bradford city council’s policy of educating ethnic minority children according to their own culture, predicting that the move would create divisions between white and Asian communities.

Again, this is a candid observation I a making. I used to think multiculturalism was a GREAT thing how it enriches, but… it is awkward how many who are critical of it are punished.

The thing you are missing is that proper Newspeak is a deliberate tool toward some political end. What you keep describing is a byproduct of another goal; unless you can tell us what nefarious plot the british government is cooking up with all this “multiculturalism”.

I agree that censorship is bad, but in the case of political corectness, censorship is an unintened (and yes unfortunate) side effect; whereas in newspeak censorship is the original objective.

If you really believe it to be newspeak, you should be looking into how the government is manipulating us with their PC rhetoric (what is their goal- how does it make the party in power stronger). But it looks to me like you are making PC out to be something bigger than it actually is.

We should be talking about how to address the touchy subjects avoided by political correctness that you mention, but to be sniffing around for some alterior motive behind it will be a fruitless hunt if you ask me.

Islam can be a religion of peace, tolerance, and mercy, just as Christianity can be a religion of torture, oppresion, and war. It depends far more on the social and historical context than it does on the seminal founding text of the religion.

The Social and historical context is key. To bring yet another great western religion into this discussion, the above points to why many Jews (in Israel and throughout the world) have grown increasingly frustrated with the course of Judaism. Now that the Jews have political and cultural control of a state (Israel) actions in the name of Judaism have caused significant problems for the culture. Look at the still unresolved problem how how Israel should deal with the presence of a large Arab community under its control, and how that has affected Israel culture.

Does anyone notice that the most visible forms of newspeak we have are the administration tinkering with the name of their private accounts proposal and with the War on Terrorism? Also note the attempt to recast Rove’s error as trying to correct an error. Whew!

Mike T. one does not start a nation importing slaves from India or Africa, and after the nation has expanded to prosperity, turn around call for non-multiculturalism. That is bigotry and racism no matter how you scrape its surface. A nation that builds its prosperity on the back of immigration and slavery, has absolutely no defense for calling for uni-culturalism, in my humble opinion.

Such nations made their bed, now they need to sleep in it without violating their own Constitutions protecting individual rights, including the rights life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which includes perserving and celebrating one’s ancestral culture if one chooses. Anti-multiculturalists in such societies, seek to breach the most fundamental of social contracts, their own Constitutional protections of individual and collective group liberties (remember rights to assemble - that includes cultural groups like Italians and Irish and Germans as well as Africans and Mexicans and Indians).

Mental Whimp, Newspeak has been a part of American government since the beginning with the depiction of American Indians as savages and slave labor from Africa as “too dumb to be educated or literate”. These were blatant uses of Newspeak to remove the truth of the humanity and potential of humans we sought to exploit.

And yes, it is alive and well in the Whitehouse today; though in much more sophisticated and only slightly less obvious ways. The depiction of illegal Mexicans being a primary cause of rising health care costs is just one example. The actual data and research indicate that illegal immigrants have a negligible effect on health care costs.

PC is a big red herring that gives Republicans another way to bash liberals. According to them we have a liberal media, liberal pundits, liberal academicians. The whole world is getting progressively more liberal.

I wish it were so!

Liberals stand for free speech. Don’t go picking instances in Australia or even in some colleges in the U.S. Overall, liberals stand for free speech. Did you ever hear about the ACLU? They fight for civil liberties and free speech for everyone - including conservatives.

Republicans are against the ACLU. Why? Because only what Republicans say is PC. ACLU contradicts the president. Imagine that. No self-respecting Republican can put up with that. ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK.

Republicans celebrate Ann Coulter. She wrote a book calling all liberals traitors. 1984 indeed. You don’t like anyone, call them names, repeat insults, demonize them.

Another hero of the Republicans is Karl Rove. I guess all his smearing fits in with this 1984 view of the world Republicans have.

Republicans, not Democrats, have a standard line, dished out daily by the White House. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and others repeat this standard line, and everyone who disagrees is branded the horrible epithet of “liberal.”

When you bring up this guy who calls Islam a terrorist organization, you go too far. Not only is this ridiculous, it is hurting our prospects for winning the so-called “war on terror.”

If a liberal had made such statements, Republicans would call him a traitor.

Just like Muslims, Christians and Jews have been terrorists. Christians gave us pogroms against the Jews and Crusades against Muslims. Jews indulged in terrorism to help found Israel. However, all religions preach love, community and cooperation with others.

Why pick on the bad, when you can concentrate on the good? This is one way of encouraging the good. President Bush insists that most Muslims are peaceful. This is one of the very few things I agree with him on.

Why don’t you choose the path of peace? Stop picking fights with liberals and maybe we can get over the so-called “polarization.”

David

Good point. But never has it been more ubiquitous, from the more menial roles to the larger goals of the new world order.

p.s. Note this definition of wimp.

Mental Wimp, my apology. All this time, I thought you were a humble person, not prone to bragging or excesses. Now I find you are just like all the rest of us. : - )

I started to read a book by Ann Coulter the other day… It started out talking about how all liberals live in thier parents basements and don’t have jobs. It continued in that vein before I put it down in disgust.

Wow.

What kind of crap is that? This is the woman that quite a few Republicans celebrate? Anybody celebrates this woman? She was so full of hate and venhemence for everyone who didn’t agree with her. Everybody who doesn’t agree wqith her to the T is wrong, as though anyone’s opinion can be wrong.

Now, I’ve never called myself a liberal or a conservative. I might be one or the other, but I’m not really sure since I never considered it of importance to look into what other groups thought in order to find out where I stand. I’ve been told by quite a few people that I have mainly Republican conservative stances on alot of issues. (Welfare, for instance. My money is my money and I don’t earn it to support anyone else… But if I had quite a bit of it, I personally wouldn’t mind giving a hand up to someone else who wasn’t able to make their way as well as I have. I do not, however, believe that my generosity should be mandatory for everyone.) But I don’t believe that I’ll praise anyone who writes with the hate that she does.

Sorry to be off-topic but wow, I was shocked with the writing style of Ann Coulter.

Umm, in relation to your comments about using the defintion of terrorism to describe the whole religion of islam. Consider the old testament which both jewish religion and christian religions come from, gods anger and rage shows through these pages. vengence etc are all shown for the reader to absorb in a religious tense. how is this different, these arent the words of a prophet, these are the words and actions of the diety himself. think about it.

Newspeak is the attempt to drain language of it’s ability to mean anything but the literal, and a fictional one at that. It’s meant to stand for all the doubletalk that political parties use in order to minimize uncomfortable thinking and dissent.

But I’d say there are strains of Kafka and Conrad here too. These past few years have been surreal in the lengths this president will go to admit things aren’t going right. Particularly worthy of Kafka is the redefinition of the rise of the insurgency to the advent of our “flypaper” strategy for dealing with terrorism. I mean God, admit that things have gotten out of control. Don’t say that we’re letting the terrorists overrun the place because of some brilliantly subtle strategy. If you can’t admit the loss of control, you can’t ask for help to recover from that loss of control, and you lose control further.

PC is a big red herring that gives Republicans another way to bash liberals.

Thanks Paul. And I see that some of the people here whining about PC censorship are the same ones who shouted, “Racist!” when I described John Roberts as a cracker. The hypocrisy level on this side always amazes me.

David,

“Christianity as practiced (secretly) in Russia since Stalin was a very different Christianity than was practiced in England during the same period.”

Sorry to pick a quote that was so far up the thread, but this piqued my interest.

Christianity as practiced by Baptists in this country is different than that practiced by Lutherans, or Episcopalians, or Catholics in this country.
Recent times would suggest that there are fundamentalists within all sects of all religions. The basic ideas are the same but the belief systems are quite different.

Mike T,

I don’t get it.
The Republicans have been in power for how long?
Why is this even an issue?
I would have thought that the first thing on the agenda would have been to send the thought police packing.

How about a little humor first thing in the morning.

http://accstudios.com/f/synopsis1.htm

“Liberality For All

Synopsis:

America’s future has become an Orwellian nightmare of ultra-liberalism. Beginning with the Gore Presidency, the government has become increasingly dominated by liberal extremists.

In 2004, Muslim terrorists stopped viewing the weakened American government as a threat; instead they set their sites on their true enemies, vocal American conservatives. On one dark day, in 2006, many conservative voices went forever silent at the hands of terrorist assassins. Those which survived joined forces and formed a powerful covert conservative organization called “The Freedom of Information League”, aka F.O.I.L.

The efforts of F.O.I.L. threaten both the liberal extremist power structure and the U.N.’s grip on America, the U.N. calls F.O.I.L. the most dangerous group in the world. It seems the once theorized Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has now become a reality.

The F.O.I.L. Organization is forced underground by the “Coulter Laws” of 2007; these hate speech legislations have made right-wing talk shows, and conservative-slanted media, illegal.”

Mike there’s your Orwellian nightmare come true.

Jack-

“Imagine Christianity without the reformation, the enlightenment, the growth of democracy and the scientific revolution.”

Try reading Orthodox Alaska by Michael Oleksa

David-

“Christianity as practiced (secretly) in Russia since Stalin was a very different Christianity than was practiced in England during the same period. But that is the point, isn’t it. Religion and the practice of it is conditioned and shaped by the society-historical period and all of the myriad events occuring in that period.”

Cultures may change and/or differ, but the Christian faith remains the same.

‘Eastern’ Christianity survives in Russia after communism as it has survived in Eastern Europe and the Middle East under Muslim rule, in Africa under western colonists and Israel under Jewish rule.  Eastern Christians have been marginalised, subjugated, persecuted and anhilated for millenia… lacking somewhat in the crusader/conqueror/terrorist/insurgent type actions of Judaism, Islam and western style ‘christianity’.  The societies we live in definitely have their effects as can be seen today in former Soviet areas influenced by western and islamic societies. Many will leave the faith, opting for whichever religion affords greater power in their new societies.  But just as in Africa and the Middle East, ‘Eastern’ Christianity will survive.

jo

Jo, what they believe in is not in question. How they practice and what values they prioritize in the name of religion are conditioned by the social/historical context. Religion is about a whole lot more than faith. Faith requires no congregation, no church. Faith only requires access to the word and a decision to believe. The Church on the other hand is also about wealth, assets, jobs, politics, etc. etc. and these are influenced heavily by the social/historical context.

Rocky, I wasn’t referring to denominational differences, though your point is valid. I was referring to the absence of political power by the Church in the USSR during that period. The Church became an underground movement often opposed to the state, but powerless to alter the state. The Church in the USSR during that period maintained the seeds of revolution and stood as a potential threat to Communism, though it never had the power to act until Gorbachev’s and Yeltsin’s reforms. The Church towed the party line for all intents and purposes and sanctioned the crime and corruption of society by Russian Communist leaders. In fact the Church in places acted as the hub of the black market enterprises, fostering further corruption in society by lay folk.

AP:

I havent heard any credible poster defend your use of the word “cracker” in trying to define John Roberts. I’m amazed that you see it in the context of PC, when its just simple racism raising its ugly head. That you try to condone your comment by considering its use to be anything other than racism is simply a reach.

Racism and political correctness are two vastly different things. That you don’t understand that gives me new insight into the level of your commentaries. That you try to justify a racist comment in any way gives me new insight into your creativity and intelligence.

Whatever

OK, let’s lay this to rest.

For “racism” to mean anything, it must be coupled with power and exist in a historical context of oppression. AP calling a white person a “cracker”, or anyone using that “epithet”, is pretty meaningless, considering white people have never been disciminated against in this country. Or arguably any country.

So quit being such crybabies. Calling someone a “cracker” has little social significance aside from irony, and therefore, it’s funny.

Now let’s get back to the topic of this thread.

Whatever? That’s it? That’s the best you can do?

Kudos to you Joe!
Anybody that can silence the far left from making any more idiotic statements even for a brief moment has my vote!

“white people have never been disciminated against in this country. Or arguably any country.”

Then what do you call affirmative action?

Another topic at another time maybe.

I agree let’s get back to the topic.

Oh, lord. I’m too tired to educate you on this one, Kevin. Save it for another topic.

Educate me. That’s funny!

I was kicked out of the UAW for going to lunch with a black man. Put what ever tag you want to on it.

Dictionary.com defines racism as “discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race.” Unless AP is not caucasian, the term “cracker” can’t be considered to be racism because it’s applied to a member of the same race.

Back on the topic: “Iraq. War on Terror. 9/11. Iraq. War on Terror. 9/11. Iraq. War on Terror. 9/11. Iraq. War on Terror. 9/11.” Now that’s Newspeak.

David,

How they practice and what values they prioritize in the name of religion are conditioned by the social/historical context.

Eastern Christianity is not contained by a single political/historical base (or head as in the west) and so not as easily influenced by such factors.

 In the name of religion

Please cite an example of Eastern Orthodox Christianity advocating forced conversion, slavery or armed revolution in the past two millenia. The Russian church under communism is a great example of newspeak. The Church did not become an ‘arm of the state’, only what portions (key clergy) the state itself appointed after wholesale slaughter of many clergy. The Church is not the wealth, assets, jobs and politics. The people are the Church. Not everyone was able to flee the country or go underground but the Church does not easily forget their priest nailed (crucified) to the door of their parish nor confuse that priest with what the state set up in his place.

The patrairchs of the Eastern Church, while not abandoning the flock in Russia, also recognised the “Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia” during these times— granting them autocephaly and jurisdiction until such time as they can again be reunited with those remaining in Russia. The fact that there are still elements of the societ regime within the Moscow church (and still in the habit of doing what they can to silence ‘liberal’ priests) is the greatest hinderance to reunification talks as well as the continued splintering happening today in the Ukraine.

access to the Word

Unlike the west, the eastern Christians have a tradition of teaching, not hiding, the faith from the people. Literate or not there is no excuse in the eastern church not to know the values and principles taught by Jesus. Note the extensive use of icons (aka the gospel in color) by the Church of the east. Manuscripts and printing presses may not have always been available, but in every culture there are people who can draw and tell stories. The people of the Church are taught to know how to abound and how to be abased… to wait peacefully and endure suffering as Jesus also suffered. Those areas however both under the soviet regime and influenced by western and islamic influences have sadly taken up the western/islamic mores and values of such viloence that i personally have trouble recognizing them as Orthodox anymore.

Newspeak, imposed by either the state or a powerful segment of society, is for all intents and purposes cencorship and an attack on liberty.

jo

Jo said: “The Church is not the wealth, assets, jobs and politics. The people are the Church.”

If you are talking Jehovah’s Witnesses, I might buy that yarn. But, looking at the 100’s of millions the Baptists control, or the 100’s of billions the Catholics control, you can’t even begin to convince me the church is nothing more than the people and the faith. The Church/Synagogue/Mosque/Temples constitute the largest oligopoly in the world unrivaled by any corporation in existence. And that’s a verifiable fact.

Jo, as for the rest of your comments about Russia and Orthodoxy, I agree with direction and conflicts you recite. Your comments seem to reflect the premise made earlier that the church is a product of its social/historical context. Even the faith has been shaped by such forces. In the US, just 100 years ago, nearly anyone you asked in America would tell you the Bible was the direct word of God.

Today, less than half of America would make such a statement, acknowledging the science of libraries and manuscripts forensics which depict the words of Jesus as handed down generations and translated numerous times, and even altered with transcriptions resulting in differing versions and depictions. Hardly the direct word of God for a majority of folks.

And yes, like all power, whether it be that of the church or dictators, power corrupts and newspeak is a penchant of humans used to keep hold of power. G. Orwell’s book is all about the corrupting behaviors of power to protect its hold on power. Newspeak is but one of many.

David,

Yes, where there is more than one person, there will be politics. 

The conciliar governance and catholic (universal) reach of the Eastern Church however is not only an effective block against polictical/societal ‘shaping’ of the faith (being as such disparate cultures simultaneously embrace the same faith) it further has proved a stalwart fortress in making us a difficult target to paint.  (Note the Jerusalem Patriarch)

One bumper sticker in America puts it like this, “Orthodox Christiahity: disorganized religion at its finest”

jo

ps the east has never taught the protestant version of the Bible being the direct word of God. Rather, the Bible is man’s witness of God’s revelation to and within man’s hearts and lives.

Mike T-

It’s been a few years, but, yes I remember newspeak- the idea being that in a completely repressive society it is a crime to use certain words and expressions that don’t agree with the government. Worse yet, do you remember “doublethink”? One step further than newspeak, a “thought crime!” Speak newspeak long enough and you can even get to the point where you don’t even think original thoughts if they fail to coincide with government thoughts.

George Orwell would have enjoyed the first Matrix movie, a post orwellian horror along the same lines.

Thank God we still have the ability to express our feelings, thoughts, opinions without fear of intimidation.

-Monica

Anybody that can silence the far left from making any more idiotic statements even for a brief moment has my vote!

LOL! I thought this post was supposed to prove that liberals wanted to silence idiotic statements from the right. This whole thread is quite amusing. The hypocrisy factor is through the roof! :)

AP,
What’s truly funny is how a liberal can accuse anybody of hypocrosy. Your liberal champions (Kennedy, Boxer, Pelosi, etc.) are the masters of hypocrosy!

Kevin,

And of course you know this as fact not just mere speculation, right?

You ask:
“is what Professor Fraser said untrue? Are these comments irresponsible and unfounded? Or is Professor Fraser really speaking the truth of what an intimidated majority would say?”
Well let’s see the evidence. My understanding is that Professor Fraser is commenting outside his area of professional expertise. I appreciate he’s probably a pretty bright fellow - but so far I haven’t seen any research to back up his statements. I smell some pungent rascism in his comments.

So, are you ready to kick some liberal ass?

I am an avid listener of Michael Graham on my favorite talk radio station, 630 WMAL. I heard part of the show concerning Islam and although I don’t believe Michael Graham is right, he should not have been suspended. I have many criticisms of Islam, but saying Islam is a “terrorist organization”. I just cant buy that. We in America, however, value and pride ourselves in our free speech. And talk radio is an honorable medium of free speech. Enough with political correctness. If people are offended by Graham’s comments, he will be punished by lower listenership and a tarnished reputation, but he should not have been removed by the immediate supplier of his Washington-wide free speech: WMAL.

Tim,

“If people are offended by Graham’s comments, he will be punished by lower listenership and a tarnished reputation, but he should not have been removed by the immediate supplier of his Washington-wide free speech: WMAL.”

So if the sponsor had yanked it’s comercial support for his show, and asked for him to be fired, would you see it as an affront to Mr. Grahams free speech?