Blog Archives

Political correctness turns into Constitution-crushing political Insanity

There’s the lunacy called political correctness. There’s also the military equivalent, military correctness.

And under military correctness, freedom of speech and freedom of religion instead become censorship and oppression… at least according to a “religious tolerance” plan within the Department of Defense.

Religious liberty groups have grave concerns after they learned the Pentagon is vetting its guide on religious tolerance with a group that compared Christian evangelism to “rape” and advocated that military personnel who proselytize should be court martialed.

The “religious tolerance” punch line comes from the guy doing the “vetting.”

“Someone needs to be punished for this [expression of religion],” [Mikey] Weinstein [who fronts Orwellian “Military Religious Freedom Foundation”] told Fox News. “Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.”

First, consider the absurdity in the fact Weinstein thinks that exercising one’s right to religion and free speech is a crime worthy of a court martial. Next, consider the full power and coherence of Weinstein’s intellect.

“If a member of the military is proselytizing in a manner that violates the law [the Weinstein proposed law which prohibits military members’ freedom of speech and religion], well then of course they can be prosecuted,” he said. “We would love to see hundreds of prosecutions to stop this outrage of fundamentalist religious persecution.”

He compared the act of proselytizing to rape.

“It is a version of being spiritually raped and you are being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators,” he told Fox News.

Thus, Weinstein-style, the circle is squared and the corruption of language is completed. Or as George Orwell would say, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”

Advertisements

The language of politics

obey1Politics has its own special language. It isn’t any of the six official languages of the United Nations, rather, it’s Orwellian.

How so?

The “global war on terror” became the “overseas contingency operation.”

“Terrorism” became “spontaneous video protest” and “man-made disasters.”

We are in a recovery” means “GDP is shrinking.”

“Government funded” has superseded “taxpayer funded” or “deficit funded.”

“Bitter clingers” means “disagrees with me.”

I did not have sexual relations with that woman” means “I had sexual relations with that woman.”

“Austerity” means “spending more.”

“Free press” means “lapdog media.”

“Hope and change” is really “search and destroy.”

Skeet shooting all the time” means “don’t know which end of a gun to hold.”

“Collective action” means “unilateral action.”

“Free market” means “government picks winners and losers.”

“We have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority” can be understood as “relinquish your skepticism of my authority.”

“Fidelity to our founding principles” should be translated as “non-fidelity to our founding principles.”

We haven’t gotten to war is peace, freedom is slavery, or ignorance is strength—yet—but we’re close.

One word that has lost all meaning: elites

If there’s one word that best typifies the total loss of original definition, it’s probably elites.

Elites, the plural of elite, we’re told by dictionaries near and far, is intended to convey this:

A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status or the best or most skilled members of a group.

Yet time after time, those referred to as our elites (President Obama, his mighty Administration, the Republican establishment, the Senate, kings of industry like those at JP Morgan, the EU’s leadership, the traditional media, et al.) fail to come close to the definition of the word.

I’m all for using the word when the proverbial shoe fits (for example, Gregg Popovich graduated from the United States Air Force Academy, an elite institution), but most of the time elites is used, it’s totally unrepresentative of it’s original intent, especially as it regards that superior intellect thing.

As William F. Buckley observed, it would be a far, far better thing to be governed by the first 400 people in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty.

Austerity Doublespeak

As background, consider this: man is the only creature who can deceive himself.

Now onto the economic topic of the week, austerity.

Austerity is alleged to have use as an economic term. However, its precise definition is unclear and it seems austerity can mean many things to many people.

Traditionally, austerity was thought to mean something like “reduced availability of luxuries and consumer goods, especially when brought about by government policy.”

So how was the austerity effort in Europe received? Poorly, it would appear based on recent elections. In fact, in alt-reality land, austerity is being declared dead by  bright and shining stars including Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, and Eugene Robinson.

There is, however, a more reality based assessment. And it comes from IBD:

Now, the left’s argument goes, a new “growth strategy” premised on more government spending, not less, is needed — just like in Spain, Greece and Italy.

The only problem: The idea of EU austerity is a myth.

Only the left (and/or the traditional media) would view more government spending as a growth strategy. If such a strategy were to work, wouldn’t you think the people’s long and glorious history of government deficits would have created such growth? And that it would especially gotten better in the last half-decade?

Or would you instead think low levels of productivity, high levels of government interference (and taxes), and bad demographics have led the left to the edge of the fiscal cliff?

Back to IBD:

Austerity? Spending has boomed in the EU over the last decade. During the 2000s, EU member nations collectively boosted government outlays by 62%. Average government spending by EU nations today stands at about 49.2% of GDP — vs. 44.8% in 2000.

On its own website, the EU itself ridicules the notion of government austerity as a “myth.”

“National budgets are NOT decreasing their spending, they are increasing it,” the EU says, noting that in 2011, 23 of the 27 nations in the EU increased spending. This year, 24 of 27 will do so.

Just as an obese person can observe an strict regimen of diet and exercise for a day or two, the EU fail nations (especially Greece, Spain, Italy, and perhaps soon, France) are alleged to have attempted to practice austerity for a few months—even though the EU knows it isn’t true—and they are now resolved: they will limit themselves to a family sized bag of Cheetos washed down with two-liters of Coke and a half-gallon of Chunky Monkey as dessert. For breakfast.

Because of the recent electoral outcomes in Europe, the anti-austerians are declaring austerity is a failure; austerity had its fifteen minutes of fame in Europe and now its as dated to the left as Milli Vanilli is to the rest of the world.

Instead, just remember that George Orwell was ahead of his time. Today, the anti-austerians favor doublespeak which changes the meaning of words and actions as convenient. For them, austerity means more government spending.

After all, the machine must be fed. And ignorance is strength.

The Memory Hole

green jobsRewrite? What rewrite?

The rewrite on how Solyndra disappeared into the Administration’s memory hole.

And while we’re at it, how about that Department of Energy graphic, $34.7 billion in loans for 60,000 jobs?

That works out to a loan of $578K for each job.

Personally, I view that as a bad thing, but back to the topic at hand: Solyndra is even worse.

Solyndra got $535 million and “created” 3000 jobs (in the fifteen minutes before they went belly up), so they managed to lose $178K for each “job” they were credited with creating. That whole divide by zero (the number of jobs actually created) makes the per-job math much more difficult.

If this weren’t a Democrat administration, it’d be bigger than Watergate.