Category Archives: Politically Incorrect
How do you go forward when you know that just like the majority of every generation before ours, the majority of this generation is also going to act like a bunch of stubborn mules holding up the status quo of racism, oppression, and colonialism with their willful ignorance and silence in the face of injustice.
If this generation was born in the 1880s instead of the 1980s, they’d all be sitting on the sidelines while a few “radicals” demanded women have the right to vote. If this generation was born in the 1940s, they’d all be sitting back while “troublemakers” got ketchup and mustard dumped on them at segregated lunch counters.
Bystanders enjoying the fruits of the radicals who came before them.
Reading “Brave New World Revisited” by Huxley. This passage seemed worthy of quoting here.
We see, then, that modern technology has led to the concentration of economic and political power, and to the development of a society controlled (ruthlessly in the totalitarian states, politely and inconspicuously in the democracies) by Big Business and Big Government. But societies are composed of individuals and are good only insofar as they help individuals to realize their potentialities and to lead a happy and creative life. How have individuals been affected by the technological advances of recent years? Here is the answer to this question given by a philosopher-psychiatrist, Dr. Erich Fromm:
Our contemporary Western society, in spite of its material, intellectual and political progress, is increasingly less conducive to mental health, and tends to undermine the inner security, happiness, reason and the capacity for love in the individual; it tends to turn him into an automaton who pays for his human failure with increasing mental sickness, and with despair hidden under a frantic drive for work and so-called pleasure.
Our “increasing mental sickness” may find expression in neurotic symptoms. These symptoms are conspicuous and extremely distressing. But “let us beware,” says Dr. Fromm, “of defining mental hygiene as the prevention of symptoms. Symptoms as such are not our enemy, but our friend; where there are symptoms there is conflict, and conflict always indicates that the forces of life which strive for integration and happiness are still fighting.” The really hopeless victims of mental illness are to be found among those who appear to be most normal. “Many of them are normal because they are so well adjusted to our mode of existence, because their human voice has been silenced so early in their lives, that they do not even struggle or suffer or develop symptoms as the neurotic does.” They are normal not in what may be called the absolute sense of the word; they are normal only in relation to a profoundly abnormal society. Their perfect adjustment to that abnormal society is a measure of their mental sickness. These millions of abnormally normal people, living without fuss in a society to which, if they were fully human beings, they ought not to be adjusted, still cherish “the illusion of individuality,” but in fact they have been to a great extent deindividualized. Their conformity is developing into something like uniformity. But “uniformity and freedom are incompatible. Uniformity and mental health are incompatible too. . . . Man is not made to be an automaton, and if he becomes one, the basis for mental health is destroyed.”‘
I was reading an article by Chomsky about the election, and he mentioned something about the investment theory of party competition by Thomas Ferguson. So I looked that up on wikipedia and it made a lot of sense.
Basically, we, the general electorate have very little say. The “issues of the day” that our politicians throw to us are merely crumbs while events, like bailouts, happen no matter which party is in power. Quite depressing. Every year that passes, I understand more and more why my father hoped that I’d never get into politics.
Anyways, the guy has a book and since the winter solstice is upon us, I may look into it. Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems by Thomas Ferguson. ($75 on Amazon – yikes!) In eras like the one in which the New Deal was passed, the people were able to overcome this clusterF of evil. But sadly, the people of today more closely resemble the image above.
Just going to comment on August 24th’s Daily Show. You may have heard Dr. Laura, some conservative hack, is quitting her show because of all the outrage after her epithet filled rant on-air. Sarah Palin responded, on twitter:
Dr.Laura:don’t retreat…reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence”isn’t American,not fair”)
Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!
Of course. But lets see how she responded when Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, used the R word in February:
During an appearance on Fox News’ “O’Reilly Factor” Tuesday night, Sarah Palin once again called for President Obama to replace White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel for calling a group of liberals “F-ing retards” last August.
“I don’t think he should be part of our president’s inner circle, making decisions that affect every single one of us,” Palin, a Fox News contributor, told host Bill O’Reilly.
In fact, at that same time, she defended Rush Limbaugh’s use of the word:
O’Reilly asked Palin why she separated Emanuel’s comments from those made by radio host Rush Limbaugh when he used the word “retard” repeatedly when talking about the controversy.
As she has done before when asked about what critics are calling a double-standard, she said that Limbaugh’s comments were satire.
“He was using satire, using the ‘r-word,’ so he could bring to light what is was that Rahm Emanuel was calling other people,” she said.
You can watch that full Daily Show episode here. http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-august-24-2010-brian-williams
O'Reilly surprised "there was no difference" between Harlem restaurant and other New York restaurants
I know that this article is old news, but some people never learn.
SUMMARY: Discussing his recent dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at the Harlem restaurant Sylvia’s, Bill O’Reilly reported that he “couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship.” O’Reilly added: “There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, ‘M-Fer, I want more iced tea.’ “
This article sums up the response to these comments back in 2007.
O’Reilly is not necessarily a racist, according to law professor Anita L. Allen, of the University of Pennsylvania, who has studied and written on race relations. Rather, she told ABC News, he is ignorant, the product of a still-segregated country where black and whites seldom socialize. …
David Canton, assistant professor of history at Connecticut College who specializes in black culture, said O’Reilly’s comments represented “colorblind racism.”
Canton draws a distinction between “overt racism” — like the use of the n-word or Imus’ comment — and “colorblind racism,” which is “more complicated.”
“O’Reilly is surprised that he can go to a black restaurant supported by blacks that runs as efficiently as it does,” said Canton. “African-Americans do not operate businesses and the few who do have screaming and crazy behavior. Positive behavior is whitelike.”
“I tell many of these suburban kids that you have been socialized as racists and sexists, and we are here to talk about it,” he said. “It doesn’t mean you are a bad person or have a bad parent or minister.”
Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, agrees that O’Reilly’s comments should be a “teachable moment.”
It is a teachable moment, if the person who uttered the words are willing to learn.
Posted using ShareThis