CROSS CURRENTS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

     Sometimes it's all about how you see it.  

about the labels

     A preposterous misunderstanding is roiling through the American body politic, weaponizing words and good intentions. 

     The phrase is political correctness. If you are interested there is a study of the origins and how it has become a cudgel in cultural debate.

      The short course is this; at its origin it was used in the 1940's in debates about "proper" political dogma in communist discussions about Stalin. The point was to divine the "correct" party line. Stalin slaughtered "incorrect" opponents in massive purges. The phrase was a marginal concept known only to those who  studied communism or socialism. 

      Scholars say the phrase gained some usage in the early 1970's when Tony Cade Bambara wrote in The Black Woman:An Anthology "...a man cannot be politically correct and a male chauvinist too..." 

      In the early '70's progressives and feminists began to use the idea of political correctness as a way to avoid offensive speech, phrases and ideas. It was a kind of code to raise sensitivities about things that once had been acceptable but were no longer. It was an age of combating segregation, sexism, and speaking of people as "retarded," "cripples," "spics" "beaners" "Wops" "Jewing down the price" "chicks" and you can supply your own list. Old traditions and ways of speaking, seen in modern light, were as offensive as "colored" drinking fountains, red lining in banking, sexual harassment of women in the work place, sitting in the back of the bus or discrimination of any sort. Offensive and illegal traditions and old ways were considered politically incorrect.

       The phrase went from there to being almost a satire of itself. Sensitive and even insensitive people began to use it as a lighthearted lampoon about all manner of thing. It became a kind of sarcasm and joke, especially among those pushing for change. Still it was not widely used and certainly not part of the daily lexicon. 

       At the same time colleges and universities began to adjust curricula adding courses in feminism and the changing racial, ethnic and cultural diversity. Traditionalists, who did not like the way culture was changing, were unhappy. One of those was Allan Bloom who wrote The Closing of the American Mind in 1987. He railed against liberal philosophy and the changing of American education. In tying together the evolution of education and the change in the face of America he used the phrase political correctness as a pejorative. The phrase began to get more mileage, mostly from conservative or right wing ideologues who were opposed to the changing standards, culture and times.

       In the early 90's the word became weaponized. It became a code word for liberal, or liberal politics, progressives, changes in curriculum, education, or those who pushed against sexism, racism, and discrimination. What had been a word used mostly among academics became a red meat word and a political hammer used by conservatives. It was as if they had a flame thrower to scorch all ideas they opposed. Right wing think tanks dumped a lot of ink and time in using the word as a discrediting tool. Liberal ideas could be destroyed if they were labeled as "political correctness."

       It is only fair to mention there is also a conservative correctness. The most virulent form is book banning, or seeking to censor film, television, video games and other creative enterprise. As a small example, cafeterias in the US House of Representatives changed French Fries and French Toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast when France opposed the US invasion of Iraq. Members of the Freedom Caucus in the House remain some of the most adamant attackers of ideas they oppose by means of condemnation using "politically correct." Trump has taken up the tool twisting it to "fake news" and "enemy of the people."

true words

    By most accepted definitions CONSERVATIVES are those committed to traditional values and ways of doing things and are opposed to change. Conservatives favor free enterprise, private ownership and socially conservative ideas. Conservatives favor as little government as possible, especially at the federal level. Conservatives are somewhat averse to change. They believe government should protect private property. Conservatives believe there are too many regulations and too much government interference in business. They oppose government changing culture.
          
       LIBERALS are open to new ideas, opinions and intellectual liberty. They favor progress and believe in the essential goodness of people. They favor protection of civil liberties and believe government is responsible for correcting social inequities in race, gender and class. Liberals believe government should protect individual liberty. They favor free trade. Liberals believe government regulations should protect individuals from the abuses of industry and corporations. 

       Now, I'm sure almost everyone, regardless of where you align, will find something you think I got wrong. I'm simplifying. And over the years the manifestations of liberal and conservative philosophy and politics have morphed.  

       free speech

       As an absolutist on the first amendment I understand that right wingers can zing liberals and if they choose liberals can zing back. That is part of the rough and tumble of our system. But as a journalist, I'm a stickler for getting it right and using the right words.  

       Even Bill Maher, a liberal snarkster, got it wrong. Like right wing ideologues he points to recent campus disturbances where a speaker has been barred, cancelled or denied a right to speak because, he said, of "liberals" in academia pushing political correctness.  Bull shit, to use a word understood on both sides of the spectrum. 
       Liberals don't deny free speech, fascists do. Anyone who advocates denial of a right to free speech, no matter how offensive or politically weighted, is not a liberal or an intellectual conservative. 

       Someone at a university who may fancy themselves a progressive or a liberal and who would agitate against the appearance of a speaker, film, production or whatever just lost the right to call themselves a liberal. The function of their behavior is fascism or totalitarianism. They would deny an individual civil liberty. They can gripe and protest, but not deny-that disqualifies them.

      A conservative who would seek to deny the right of someone to speak certainly betrays an adherence to traditional values. What can be a more traditional value than the bill of rights? Conservatives can gripe and protest as well, but not deny.
      The bottom line is simple. Those who seek to deny full access to the rights of the first amendment should be called what they are, fascists. Sorry if this pulls the steam out of a favorite conservative charge. Sorry if this unnerves some professor who fancies herself or himself a "progressive" or liberal. It's time for the media to get it right and to be precise. 
       This is the age of information. Accuracy matters. And besides that, there should be nothing considered off limits in the realm of academia or the church. If you can't consider or study something, controversial, challenging to your ideas, or even an evil, in the halls of academy or a place of faith, then what's the point? What's the value? You might as well turn off the lights, go home and devolve into superstitious, uninformed, science rejecting, close minded barbarians burning those books or dissertations in bonfires.

celebrating mother

    Pulling in an evening blanket...of fog.

     This years crop of fava beans. Frequent readers know of our fondness for this labor intensive crop. You can read Romancing the Fava here. With this fullness of growth it is for the first harvest. 

  Green Space Cambria celebrating mother earth in a beautiful green space. 

                         

O really?pt 2

     Bully mouth Bill O'Reilly may show up someplace else, but his banishment from Fox News was good to see. You have to wonder though when Fox News founder Roger Ailes and his superstar are dumped because of sexual harassment, how much can you trust what comes out of that sort of culture, especially on matters of women's rights, health, income equality and even sexual harassment in the work place? Fair and balanced?
      Then consider right wing radio and web screamer Alex Jones who has launched some of the most absurd theories and "facts" who now says it's only performance art. You wonder if those on the right who feed on Fox, O'Reilly, Jones and Limbaugh are feeling less secure in their "rightness" since their pantheon are dirty old men with feet of clay? 
And we include in that audience the predator in chief. Dirty Donny feeds on Fox and was a frequent guest on Alex Jones. That's no fake news. Just a fake president.

       See you down the trail.

FREEDOM COULD MEAN STUPID and REAL EXOTICS

NOTHING OFF LIMITS

prickly yes-pampered no

     Case in Point

     Considering matters of intellectual and academic freedom, we start with a related anecdote.

     The Governor was growing increasingly angry. He was upset with the questions and unhappy being on camera. 
     He told me I should not ask him again. I did. He said I was out of line and if I did not stop he would leave. I asked again. He stood up and started to bolt for the door. The lavaliere microphone, still attached to his tie, caused him to jerk back at the end of the tether.

      "You'll ruin that nice tie Governor. Why don't you cool off, sit down and answer the questions?" I said as photographer Steve removed the camera from the tripod and walked toward the Governor, tape rolling.

       "You cannot treat me this way! I am the governor."

He glared at Steve now zoomed in on him. "Is that camera on?" he barked.

       "Yes it is. You are loosing your cool. Why don't you just answer the question?" I asked again.

        "I order you to turn off that camera," he pointed furiously, now free from the mic. "Do you hear me?"

        "Governor, you can't order us to turn off the camera. We just want you to answer our questions."

        "I order you as the governor to turn that camera off."

       There was more exchange as he and an aid bolted through our conference room door and started down the hall, Steve and I in pursuit, camera on. He was yelling I couldn't treat him that way, he was the governor.

      As he bounded down the stairs toward our lobby he boomed we could never use the video on the air. I said that since he was an elected official we could ask him "any thing, anytime, anywhere."

      And that's the point. More in a moment after a final word on the furor. It blew up a storm of controversy and news coverage from other media. The confrontation was on a Friday evening.  On Monday morning the State Board of Accounts sent an Auditor to the television station for an unscheduled audit and investigation. 

       I was reporting a story on how state supreme court justices were selected and the influence the governor had. It was not an unfair or unnecessary question, but that is another matter. 

       In our democratic republic freedom of speech is a foundational right. To that end all of us should be able to speak and inquire freely. I hold to the idea that if someone is elected to represent the public interest they are indeed on notice to answer any question anywhere. They're paid by taxpayer dollars so any taxpayer, they need not be a reporter with a camera, can ask and should expect an answer to their question.

       Extending that premise, such rights and extension of free speech should certainly apply at state schools. In fact nothing should be off limits in academia, even that which some might consider offensive, if for no other reason than others might not consider it offensive. There is a better reason. It's not the tone or offensive nature of something that matters-what matters is the very nature of intellectual inquiry which must be free and unbounded. It is troubling that Universities have sought to soften the hard nature of inquiry by limiting what can be discussed or by requiring warnings. Please permit me a couple of legacy expressions, "poppycock and balderdash!"

       The University of Chicago is praised for leading the way to how it should be in academia. The University says it is not right for a school to shield students from opinions or ideas they find disagreeable or even offensive. 
        Purdue University, led by a former political logician and thaumaturge, also seeks to extend intellectual freedom to consider and study on a broad latitude and there is an encouraging twist in this. 
        Mitch Daniels as a Governor criticized Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the United States. As a University President he probably hasn't changed his opinion, but understands academic polemics is different than political conjuring. In the world of study all ideas have a seat at the table and they survive or perish based on merit. 

       It is sophomoric and unsophisticated to satirize or mock religious figures and sacred images yet a free society blessed with freedom of expression can tolerate such "offenses" under the guise of creativity. One may be self indulgently outrageous but we draw the line at desecration and destructive or violent behavior. However in the realm of a place for the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, ideas and words exist in a state of pure freedom.

      Civility, intellect and knowledge are great stages upon which bad ideas destroy themselves in light and under the preponderant weight of enlightened examination.
       And so we may end up with ridicule.

A STUPID CLAIM WE MUST ENDURE

   As another case in point, the anti immigration Californians for Population Stabilization has begun a campaign blaming California's drought and water restrictions on immigrants, especially those from Mexico.

     Laughable, except those who hold those views walk and drive amongst us. In our arena of free speech and thought they are entitled to their voice and their critics are entitled to calling them stupid. 

     I wonder if some are not trying to turn the evolution of human intelligence machine to reverse.

EXOTICS

    The annual Succulent show in San Luis Obispo brought other worldly sights from the earth. 

     See you down the trail.

DOES IT MATTER?-NSA AND FREEDOM-CURIOS AND A THROWBACK

DOES IT MATTER?

       First Amendment rights are being challenged by an information gathering surveillance function of the NSA.
       The First Amendment protects and therefore guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press and the right to assemble to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

VIEW AT YOUR OWN RISK

CURIOS AND KNICKKNACK'S

 Curios are rare objects of value.  Knickknacks are odd, small and supposedly worthless household items. 

 THROWBACK TO LATE 70'S

   Hanging out with Elliot Gould who was passing through on a promotional tour.  Yep that's a chef's jacket I'm wearing. WNAP FM, where I was a newscaster, would frequently choose a location, set up a tent and cook breakfast for anyone who stopped by. We frequently created massive traffic jams.  On this day the crowds were even larger.

   See you down the trail.