Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (263360)	6/12/2002 4:16:23 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HIS INITIALS ARE PC etherzone.com By: Jim Moore Where did this strange animal Political Correctness come from? Never in our history have we had to be afraid of what we say, write, and do. We must not bow to that fear. Since PC tries to restrict our freedom of expression, it is imperative that we learn everything we can about it. In an address to academia in 1998, writer Bill Lind dissected PC from top to bottom. What Lind said is so vital, I will try, with implicit permission, to give you a capsuled version of the five points he made. First, political correctness is cultural Marxism. Although it's everywhere, this socialistic idea is most evident on college campuses, where crossing the line set up by sainted "victims" groups gets you in deep trouble. PC also thrives on lies. Let's say you're told that a certain fact is true. But reality contradicts that. So reality is forbidden, to make the lie seem true. And the power of the State is used to keep the lie alive. That's why political correctness creates a totalitarian state. Second, PC, like Marxism, uses a single factor to explain history. Marx uses economics. PC uses power. The power is determined by which groups have power over the other groups. With political correctness, nothing but power has any significant meaning. Third, with PC, certain groups are deemed to be "good". These groups, such as feminist women, blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, etc, are considered "victims", therefore "good"-- whether they are or not. White males, of course, are the bad guys. Their "evilness" is equivalent to the wicked bourgeoisie in economic Marxism. Fourth, both PC and Marxism take from one to give to another. (Or keep for themselves.) You can clearly see this at work in quotas, preferences, affirmative action, and other illegal transfers of assets from one group of citizens to another. The nice word for it is expropriation. The more accurate word is stealing. Fifth, both political correctness and Marxism have a method of analyzing situations which automatically gives them the answers they want. This devious little process is called Deconstruction. Which simply means taking one text, removing its meaning, and re-inserting any other meaning desired. George Orwell did a beautiful job of this in his chilling novel, 1984. "Newspeak" gave opposite meanings to common words: War became Peace, Slavery became Freedom, Ignorance became Strength. Orwell had unknowingly described political correctness when he defined the principle of Newspeak. "The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of INGSOC (English Socialism), but to make all other modes of thought impossible." Make all other modes of thought impossible! That bit of tyranny appears to be the objective of the PC crowd. And if that's true, it's the worst form of treason because it undermines the most sacred bastion of freedom we have: freedom of thought. And no true American should hold still for that.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (263360)	6/12/2002 4:36:55 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

MEDIA WHORES ONLINE: RIGHT WING PRESS SHOWS NEAR TOTAL LACK OF SKEPTICISM ABOUT PADILLA CASE mediawhoresonline.com WING-NUT WOUND-UP No Skeptics On Right Over Padilla Affair "Huge Victory," Shills Lucianne's Boy While most of the mainstream press and commentariat, including The New York Times's Maureen Dowd, expresses a healthy skepticism over the great Bush ballyhoo about the alleged "dirty bomb" caper, the right wing is out there cheering, as best it can. Leading the pack, not surprisingly, is Lucianne's wuzzums, Jonah Goldberg, who has precipitously announced that the apprehension of Jose Padilla marks "a huge victory for American intelligence officials." Well, Jonah-boy, that remains to be seen, doesn't it? Michael "Yosemite Sam" Kelly is more measured, acknowledging that it may yet come to light that Padilla is "innocent and should not have been locked away." But that would be fine with Kelly, for whom an ounce of preventive detention in "wartime" is worth a pound of cure. [[RD: Recent CNN online polls shows 75% of Americans agree that's it time to throw out Habeus Corpus rights!]] He writes that Padilla "is accused, based on what is believed to be credible intelligence, of plotting to explode a radioactive bomb in the United States." Note the passive voice. Then get this from Kelly: "No one outside the government really knows what the evidence is against al Muhajir [that is, Padilla]." [[RD: Just like no one knows what the government was doing on 9/11!]] So if nobody knows outside the government, who could believe the evidence is credible -- except members of the government, who aren't saying much? Not to be cynical -- but can't Kelly muster one-tenth of the sense of disbelief about the Bush Administration that he regularly displayed -- no, sprayed -- about the Clinton Administration? Over at the Weekly Standard, managing editor Claudia Winkler taketh away and then giveth the most she can to credit the Bushies. She does mock the FBI and CIA (though not the White House) over "weeks of embarrassing headlines about leads flubbed." Still, she insists, the Padilla arrest "usefully refocuses attention from the errors of the past to present challenges...." MWO agrees, though not for the same reasons Winkler provides. For her, Padilla's arrest announcement refocuses attention on the necessity for "sensible" ethnic profiling and the need for preemptive action. We suspect that the "refocusing" may have more to do with Karl Rove's efforts to refocus attention away from the mounting news of White House and administration incompetence and cover-ups. Which is useful enough -- for Karl Rove.