It begins: The words you ‘can & can’t’ use when discussing Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden

Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden

Just as the case was in 2008, a growing list of Words/Things You Can’t Say When Discussing Hillary Clinton is emerging in time for her ongoing preparations for her to make the official announcement about her second run for the presidency. Good job getting the documentation rolling, Ashe Schow:

Oh dear, someone called former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “feisty” and now ThinkProgress is out crying sexism.

CNN host Christiane Amanpour – a woman, if you didn’t know – said that Clinton “got quite feisty” during her interview Tuesday with Diane Sawyer – another woman (just making that absolutely clear). Wolf Blitzer – who is not a woman – agreed, and also said the word “feisty.”

This sent ThinkProgress into a tizzy (wait, is that sexist?) and allowed the liberal website to bring up a 2012 “guide” from the Women’s Media Center that details more than 100 words and phrases that are apparently sexist.

Feisty is one of them. How is feisty sexist? Well, the WMC claims the word is “normally reserved for individuals and animals that are not inherently potent or powerful.”

[…]

Other words that are apparently sexist include “aggressive,” “brunette,” “childcare” and “complain.” Even “politically correct” is apparently no longer politically correct.

And don’t forget, we’re also not supposed to talk about La Clinton’s fashion choices or hairdos … unless the purpose is to praise all of the above in the spirit of how her “look” gives off the appearance of power (for example: wearing “power red”).  From a piece I wrote in 2007 on the “controversy” surrounding a fashion column the WaPo published about Mrs. Clinton showing some, er, cleavage on the floor of the US Senate:

As a woman, and knowing many women, I can tell you from first hand experience that when professional women dress, nine times out of ten they’re dressing to impress, I don’t care where they’re working. They also expect to get noticed for how ‘sharp’ and/or ‘stylish’ they’re dressed and, shocker of all shockers, they actually like to receive compliments for what they wear. Now I can guarantee you that if Givhan’s column had been more flattering about the way Hillary dresses, i.e., if she was wearing red, how the color and style she was wearing was a symbol for power, or if it was along the lines of “Hillary is showing some cleavage and leg in a Congress that traditionally shies away from overt displays of skin. You go girl! Break down those walls!” the reactions to that column would have been totally different – especially amongst the liberal women responding to what was written. The fact that it wasn’t a very flattering piece on Hillary’s attire and what it displayed was where Givhan erred – not that she wrote about cleavage per se.

In any event, feel free to add to the list of things you can and can’t say when discussing She Who Wants to be President  in the comments! Can’t wait. #popcorn

Federal govt essentially attempting to force Washington Redskins to change name

Washington Redskins

Should they keep it or change it?

It was only a matter of time:

The Washington Redskins’ logo is disparaging and its trademark must be cancelled, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office wrote in a ruling Wednesday. [READ THE RULING.]

The Redskins will continue to be able to use the name, but the team will not have all the legal benefits afforded to it when it is registered with the federal government.

“Based on the evidence properly before us, that these registrations must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered,” read a ruling from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

“We lack statutory authority to issue rulings concerning the right to use trademarks,” the ruling continued.

The team can appeal the decision in court as it did in the past, and the trademarks will remain registered until after the review. The office made a similar ruling in 1992, but the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia reversed the board’s decision after a lengthy litigation process in 2003.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) cheered the decision, going to the Senate floor to call for the team and its owner, Daniel Snyder, to end its use of the “racist” name.

“Daniel Snyder may be the last person in the world to realize this, but it’s just a matter of time until he’s forced to do the right thing and change the name,” Reid said.

Reid has led a public charge against the Redskins name, most recently organizing a letter calling for the team to drop the name.The letter was signed by 50 Democratic senators.

[…]

The petition was brought by five Native Americans in the case Blackhorse V. Pro Football, Inc.

More from the left wing peanut gallery:

“Today’s actions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are in line with longstanding rules on the treatment of disparaging or offensive names,” Pelosi said in a statement. “While we respect the right to free speech, slurs have no right to trademark protections.

“The team that represents our nation’s capital should be a source of pride to all Americans. It’s long past time for the Washington football team to choose a new name.”

Frankly, it’s none of Congresses’ freaking business what the Washington Redskins call themselves, but because it’s the politically correct thing to do – and because apparently Democrats don’t have any issues more pressing than this (/sarc) to deal with, they threw their weight behind this case and are using every trick in the book short of political blackmail (and that’s debatable) to force the team to change their name.

No matter what side of the argument a person is on on this issue, the bullying and threats by Democratic members of the United States House and Senate should appall everyone, as should any attempts at mandating by force of law a private dispute over a non-life or death issue between two groups that could have been settled without government interference .  It’s a sad day in America when a issues like these that can and should be resolved or compromised on in the private sector by the two disagreeing factions is forcibly decided by the federal government – aided and abetted by Congressional bullies.   The death of common sense, and the demise of right and wrong, continues.

(Via Memeorandum)

QOTD: Cosmo doubles down on the fail in response to “icky” self-defense comment

Women friends toasting with shots at a bar

Ladies, please be safe.
Image via HuffPo.

In case you were thinking that Cosmopolitan magazine was going to dial it down a notch or two in the aftermath of the outrage and disbelief over comments one of their managers made in response to Miss USA’s remarks on self defense in the context of campus rapes, think again. Cosmo sex editor Anna Breslaw stomped her feet and churned out this head-scratcher:

During the question-and-answer portion of the Miss USA pageant, 24-year-old Miss Nevada Nia Sanchez, who took home the crown, said she believed some colleges might sweep campus rape under the rug to prevent bad press. Sanchez, a fourth degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do, added, “more awareness [of the issue] is very important so that women can learn to protect themselves … You need to be confident and be able to defend yourself. That’s something we need to start to implement for a lot of women.” 

[…]

Self defense isn’t icky, and anyone with a fifth-grade reading comprehension level can understand that’s not what Elisa was saying.  

Actually, yeah – it was:

I get that the college sexual assault problem can’t be solved in 30 secs but still icky to pretend like self defense is the answer. ” – Elisa Benson

Can’t get much more plain that that.  And as I noted in my prior piece on this issue, she was far from the only one.

Breslaw went on:

What is icky is the idea that we’d pour the entirety of our time, energy, and federal funding into training every 18-year-old girl in America to be jacked, gun-toting Lara Crofts rather than, oh, I don’t know, teaching boys not to rape or shaming college administrators for not taking sexual assault allegations seriously. 

What’s “icky” is Ms. Breslaw assuming that most people who did a double take at Ms. Benson’s remarks believe there’s only room for one solution.  Also “icky” is her implicit assumption that boys aren’t taught from a very early age to respect women. Disturbing is her obvious belief that if respect is taught then it automatically means that a young man won’t grow up and eventually hurt a woman.   We can and should drill it into the heads of every single one of them that respecting women is not optional, but that doesn’t mean on down the line he’s going to abide by that. 

Which is where self-defense comes into play.  Fortunately, Breslaw is on board with women learning self-defense. Sorta:

Self-defense is a fantastic thing for every woman (or man) to have under their belt — in fact, experts say would-be attackers are often deterred by the confident manner in which women educated in self-defense carry themselves — but this limited view of campus sexual assault prevention perpetuates dangerous myths about sexual assault and shames victims for not adequately “preparing” to defend themselves against rape. It’s the same mentality as blaming sexual assault victims for wearing provocative clothing and therefore “brought it upon themselves,” rather than blaming their attackers for the actual assault. 

Do me a favor and please re-read the bolded part of the above paragraph.  Then digest it.  Self-defense “perpetuates myths about sexual assault” and …. “shames victims” for not preparing to defend themselves?? SAY WHAT? She actually thinks promoting self-defense is the equivalent to those who snidely say “but she was wearing a short skirt so she was asking for it”?   And it “shames” women who have been victims of sexual assault? In what  universe does Ms. Breslaw reside?  One wonders if she’d say that exact thing to victims of sexual assault who take up self-defense training and who tour and give speeches promoting that very thing as a very useful tool in preventing an attacker from doing a woman harm?? Good grief!

She says she believes all this but yet wants you to think that she harbors a “big tent” approach to the issue combating violence against women that includes incorporating self-defense into the mix? I don’t think so.  Here’s the shorter version of Breslaw’s ridiculous argument:  ‘Let’s not emphasize self-defense because we don’t want to risk hurting the feelings of women who have already become victims. In fact, let’s put the onus for trying to stop future assaults entirely on “society” rather than try to educate women on how to better protect themselves.’  Maybe that “solution” would work flawlessly in Breslaw’s Feminist Utopia but here in the real world, the reality is that there are bad people out there and no matter how much we try and communicate that it’s not ok to hurt women, those who want to WILL.

Rape is more of a crime of opportunity than it is some guy hiding in an alleyway waiting for you to walk by. With increasing frequency, a rapist is more likely to be someone you know or are otherwise somewhat acquainted with, perhaps casually, than not.    Either way, it’s best to be prepared for any situation.  Travel in groups.  Hold tight to your beverage of choice at all times.  Don’t binge drink. Do not walk to your car alone at night.  Lock your car doors and windows – and the doors and windows to your house.  Do NOT answer the front door if you don’t know who the person is or if they just make you uncomfortable.   Do not get into a car with a man you don’t know.  Do not be free-flowing with personal information about yourself (such as where you live and your phone number) with guys who you’re just getting to know.  The list goes on and on.

It goes without saying but I’ll repeat it anyway: You could do all of the above and then some and still end up a victim of a sexual assault – and if it does happen, it is imperative that you understand that it is/was NOT your fault. Unfortunately, there is no “fool-proof” way of avoiding the possibility of something happening to you.  But you’ll lessen the chances of it happening if you take precautions.  We tell young kids they can’t walk half a block to the store alone because someone might snatch them.  We instruct teenagers to run away if someone they don’t know approaches them in a vehicle. These are common sense precautions that no one ever thinks twice about. Why would anyone on earth hesitate to make sure women are given the vital tips they need in order to try and avoid becoming a victim of a violent crime, in addition to continuing to educate young men that they must respect women?

Unlike Ms.  Breslaw, I don’t speak out of both sides of my mouth.  I really do believe we should do everything we can to prevent future assaults, not just by continuing to instill values at a young age to boys (and girls) that they should respect each other, but also by trying to ensure that women have every available tool at their disposal – both knowledge and physical power – to protect themselves.  Nothing “icky” or shameful about it. The phony, warped political correctness behind Breslaw’s “but we’re shaming victims by doing this!!” mentality only serves to create more victims of rape down the road. She might be ok with that, but I’m not.

U. of Minn. students urge school officials to drop racial descriptions in crime alerts

Political correctness

Another one from the ”you have got to be kidding me” files.

Just unbelievable. Via WCCO (hat tip):

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – School officials at the University of Minnesota are working with black student and facility organizations after they wrote a letter to the school’s president about the racial descriptions given in crime alerts.

The letter, sent on Dec. 6, 2013, was issued by members of the African American and African Studies, Black Faculty and Staff Association, Black Graduate and Professional Student Association, Black Men’s Forum, Black Student Union and Huntley House for African American Males.

It was directed to University President Eric Kaler and Pamela Wheelock, the vice president of University Services.

Students and staff mailed the letter more than a month after the campus went on lockdown because of an attempted robbery at Anderson Hall on Nov. 11, 2013. University of Minnesota Police wrongfully identified a student as the suspect.

On Tuesday, school officials reported there have been 25 robberies in and around the University, an increase of 27 percent over the last few years.

The organizations wrote that while campus safety is crucial, the profiling can be devastating for black male students.

“[We] unanimously agree that campus safety should be of the UMPD’s utmost importance; however, efforts to reduce crime should never be at the expense of our Black men, or any specific group of people likely to be targeted. In addition to causing Black men to feel unsafe and distrusted, racial profiling is proven to inflict negative psychological effects on its victims.”

At Wednesday’s forum, Ian Taylor Jr., president of the Black Men’s Forum, said members of his organization feel threatened when the use of a racial description is given in the crime alerts.

“The repeated black, black, black suspect,” Taylor said. “And what that does it really discomforts the mental and physical comfort for students on campus because they feel like suspicions begin to increase.”

Welcome to what the absurdity of political correctness hath wrought, and how the “culture of victimhood” – as perpetuated by opportunistic liberals – plays out in real time.  We must provide LESS information about a suspected criminal to students and the police because we don’t want to cause anyone “discomfort”!  Sure, let’s put lives at risk so we don’t offend anyone. Can you believe this garbage?  This level of PC “sensitivity” can and probably has gotten people hurt and/or killed.  You give EVERY BIT OF DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION YOU CAN when a suspect is on the loose so he or she can be reported, caught, and hauled in for questioning. Eliminating crucial information about his or her physical description can prove to be a devastating hindrance to law enforcement – and compromise the safety of students, faculty, and others.

Fortunately, the university agrees and has pushed back – for now:

On Jan. 27, 2014, a formal letter was issued by Wheelock.

[…]

“I firmly believe that a well-informed community is an asset to public safety…I believe that sharing more information in our Crime Alerts, not less, is most beneficial in terms of public safety, especially when that information is available.

The information we share can include a complete description of suspects, unique identifying characteristics such as an accent or a distinctive piece of clothing, or the description of vehicles involved.

We have reviewed what other Big Ten Universities and local colleges and universities include, and our practice of including the race of a suspect when it is available from a victim’s description is consistent with their practices.”

The Daily Caller provides an interesting side note to all of this:

If the university did put an end to its practice of considering race in crime alerts, it would be an ironic exception to campus policy. UM practices affirmative action, and considers an applicant’s race when deciding whether to admit. 

The Daily Caller reached out to the Black Men’s Forum at UM to ask whether the group supports an end to racial considerations in admission as well as in crime alerts. The group did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Why am I not surprised?

Scientific journal shut down for questioning man-caused global warming. Updated

**Posted by Phineas

"In the name of Gaea, burn, heretics!"

“In the name of Gaea, burn, heretics!”

This isn’t science; this is the return of Lysenkoism, where all research must conform to the Party line.

Background: The journal Pattern Recognition in Physics was founded ten months ago to research patterns discovered throughout the physical sciences. In a special issue published in 2013, the editors, many of them noted climate change skeptics, opined that the data published in the issue cast doubt on the claims of accelerated anthropogenic global warming put forward by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the “Vatican” of the climate alarmist movement.

And for this heresy, the journal was shut down:

Copernicus Publications started publishing the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) in March 2013. The journal idea was brought to Copernicus’ attention and was taken rather critically in the beginning, since the designated Editors-in-Chief were mentioned in the context of the debates of climate skeptics. However, the initiators asserted that the aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines rather than to focus on climate-research-related topics.

Recently, a special issue was compiled entitled “Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts”. Besides papers dealing with the observed patterns in the heliosphere, the special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project” (Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205–206, 2013).

Copernicus Publications published the work and other special issue papers to provide the spectrum of the related papers to the scientists for their individual judgment. Following best practice in scholarly publishing, published articles cannot be removed afterwards.

In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our  publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors.

Therefore, we at Copernicus Publications wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal as well as the malpractice regarding the review process, and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP. Of course, scientific dispute is controversial and should allow contradictory opinions which can then be discussed within the scientific community. However, the recent developments including the expressed implications (see above) have led us to this drastic decision.

Interested scientists can reach the online library at: www.pattern-recogn-phys.net

Martin Rasmussen
January 2014

The bolded portion shows the editors’ real crime, whatever else Mr. Rasmussen claims (1): they had the temerity to question the dogma of the IPCC.

I don’t hold a PhD, or any advanced degree in the sciences, but I know enough to know this is not the scientific method, which does not just encourage skepticism and probing questions, but positively demands it. To say now that the IPCC’s hypothesis cannot be tested, that the “science is settled” and that if you dare question the Holy Writ, you will be silenced, is an absolute disgrace. The only question in my mind is whether the publisher, the ironically named “Copernicus Publications” was guilty of “noble cause corruption,” or was simply afraid of the wrath of the Warmists.

Regardless, this inability to accept disagreement as legitimate is a common feature of the progressive mind (2). Having discerned The Truth, all questioning must be stopped. If you doubt the The Truth, you are stupid at best or evil at worst, but you cannot be intellectually honest and have honorable motives. Think about it: do you criticize abortion on demand? Then you must want to enslave women and be some sort of religious fascist. Do you express doubt about the welfare state? You must hate poor people. Do you worry about the integrity of our elections and think requiring identification to vote would be a good idea? RACIST!!!

Express even the mildest doubts about the IPCC’s claims, and you will be silenced.

Whatever this is, it ain’t science.

But MiniTrue would approve.

via Jo Nova

Footnotes:
(1) In her post, Jo notes that the paragraph on “nepotistic bias” seems to have been added after the notice’s initial publication. It’s a darkly funny accusation, given the widespread corruption of the peer-review process, particularly within climate science.
(2) Happens too often on the Right, too, but, in that case, it’s a bug. For progressives, I contend, it’s a feature.

UPDATE 1/20/14: At Watt’s Up With That, perhaps the best known of the AGW-skeptic sites, Anthony Watt’s looks at PRiP‘s shutdown and finds blame on both sides and some validity to the “nepotistic bias” or “pal-review” accusation.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Future of Duck Dynasty show on A&E in limbo as Robertson family fires back

Duck Dynasty

I stand with Duck Dynasty.

You’ve heard all about the “controversy” surrounding Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson and his comments about homosexuality (and other sins, which is ignored in all this). As a result, the elder Robertson was suspended from being filmed in future episodes while A&E mulled their options. Well, the Robertson family has responded, casting doubt on the future of the show – at least in terms of whether or not it will be on the A&E channel, anyway (bolded emphasis added by me):

We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support.  The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E’s decision.  We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word.  While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Phil would never incite or encourage hate.We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right.We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm.  We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty.   Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.

Good for them.  This “outrage” surrounding this is just the latest in a long line of examples where political correctness has absolutely gotten out of control.  Phil Robertson is an older man – a southern Redneck – who is never going to come across filtered nor polished, and who speaks of things through that prism, and no matter the “coarse” way he spoke it, what he said about Biblical scripture as it relates to ALL sin was absolutely true.

Have we really come to the point in America where talking openly about sin is, oddly enough, blasphemous? I guess so, if the sin we’re talking about is homosexuality.  This is fascinating, considering the intolerant, bigoted, anti-Christian gay left (who we can blame for how this escalated) always complain that Christians only single out homosexuality when talking about sin. Well, in this case, Phil Robertson didn’t – he spoke of all sin, and for that, he was called a “liar” by GLAAD and other gay left groups who have deemed themselves the arbiters of what is and isn’t sin and what should and shouldn’t be discussed in the public sphere as it relates to it.  My personal opinion is that these types of groups can, quite simply, kiss my a**.

How did we get to the point where discussion of sin so openly – especially homosexuality – has become virtually taboo? A number of things: First, political correctness, which is the root of much of the problems we deal with today.  We can’t talk openly and candidly about a number of issues out of “fear” of “offending” someone (but it’s ok to offend Christians, of course).  As a result of having to ignore reality in favor of a sanitized version of “how things are”, these issues – like the welfare state, for example – continue to get worse, and in turn make more and more Americans resentful of each other.  Secondly, left wing advocacy groups who, as I described earlier, think it’s their right and moral obligation to control both the narrative and the parameters of the debate.  America has largely let them – again, out of a fear of “offending”, and as a result any pushback against these groups is characterized as “hateful” “mean-spirited” or “intolerant – or all of the above.

Thirdly, and perhaps most disturbingly, is the rise of well-meaning high profile pastors who preach a filtered, neutered version of the word of God, omitting the concept of sin as they attempt to be “inclusive” types who welcome “diverse groups” into the church. I’m a strong proponent of using new ways to attract people into the church, but not if it comes at the expense of ignoring or glossing over sin.  Without sin, there might as well be no Bible at all. Because teaching the Bible without focusing on sin equates to the belief that there are no consequences for sinful behavior in the future, and Bible-believing folks know better.

And so does God, of course.

Anyway, what does the future hold for the TV show Duck Dynasty, a show grounded in Southern traditions and the Christian faith – something A&E knew full well and good well in advance of the debut of the show? Only the Robertson family can make that decision, but I pray that they remain faithful not only to their Christian beliefs but also to the family patriarch Phil. Because backing down even one inch against A&E and the perpetually offended gay left would just add another nail in the coffin of honest public debate, not to mention would continue to perpetuate the myth that openly talking and preaching about sin is wrong.  We’ve gone down the wrong road on this for long enough.

Sunday NFL Football Open Thread: #Rams at the #Panthers – plus #Redskins commentary

Carolina Panthers

Grrrrrowwwlll!

The 2-3 Carolina Panthers had an impressive win last week over the Minnesota Vikings and are hoping to bring their season to .500 with a home game win today against the 3-3 St. Louis Rams. It’s a perfect fall day for some football here in Charlotte, with sunny skies and where temperatures are supposed to be in the upper 60s.

Game time is at 1 pm ET and it will be broadcast locally on Fox.

In related football news, Washington Post reports that two DC radio stations are refusing to play ads calling for the Redskins to change their name:

As the debate over the name of Washington’s football team grows louder, one of the more vocal groups on the issue has found itself unexpectedly silenced.

The Oneida Indian Nation learned Friday that the radio ad it had scheduled to run in Washington this weekend as part of its national “Change the Mascot” campaign, will not air. A representative of CBS Radio Washington cited increased discussion around the name as the reason for pulling the ad from two of its stations, WJFK and WPGC.

“Based on the amount of on-air debate, adding paid commercials from one side is not something that we think is beneficial for this discussion and for our audience,” Steve Swenson, senior vice president of CBS Radio Washington wrote in an e-mail that was provided by the Oneida Nation to The Post.

WJFK, or 106.7 The Fan, bills itself on its Web site as “the radio station for D.C. sports fans. Our opinions are unbiased and unfiltered, and we never hold back.”

The New York-based Oneida group, which has emerged as one of the strongest forces in the name-change push, advertised on both stations at the start of the season. The one that was supposed to run this weekend was titled “Legacy” and questioned the one Redskins owner Daniel Snyder would leave. Snyder defended the name in a letter to fans last week.

“By changing his team’s name Mr. Snyder can create a better historical legacy for himself — one of tolerance and mutual respect, not of racial epithets,” Oneida representative Ray Halbritter says in the ad. “Native Americans do not want their people to be hurt by such painful epithets. We just want to be treated as what we all are: Americans.”

Friday, Swenson confirmed that the stations would not be running the ad this weekend.

Thoughts?

Bob Costas #Fail: Sports commentator denounces #Redskins nickname

Washington Redskins

Should they keep it or change it?

Right in the middle of the Sunday night football game between the Redskins and the Cowboys.  Via Fox News:

Bob Costas of NBC Sports waded into the controversy over the Washington Redskins nickname Sunday night, devoting a commentary to the topic at halftime of the nationally televised game between the Redskins and the Dallas Cowboys.

“Think for a moment about the term ‘Redskins’ and how it truly differs from [other team nicknames based on Native American images],” Costas said. “Ask yourself what the equivalent would be, if directed [at] African-Americans. Hispanics. Asians. Or members of any other ethnic group. When considered that way, ‘Redskins’ can’t possibly honor a heritage, or a noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term.

“It is an insult, a slur, no matter now benign the present-day intent,” Costas continued.

The Redskins were playing for the first time since President Barack Obama told the Associated Press in an interview last weekend that he would “think about” changing the name if he owned the team. Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, who has previously vowed never to change the name, responded by sending a letter to season ticket holders claiming that the name was “never a label. It was, and continues to be, a badge of honor.”

You can watch the video of Costas’ remarks here:

Did it ever occur to the hot shots at NBC Sports to allow a “counterpoints” segment to any of Costas’ left wing rants? Of course not. That would mean people having to judge for themselves between two contrasting opinions rather than telling them what to think, and – oh no – we canNOT have that anyone thinking for themselves. :(

If you’d like to let NBC Sports know what you think, make sure to post a comment on their Facebook page, Tweet them, or email them.

Related/Flashback: Say Anything Blog – 5/31/13 – CBS Columnist: Indians Who Like The Washington “Redskins” Nickname Are Uncle Toms

Seattle: Do not say “brown bag” or “citizen,” for they are offensive and, yes, racist

**Posted by Phineas

"Even the monkey is embarrassed"

“Even the monkey is embarrassed”

Once again, I’m relieved to know my beloved California doesn’t hold the West Coast monopoly on moronic political correctness. In Seattle, aka “San Francisco North” (1), the city Office of Civil Rights sent a memo around to Seattle employees and… Well, read on, but try not to hit your head against the tabletop too much:

The memo went on to offer politically correct alternatives that could be used in official documents and discussions.

‘Luckily, we’ve got options,’ Elliott Bronstein wrote in the internal memo, according to Fox News. ‘For “citizens”, how about “residents”?’

Mr Bronstein defended the ban on a Seattle radio station, and said that the term ‘brown bag’ had historically been used as a way to determine skin color.

(…)

To avoid bringing up its racist connotations, city workers in Seattle must now use ‘sack lunch’ or ‘lunch-and-learn’, according to Komo News.

Oh, for Pete’s sake. The memo says some workers were offended by the use of “brown bag” because it reminded them of a test for acceptable skin color used more than 50 years ago, and so obscure that I bet 90% of the nation hasn’t even heard of it.

You know what? “Mickey” and “Mick” were mildly offensive terms for Irishmen many years ago. My ancestors were Irish, and so this offends me. I demand everyone in Seattle with those names immediately stop using them.

But wait, there’s more!

They must also replace ‘citizen’ with ‘residents’ because many people in the northwest city are not U.S. citizens.

‘They are legal residents of the United States and they are residents of Seattle. They pay taxes and if we use a term like citizens in common use, then it doesn’t include a lot of folks,’ Mr Bronstein said.

According to City Data, 94,952 – or 16 per cent – of the city’s inhabitants are foreign, with most coming originally from Asia.

Call me a reactionary racist hater, but I thought “citizen” was a term of honor, something one aspired to become. It not only meant that you lived in a place, but that you that you had a special stake there in its governance, its prosperity, and, indeed,  in its fate. It was part of your identity.

The ancient Greeks took pride in being citizens of their city-states; Roman citizenship was a mark of distinction, something non-citizens sought to earn. Tens of millions have come to America over the centuries, leaving behind their old lives and striving to become citizens here.

And yet now for Seattle’s government, a government founded by citizens, “citizen” has become a word to be shunned for fear of giving offense.

This is another expression of the vapid multiculturalism the Left finds so attractive: not only that all cultures are equal, but that to assert any special distinction on the part of one’s own culture is somehow arrogant and chauvinist, something to be condemned. In fact, it’s a denial of American culture or civilization, for how is this culture defined and set apart? Not by land or language or religion, unlike much of the rest of the world, but by a set of shared ideals, among which is the concept of citizenship, of being a “citizen.”

Something which, in Seattle, is apparently a bad thing.

RELATED: At Legal Insurrection, William Jacobson discusses brown bags, chinks in the armor, and other weapons of control wielded by the Language Police.

Footnote:
(1) Or is that title held by Portland, now?

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Iconic firefighter photo almost excluded from 9/11 memorial exhibit

**Posted by Phineas

"Patriotism. How gauche."

“Patriotism. How gauche.”

Because, you see, it’s too “rah-rah American”:

According to Elizabeth Greenspan, author of the up coming book Battle for Ground Zero (St. Martin’s Press), Michael Shulan, creative director of the 9/11 Memorial Museum, thought about cutting the famed photo from Ground Zero of three firefighters raising the American flag amidst the rubble of the World Trade Center…because he thought it was too “rah-rah America.” Shulan said, “I really believe that the way America will look best, the way we can really do best, is to not be Americans so vigilantly and so vehemently.”

The “problem” was eventually solved by adding other pictures, “to undercut the myth of ‘one iconic moment…'”, according to the museum’s curator. See, the lone image was just too simplistic, hiding the complexities and meaning of what happened that day.

Just what part of nearly 3,000 Americans being massacred by Muslims waging  jihad is too simple for you, Mikey? What complexity, what nuance, what other perspective is lacking? The jihadists’? Point-of-view shots from the cockpits as the planes were about to slam into the towers? Should you have included a plaque of the text of Bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa declaring war on us? That would introduce some of your beloved meaning, letting the al Qaeda leader explain in his own words why 9/11 was only justice for our crimes, how we’re as much to blame by making them hate us. And who is to judge who is right? Complexity! Perspective! Meaning!

I hope you’ll forgive this simple American for being too “rah-rah,” Michael, but that single image carries more layers of meaning than I suspect you, trapped in a decadent, nihilist multiculturalism, could ever understand.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)