Letters to the Editor
DCLaw1
Published Letters: 996 Editor's Choice: 2
-
krblack - the new PC
[Read the article: Limitless wrongness]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think one of the real stories here is how obsessed the conservative right has come with a new style of political correctness. We know the right is supposed to be against "political correctness"--a tool of muddle-headed liberals to stifle genuine discourse and curtail the perogatives of red-blooded American men.
Yet continuously during this political cycle we have been subjected to form over substance critiques of the left by the conservative right, not for their values or their policies, but simply for the language they use.
This bears repeating. I've noticed this from the very start of the anti-PC movement, that the issue was never about resisting language orthodoxy of all stripes, but about dispelling orthodoxy unfavorable to one's political views in order to impose one's own language and paradigms.
It is now taboo to say anything even faintly negative about the military or military men and women, even if it is the undeniable truth. We must constantly maintain and worship a robust and aggressive military, despite the Founders' immense distrust of standing armies, and their insistence that the military be subordinate to civilian control and civil liberties. Another orthodoxy applies with regard to Israel. Witness Jim Moran's recent comment about AIPAC and the histrionics that have ensued as a result. He has had to repeat several times now that he refers to a narrow political lobby, not a religious or ethnic community. These attempts at clarification have failed, of course, because the rule is now that criticizing the state of Israel or its lobbying groups is practically tantamount to denying the existence of the Holocaust.
These new orthodoxies of language, like any form of "political correctness," are severely stultifying to any semblance of intelligent discussion. On top of the specific applications of the new political correctness, we have an equally corrosive, "meta"-political correctness: it is only politically incorrect if one uses left-leaning language and frameworks.
The dynamic is intellectually indistinguishable from the tactic used to pull the media to the right - or, more accurately, to make the media pull itself to the right. Cry "liberal bias" enough times, and the media will self-consciously adopt a conservative slant as the new "center."
This is little more than bullying and coercion, and must be identified and resisted at all turns.
-
Frankly, my dear:
[Read the article: Limitless wrongness]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]During the Renaissance, many Europeans translated their names into Latin because of the prestige of the language. Thus lots of Bauer's and Ackermann's became Agricola's. This was particularly true among the educated since the lingua franca of the European intelligentsia was Latin and almost all scientific writing (in the wider sense) was done in Latin and authors usually appended their name to their work in Latin. So one of Petraeus' male ancestors probably changed whatever the local equivalent of "Rocky" was to Petraeus.
Oddly fitting on several levels.
(How dare I say such a thing about this honorable man?!)
-
Paul
[Read the article: Limitless wrongness]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now, here's the thing: Colleges have almost always had speech and conduct codes. They are, after all, communities of learning, and communities have their codes. It was only starting in the 1960s that these codes started to be challenged and significantly revised.
In short, there was absolutely nothing historically remarkable about campus speech codes meant to limit abusive language. What was different was who was being protected from abuse and from whom.
Absolutely. One thing that always aggravated me about campus conservative so-called champions of free speech was that they acted like a code that prohibits threatening language is some egregious affront to freedom of speech. (Lest anyone point this out, I am aware that such a code that singles out threatening expression based on the content of the expression is often unconstitutional - I am talking about codes against intimidation, etc. regardless of content.)
Quite revealingly, these individuals only got in a lather when someone on campus was punished for making racist, sexist, or some other bigoted threats. They insisted that the First Amendment protects their right to harass, threaten, and intimidate people they consider lesser than themselves.
-
"Democratic Congressional aides"
[Read the article: Are Democrats planning still worse FISA capitulations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The predicate of today's post is based on the following news article excerpt:
Democratic Congressional aides say they believe that a deal is likely to provide protection for the companies.
Unless there's some other indication that this is a real possibility, I need to bring up a caveat, at the risk of sounding too optimistic.
Congressional aides, interestingly, are sometimes wrong in their predictions about their bosses' actions (I vaguely remember a couple examples of this, but unfortunately cannot provide a link). More importantly, just based on my knowledge of how politics often interfaces with the media, these "leaks" by aides are often trial balloons used to test likely reaction to a potential decision.
Based on this, my observations are threefold: (1) this signal from "Congressional aides" does not necessarily mean retroactive immunity is likely, though certainly contemplated; (2) we cannot currently gauge how many aides provided this assessment, or for which Member(s) of Congress they work; however (3) the "leak" strongly suggests that the Democrats contemplating this move will be monitoring the response to their aides' comments, which makes feedback from voters very important right now.
I find it flatly impossible to believe that Congressional Democrats don't realize that their low approval rating is due almost solely to their inadequate opposition to Bush policies. Therefore, I strongly feel that the Democrats considering providing retroactive immunity to these telecoms are doing so not because they fear being painted as soft on terror, but because (a) they agree with it substantively and/or (b) they fear the backlash from telecoms more than the backlash from the public.
The second motivation is highly likely, in my opinion. This means that public outrage at the mere possibility of this deal can significantly affect the final decision. Democrats are signaling a window of opportunity for the public to make their opposition known, because they are unsure how closely people are paying attention to this highly under-reported issue.