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.

EXTRAORDINARY

    Perplexing matters are just ahead but first we marvel. 

    You are looking at snow, an extraordinarily uncommon sight here on California's central coast.

    In northern San Luis Obispo County the Santa Lucia mountains run from about 1,700 to 3,700 feet though they get taller as they climb toward Big Sur. We are a Mediterranean climate and snow is rare.

     By standards practically anywhere else this is not a lot of snow and they pale as snow capped peaks, but they were a shock to the system as I gazed out of the window while sipping coffee. 

     The jolt was more incongruous since these are the scenes we've been viewing since the rain has abated.

     Bee boxes so they and the birds can do their spring magic.

      Grazing slopes with an abundance of grazing material.

    The snow was gone by late morning and a warming trend is expected.

OOPS

      Who to feel the most sorry for-The Moonlight crew, La La Land's happy and celebrating crowd or Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway?

       Oscar history there. You can imagine the conversation over the production crews ear phones, or in the network offices, or the ATAS office. What a header and plummet of emotion on one hand and bizarre ascension to the top on the other. Maybe the Russians hacked something!

Stooge Patrol

      Donald Trump and his minions should know their obituaries will be written by journalists. 

      The game the White House is playing with restricting access is foolish. But it is also the sort of thing dictators, strong men thugs and Russians do. Combined with his childish "fake news" retorts and his labeling the free press an "enemy of the people" it is also a jab in the eye of a free and open democratic republic. As we have noted "enemy of the people" is an old Russian communist tool designed to silence free thought. 

      Over the weekend I was published on the New York Times on line site raising the concern that Trump treats his followers as a movement and they respond as such, getting further out of the mainstream of American political behavior and history. They disregard the truth, are willingly mesmerized by a con man and ignore the unprecedented amateurism, missteps and blunders. One could question if they and Trump are not the true "enemies of the people."

    This photo of Stephen Miller has been discussed and dissected for several days now. The photo is real, but there is disagreement about whether he is throwing the white power salute sign or is simply fiddling with his coat while doing a television interview. 

      People who know him say he's off the deep end and has been for years. They sight his odd political thoughts while in college and his behavior since. His recent statements have convinced many he's a fascist and white nationalist. He's part of the Bannon gang. What do you think?

     See you down the trail.

SPLASH OF RED AND KEEPING SPEECH FREE

splash of red

Stolo Winery, Cambria CA

left overs

 "Griffin Park" Park Cambria

Free Speech?

      Speech is getting less free, a threat to our way of life.

      A federation of damnable causes conspire against free speech but stopping the repressive advance will be a challenge.

      First we must eliminate philosophical reference points. This is not a conservative vs liberal issue. Anyone who values the core of our democratic republic supports our Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment and its implications.

     Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

     If it is Constitutionally guaranteed then we must protect against attacks including those that come culturally. The threat exists in an attitude and a growing fascism, even if disguised.  

pc

     An example is PC, political correctness. Years ago it may have been born of a desire to be sensitive, to even recognize past discrimination, repression and accrued wrongs. But that was then. I heard a conservative friend observe recently "liberals and so called intellectuals especially college professors" were the greatest practitioners of political correctness to stifle free speech. He was partially right and largely wrong.

      No true liberal or no real academic would sign on to the silly practices underway in some of academia. Those who would impede speech are fascists, even if they shun that label.  

      In academia and in the church, nothing should be off the table, everything, regardless of its nature should be open for investigation, study and discussion. In a democratic republic we tolerate even the stupid and reprehensible. Wisdom and good judgment will be the antidote to that which is deplorable. We do not set up "guardians" of thought or study. That is what fascists do.

      In some places in America are those who demand a right not to be offended. Who do they think they are? 
      No one wants to be offended but in the rough and tumble of political debate, intellectual study or theology there are no restraints. Nothing is off limits. If these bright minds who whimper about "not being offended" would give it even a moment of thought they might see that under those rules almost nothing could be discussed or studied because about anything could offend someone. A right not to be offended means someone will control someone else's speech. That is fascism. 

     Schools, parents or academics who permit this mollycoddling are dong their children no good. The idea of "trigger alerts" or micro aggressions" are an intellectual dishonesty and a head in the sand self absorption, the practice of a weak and self indulgent society. Those who advocate such tripe need to speak with academics, clerics and journalists who try to leverage truth and reality in most nations on this planet, where it is not so free. 

religio fascism

     There is also the fascism that comes in a religious garb.

Perhaps the deadliest example are those practitioners of a virulent form of fundamentalist Islam. Writers, filmmakers, journalists and political activists have been targeted and killed because they dare "offend" Islam. Examples are the Charlie Hebdo killings, or the murder of Theo Van Gogh.        

     No one of faith wants to see their object of reverence or belief demeaned. While it may be repulsive, a standard of free speech demands the rights of speaking freely even if the intent is to offend. A democratic republic that values the freedoms that set us apart is strong enough to allow the profane and offensive, even if directed at our most sacred.    
     We don't condone merely because we tolerate. But the Islamist who stabbed to death the Dutch filmmaker who made a program about the abuse of Muslim women was quoted as saying he "could not live in any country where free speech is allowed."
     This is not an abstract problem. Satirists and more serious commentators are afraid to lampoon Islam. They are afraid of the violence that may befall them and they are afraid of being   labeled intolerant. For either reason there is a chilling effect on speech. No other religion practises such intimidation or intolerance to their critics-serious, comedic or even pathetic.

chilling or muting

    Controversial or dissenting theories or works are frequently held back in fear for one's career. To challenge a revisionist theory of history, or the self aggrandizing of someone in say a feminist or minority studies program for example could lead to scorn and crowd sourced derision. Look what happens when a Caucasian accuses an African American of being a racist. Preposterous perhaps, or not, but a serious discussion in a vein of free speech cannot ensue.
     Consider the damage done to the reputation of Duke athletes wrongly accused and maliciously prosecuted. Certain Duke professors jumped on and ganged up with a moral viciousness though they were dead wrong. The attempt to counter that rush to judgement got others in trouble with the fascist crowd. 
     This threat to free speech comes across several strands of American culture-politics, media, corporations and of course academia. The problem is not confined to the U.S.
The Economist says it is a British problem as well. Here's a quote from the Economist
       "Academics who think education requires the free flow of ideas are appalled. 'A university is not a "safe space,"' tweeted Richard Dawkins, a biologist at Oxford. 'If you need a safe space, leave, go home, hug your teddy and suck your thumb until ready for university.'"
     If a nation says it is free, then it must assure freedom and the liberty to speak one's mind, regardless of view. To quote a classical Greek idiom that has been around and oft quoted we need to "...call a spade a spade." Any attempt to control honest expression is dead wrong.

    See you down the trail.