The MSM has left this story unreported. It obviously does not forward the narrative tht israeli’s are bad and Palestinians are good, and that Palestinians are just poor, downtrodden but otherwise good souls who are being treated badly by the evil Jooooo oppressors.
I’ve linked to Borepatch for this story, because he tells it better than I could. I can’t type when I’m this upset and angry. My soul aches for these poor people.
It seems that they are celebrating in Gaza over this. I guess they really feel like infants are valid targets in their fight for freedom.
Of course, the reporting of this in the MSM, when it was even reported at all, ran the gamut of biased reporting – referring to the Jooos as “settlers” instead of as “the Fogel family” and not commenting on the fact that most of the evil Joooos killed in this were under 6 years old, one of them was only three months old. Real victory for the Palestinian cause, there, huh? There was also a general reluctance to comment on the race and breeding of the Paleoswinian bastards that did this.
The worst headline of all, thanks to Ace over at AOShq, was the following:
Israelis suspect Palestinians in settler killing.
Indicating that there was no proof that it was paleoswinians that did it, and that it was just the evil Zionists blaming Palestinians unfairly for the killing, and going on the offensive without proof. This, of course, ignores the reality, which is that the Muslim Brotherhood actually took responsibility for the killings and celebrated them - dancing and handing out candy in the streets of Jerusalem
Showing posts with label Political Correctness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Correctness. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Update on MLK Parade Bomber - Spokane, WA
So after my long-winded rant about jumping to conclusions, it turns out that the news’ conclusion that the perp was a white supremacist was correct after all. It still doesn’t change my opinion that jumping to that conclusion was the wrong thing to do, because it doesn’t change the fact that the entire suspicion was based on speculation (and hope that it wasn’t another Muslim thing).
It is sort of like how I do not really respect Sherlock Holmes as being a great intellectual, as so many are wont to do, because he doesn’t really solve his cases by logic or deduction, he just makes assumptions based on very little evidence, sticks by those assumptions, and then invariably finds out that he was right all along. That isn’t reason or logic – that is luck. Same thing goes here. Just because they ended up being right does not mean that they did the right thing.
It is sort of like how I do not really respect Sherlock Holmes as being a great intellectual, as so many are wont to do, because he doesn’t really solve his cases by logic or deduction, he just makes assumptions based on very little evidence, sticks by those assumptions, and then invariably finds out that he was right all along. That isn’t reason or logic – that is luck. Same thing goes here. Just because they ended up being right does not mean that they did the right thing.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Enterprise Videos
I don’t really know what is considered “conduct unbecoming an officer”, but I wonder…
It was hardly mentioned that these videos were produced largely as humorous, but useful guides for sailors, bearing titles such as “The Hazards of Shore Leave” and various other things. It makes me wonder if the production of such videos was actually part of the job of the XO of a Naval Vessel, and if the only questionable thing was that he presented these topics using gross, offensive humor instead of the military’s drab and boring usual tactic (“VD, and YOU!). Perhaps this might have even gotten the message across a little better than a drab infomercial on the topic would have.
I’ve read multiple articles on this, and have read about how “distasteful” and “obscene” and “offensive” these videos are, and yet, the only things that were described as being any of the above in any of the articles were as follows:
A.) He made a jerk-off motion with his hand. This is seen on national broadcast TV constantly, so I fail to see the big deal here.
B.) The video included an improvised proctologic exam (not showing anything, mind you, just insinuating it). I’ve seen proctologic exams discussed and even enacted on no less than a half dozen shows – Seinfeld, Family Guy, Blue Collar Comedy, and so forth.
C.) The video showed two women, and then two men, in showers together, showing them only from the shoulders up, but insinuating that they were naked. Any soap commercial on broadcast TV will give you far more viewing pleasure that just some shoulders.
D.) Probably the biggest deal – the XO used a derogatory word for homosexuals in one of his monologues. Again, any number of shows on TV do the same thing on a nightly basis, but this one is a little tougher because this guy is undoubtedly the boss of (probably) a number of gay people, so I agree that this one was totally out of line.
I guess I need to watch the videos to really see if the stink is worth the ink, but so far, I haven’t really seen anything here that would warrant this guy getting anything more than a stern reminder that he shouldn’t use slurs as the captain of a naval vessel, whether racial, sexual, or otherwise.
All-in-all, I think what was described was quite a bit milder than your usual, run-of-the-mill episode of Family Guy – I really don’t see the big deal. If it helped morale at all on board the ship (which I’ll bet it did, aside from a few whiney types who were “offended”) then I would think that the end justifies the means and more power to him. I’d be interested to see how many, of the 5,800 on board, were really offended. I’d also be interested to find out why, after 4 years, this is just now coming out.
It was hardly mentioned that these videos were produced largely as humorous, but useful guides for sailors, bearing titles such as “The Hazards of Shore Leave” and various other things. It makes me wonder if the production of such videos was actually part of the job of the XO of a Naval Vessel, and if the only questionable thing was that he presented these topics using gross, offensive humor instead of the military’s drab and boring usual tactic (“VD, and YOU!). Perhaps this might have even gotten the message across a little better than a drab infomercial on the topic would have.
I’ve read multiple articles on this, and have read about how “distasteful” and “obscene” and “offensive” these videos are, and yet, the only things that were described as being any of the above in any of the articles were as follows:
A.) He made a jerk-off motion with his hand. This is seen on national broadcast TV constantly, so I fail to see the big deal here.
B.) The video included an improvised proctologic exam (not showing anything, mind you, just insinuating it). I’ve seen proctologic exams discussed and even enacted on no less than a half dozen shows – Seinfeld, Family Guy, Blue Collar Comedy, and so forth.
C.) The video showed two women, and then two men, in showers together, showing them only from the shoulders up, but insinuating that they were naked. Any soap commercial on broadcast TV will give you far more viewing pleasure that just some shoulders.
D.) Probably the biggest deal – the XO used a derogatory word for homosexuals in one of his monologues. Again, any number of shows on TV do the same thing on a nightly basis, but this one is a little tougher because this guy is undoubtedly the boss of (probably) a number of gay people, so I agree that this one was totally out of line.
I guess I need to watch the videos to really see if the stink is worth the ink, but so far, I haven’t really seen anything here that would warrant this guy getting anything more than a stern reminder that he shouldn’t use slurs as the captain of a naval vessel, whether racial, sexual, or otherwise.
All-in-all, I think what was described was quite a bit milder than your usual, run-of-the-mill episode of Family Guy – I really don’t see the big deal. If it helped morale at all on board the ship (which I’ll bet it did, aside from a few whiney types who were “offended”) then I would think that the end justifies the means and more power to him. I’d be interested to see how many, of the 5,800 on board, were really offended. I’d also be interested to find out why, after 4 years, this is just now coming out.
DADT
I am not gay. That is one thing that I can tell you without any reservation or question on my part. The very idea of being gay pretty much takes the wind out of my sails like nothing else could (if you know what I mean). It is gross for me to even think about.
This is why I don’t dislike gays, or in any way consider gayness to be a choice. I could no more choose to be gay than I could choose to be short. I suspect that the same is true for most gay people – they didn’t choose to be gay, because I don’t think that you can choose something like that. I certainly could not – there is just no way. Yuck-O.
That being said, gayness is sort of the essential libertarian dream – two consenting people engaging in an activity that they consider to be mutually beneficial, that harms no other person in any way, and what anyone else thinks about it be damned.
That I couldn’t be gay, and that I consider the concept to be sort of gross, does not cause me to look down on gay people any more than I look down on people who eat raw oysters on the half-shell (another activity that I consider really, really gross). I’ve known a bunch of gay people, and if there was anything that was remarkable about them, as a group, it was that they were really quite, well, unremarkable. They were just people. Totally normal in every way except for who they went to bed with at night. They were each unique, just like everyone else (heh), and possessed a wide range of personalities and mannerisms – just like everyone else.
Yeah, I’ve known feminine gay men who were very light in their loafers and spoke with a lisp about fashion and interior decorating (but this guy isn’t going to be enlisting for military service, now is he?). I’ve also known one gay man who was one of the manliest men I’ve ever met, a CEO of a large company, who hunted and fished and was just like one of the guys – except for he went home with one of the guys at the end of the day. Forget the last part, I’d share a foxhole with that man any day.
My point is this – IF there is a problem with gays in the military, I do not believe that it will be the gays that are causing it. IF that is the case, then gay people should not be punished for the problems being caused by being forced to live in secrecy and with the fear of being “discovered.” The problem lies with those causing the problem, not with gay people, so lets make sure we are punishing the right people, here, can’t we?
This is why I don’t dislike gays, or in any way consider gayness to be a choice. I could no more choose to be gay than I could choose to be short. I suspect that the same is true for most gay people – they didn’t choose to be gay, because I don’t think that you can choose something like that. I certainly could not – there is just no way. Yuck-O.
That being said, gayness is sort of the essential libertarian dream – two consenting people engaging in an activity that they consider to be mutually beneficial, that harms no other person in any way, and what anyone else thinks about it be damned.
That I couldn’t be gay, and that I consider the concept to be sort of gross, does not cause me to look down on gay people any more than I look down on people who eat raw oysters on the half-shell (another activity that I consider really, really gross). I’ve known a bunch of gay people, and if there was anything that was remarkable about them, as a group, it was that they were really quite, well, unremarkable. They were just people. Totally normal in every way except for who they went to bed with at night. They were each unique, just like everyone else (heh), and possessed a wide range of personalities and mannerisms – just like everyone else.
Yeah, I’ve known feminine gay men who were very light in their loafers and spoke with a lisp about fashion and interior decorating (but this guy isn’t going to be enlisting for military service, now is he?). I’ve also known one gay man who was one of the manliest men I’ve ever met, a CEO of a large company, who hunted and fished and was just like one of the guys – except for he went home with one of the guys at the end of the day. Forget the last part, I’d share a foxhole with that man any day.
My point is this – IF there is a problem with gays in the military, I do not believe that it will be the gays that are causing it. IF that is the case, then gay people should not be punished for the problems being caused by being forced to live in secrecy and with the fear of being “discovered.” The problem lies with those causing the problem, not with gay people, so lets make sure we are punishing the right people, here, can’t we?
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Politically Correct Logical Fallacy Alert!
http://www.kxly.com/health/26165726/detail.html
I read this article today. It is about the prevalence of TB in the UK today, which is obviously a symptom of the massive immigration from the middle east that has occurred there, recently. TB is quite a bit more common in the middle east than it is in most western countries.
The politically correct mumbo-jumbo starts right about here:
It only takes one guy bringing it in, getting through health screening, to make it “imported”- but it doesn't matter whether the disease was "imported" or if it was a native - the fact is that it is circulating in immigrant areas, due to the predilection of immigrants to group together in micro-societies within their host country. This means that that community is hit hardest when one person from that same community brings it into the country, or even catches it from a "native" source. This is important. I will grant that the rise is a locally circulating problem, and is not, on a wide scale, an imported problem in the sense that a bunch of infected people are getting through immigration health screening, but here is where we really go off the rails:
Yes, it does. It has everything to do with immigrants, because it is the immigrant community that is being hit the hardest, by your own admission. This problem is an imported problem, whether or not the disease, itself, came from the UK or Timbuktu, because it is infecting "imported" people. It is hanging out in immigrant communities because the immigrants live together and spread it amongst themselves. The more you deny that, the more you will focus on solving the problem by working on the wrong solutions, and the more these poor people will suffer.
Political correctness, and the effort to not offend the immigrants, is making that which is truly an immigrant problem into something else; making an easy to solve problem (better screening of immigrants, and health services concentrating on screening and treating immigrant populations) much harder to solve (the inability to focus on the root cohort that the problem is effecting because of political correctness). This is unspeakably evil, in my opinion, because people will likely die due to a response that will be hobbled by the effort to keep from offending anyone - but at least they will die without being offended.
God damn political correctness, hyper-sensitivity, and all this murdering of people with kindness
I read this article today. It is about the prevalence of TB in the UK today, which is obviously a symptom of the massive immigration from the middle east that has occurred there, recently. TB is quite a bit more common in the middle east than it is in most western countries.
The politically correct mumbo-jumbo starts right about here:
Most tuberculosis cases in Britain are in people born overseas, although not in recent arrivals. About 85 percent of people with tuberculosis have been in Britain for at least two years, meaning the disease is not being imported, but circulating locally.
It only takes one guy bringing it in, getting through health screening, to make it “imported”- but it doesn't matter whether the disease was "imported" or if it was a native - the fact is that it is circulating in immigrant areas, due to the predilection of immigrants to group together in micro-societies within their host country. This means that that community is hit hardest when one person from that same community brings it into the country, or even catches it from a "native" source. This is important. I will grant that the rise is a locally circulating problem, and is not, on a wide scale, an imported problem in the sense that a bunch of infected people are getting through immigration health screening, but here is where we really go off the rails:
"The rise in tuberculosis cases has nothing to do with migration and immigrants," said Alimuddin Zumla of University College London, author of the commentary.
Yes, it does. It has everything to do with immigrants, because it is the immigrant community that is being hit the hardest, by your own admission. This problem is an imported problem, whether or not the disease, itself, came from the UK or Timbuktu, because it is infecting "imported" people. It is hanging out in immigrant communities because the immigrants live together and spread it amongst themselves. The more you deny that, the more you will focus on solving the problem by working on the wrong solutions, and the more these poor people will suffer.
Political correctness, and the effort to not offend the immigrants, is making that which is truly an immigrant problem into something else; making an easy to solve problem (better screening of immigrants, and health services concentrating on screening and treating immigrant populations) much harder to solve (the inability to focus on the root cohort that the problem is effecting because of political correctness). This is unspeakably evil, in my opinion, because people will likely die due to a response that will be hobbled by the effort to keep from offending anyone - but at least they will die without being offended.
God damn political correctness, hyper-sensitivity, and all this murdering of people with kindness
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)