Huckleberry Finn Causes Special Snowflake Syndrome

25 Comments

Mark Twain’s classic has always been the subject of controversy. It its early days, racists condemned the novel for positively portraying a friendship between a white boy and a black man.

Today, Special Snowflakes™ demand its removal from schools and libraries, because it chafes their fragile labia.

This week, a Montgomery County school removed Huckleberry Finn from its curriculum after a group of students said the book made them uncomfortable.

 After a forum for students and faculty, the administration of Friends’ Central School decided to strike the book from the 11th-grade American literature class, principal Art Hall said in a letter to parents this week.

“We have all come to the conclusion that the community costs of reading this book in 11th grade outweigh the literary benefits,” Hall said in his letter.

A group of students said an American classic made them “feel uncomfortable.”

Let that sink in for a moment. A great American novel about a friendship between a white boy and a black man at a time when such friendships were not just frowned upon, but hated, despised, and punished is making Special Snowflakes “uncomfortable.” This novel is the epitome of American literature!

There used to be a time when ideas were challenged, viewpoints were explored, history was closely examined and discussed. It used to be called an education.

Now, an education is wrapping Special Snowflakes in brightly colored cotton to protect them from mean ideas, bad language, and anything else that may result in a rash on their precious little hineys. They can’t possibly be placed outside their comfort zones! They can’t possibly be challenged! Their precious feelings are more important than knowledge, than historical context, than the ability to analyze.

So in order to protect their fragile sensibilities, they burn anything that makes them feel uncomfortable. Why be reminded of  Of course it’s figurative for now. They simply remove the book from school or from the library, but how long before it really starts?

“If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it. Peace, Montag. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change.”
Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

The ridiculous thing is that the principal of the school does not believe removing the book constitutes censorship. “I really do believe that this is an opportunity for the school to step forward and listen to the students.”

The disconnect is frightening, because this is what is teaching today’s youth. This is what is running today’s schools. Instead of applying his knowledge and expertise and taking control of the ass enraged, entitled Generation Cupcake offendapotomi, he’s simply giving in to their unreasonable and ignorant demands.

Is it any wonder, schools are putting out generations of perpetually butthurt, barely educated cattle who outright REFUSE to think?

Special Snowflake University

19 Comments

As many of you know by now, the Yale professor who got the Special Snowflakes’ panties in a twist over a Halloween email in which she dared to imply that the offendapotomi were adults and should be treated as such, instead of relying on the paternalistic university administrators to tell them how to dress and how to enjoy the holiday has stopped teaching.

In an email to The Washington Post, Christakis said she cancelled her spring course “The Concept of the Problem Child” — which drew large crowds during shopping period when she also taught it this fall — in response to a campus climate not “conducive to the civil dialogue and open inquiry required to solve our urgent societal problems.”

[…]

Erika Christakis’ husband Nicholas Christakis told the News that he will take a sabbatical this spring, cancelling his popular lecture “Health of the Public.”

Erika Christakis’ “Concept of the Problem Child” covered controversial issues in contemporary America. The syllabus for the course includes books on gender, race and teenage pregnancy. Nearly all the reviews of Christakis’ classes are extremely positive.

So Yale has lost a popular lecturer, whose course students nearly universally enjoyed, because the shrieking, sniveling, cry bullies made her life so miserable for merely daring to exercise her right to voice a dissenting opinion, that she felt she no longer conduct her lectures in an environment conducive to learning!

But oh, don’t worry! I’m sure Yale will hire another lecturer to teach early childhood education – one who will focus on training young people to respect victims, to pick at their oozing, dirty sores and demand the world lick them clean, and to worship at the altar of mediocrity – as long as that mediocrity is confused about its gender, identifies as green, and uses words and phrases such as “privilege,” “hetero-patriarchy,” and “cultural appropriation.” It (it can’t possibly be a “he”) will know little about early childhood development, but it won’t really need experience or knowledge. It will be triggered by all the right things and will teach Special Snowflakes how to create whole new generations of Special Snowflakes!

Won’t that be great?

Virginia Commonwealth University didn’t experience the upheaval of Yale and Mizzou, but these cowards decided to preempt the cry bully hemorrhoidery in hopes that they wouldn’t be targeted, according to an email I recently received. This is apparently what VCU plans to do to avoid the Wrath of the Offendapotomus:

University Ombudsperson William King now has an expanded role to serve in student mediation and conflict resolution. We will monitor demand and add qualified staff as needed.

Ombudsperson. Obviously a person named William could identify as a woman… or a goat… or a colander. So we wouldn’t want to offend it. Therefore, ombudsperson.

Within the spring semester, we will establish a bias response team that will operate through University Police and will ensure efficient, effective and appropriate response to incidents that may be characterized as bias motivated.

HurtFeelingsReportInstead of protecting students from violence, campus police will now have a Butthurt Unit. They will probably arrive with a jar of Vagisil and a hurt feelings report to soothe the chafed labia. Maybe a jar of Vaseline for the ass rage.

They might even have the authority to put you in a special program with a curriculum tailored to deal with Special Snowflakes, which coincidentally will be offered by VCU in the spring.

We are offering a for-credit seminar course this spring on issues of diversity and inclusion, open to all students.

I’m sure instruction on microaggressions, triggers, white privilege, ableism, and how to raise a transgender pansexual animal companion will be included.

But one thing is for certain: more resources will be needed, and you can be sure the “savings” will be passed right on to the students at VCU!

Don’t worry, though. It’s worth it, because the way to fend off the Rage of the Disgruntled Anus is to hit every buzzword on the Social Justice Warrior bingo card in your academic program. And in order to do that, the faculty will have to be properly indoctrinated educated. Because race, ethnicity, color, national origin, language, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical ability, penis size, occupation, and economic status need to be considered in every conversation, lecture, and exam lest the ass frazzled stage a demonstration.

Members of the president’s cabinet and senior leadership team (including deans, vice provosts, and associate vice presidents) will undergo cultural competency training in January.

And to ensure the VCU’s “diversity” agenda is properly implemented, the university president has appointed a five-member group “to oversee and coordinate the timely implementation of these executive initiatives” – The President’s Action Group on Diversity and Inclusion.

You know what this “diversity” panel doesn’t have? A single white male. Because white males are not to be included in inclusion. Or something. 

And those are just the short term goals, boys and girls! The future is even MOAR bright! According to VCU officials, the school that’s already well known for its diverse student body is now exploring “ways to make VCU’s curriculum more inclusive on all levels. This includes reviewing our UNIV100 course.”

Can’t wait for that! Instead of an introduction to the University, its history, the resources available, academic opportunities, career planning, and problem solving, maybe they can focus on Introduction to Spanglish, followed by Ebonics 101 in the foreign language curriculum. Maybe a great history class called “Systems of Oppression” would be a requirement, or some “Two-Spirit Lesbian studies.”

Didn’t there used to be a time when universities focused on training independent free-thinkers and releasing them into the world, instead of fostering thumb-sucking, offensitive Generation Cupcake pansies? But it appears they’re now too scared of the limp-wristed drama queens to do their job.

Precious Snowflakes at Yale are Revolting (UPDATED)

27 Comments

Apparently someone has taken away their precious “safe space” – and by that, I mean voiced an opinion with which they disagree. Because you see, precious Snowflakes at Yale are entitled to wrap their little feelings in bubble wrap to insulate them from any kind of dissent! And if you dare voice an opposing view, Precious Yalian Snowflakes get so much sand lodged in their collective snatches, they simply walk out. And screech. And demand action to destroy the dissenters

How could the Precious Snowflakes of Yale possibly be expected to attend class and learn in a “safe” environment if a member of the faculty fails to take into consideration their fragile feelings?

This is the state of Ivy League education, people.

First, a little background.

On Wednesday, October 28, Yale Dean Burgwell Howard sent an email to Yale’s entire undergraduate student body from the university’s Intercultural Affairs Committee, a 13-member group of administrators from the Chaplain’s Office, campus cultural centers, and other campus organizations. The email, titled “Halloween and the Yale Community,” implored students to be thoughtful about the cultural implications of their Halloween costumes and how they might offend or degrade others, pointing to costumes such as feathered headdresses, turbans, “war paint,” and blackface as examples of inappropriate “cultural appropriation and/or misrepresentation.” Howard sent a similar email to the Northwestern University community in 2010 when he was the dean of students there.

While the committee’s email acknowledged that students “definitely have a right to express themselves,” the committee hoped they would “actively avoid those circumstances that threaten our sense of community or disrespects, alienates or ridicules segments of our population based on race, nationality, religious belief or gender expression.”

Translation: You must give due consideration to anyone who may become butthurt by your costume. No, you will not dress up as anyone from another culture. You may not dress up as an animal, because that’s insensitive to our “otherkin” friends (I just learned the definition of that particular SJW assbaggery, and Holy Fucking Shit in a Blanket! You just don’t want to know! Trust me.  Click that link at your own risk! Seriously! You’ve been warned.) Basically, you may dress up as something innocuous, like a tomato… no… wait. Vegetables have feelings too. Nope. Don’t do that. Just dress up as a white hetero male. That’s acceptable.

Seriously… what in the everloving, breathing, farting fuck?

At least one faculty member chose to challenge the Precious Snowflakes of Yale.

Just after midnight on Friday, October 30, Erika Christakis sent an email to the Silliman community in response to the Intercultural Affairs Committee’s Halloween email. Christakis explained that she and her husband Nicholas had heard from a number of students who were frustrated by the committee’s email. Although the email was allegedly supposed to serve as a recommendation rather than a formal policy, to some, its length, tone, content, and the list of 13 signatories seemed to indicate otherwise.

Christakis drew on her experiences as a child development specialist to question whether a university should dictate what students should and shouldn’t wear on Halloween:

I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students.

In addition to expressing concerns about how policing students’ costumes can limit the exercise of imagination, free speech, and free expression, Christakis asked:

Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious… a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition.

cry_baby_1_-_iStockphotoWell, as you can imagine, the response was EPIC! The Precious Snowflakes of Yale (I think I’m going to trademark that shit) began collectively hyperventilating, clutching their pearls, and birthing kittens… hell… full grown fucking cattle at this egregious challenge to their precious FEELZ! Worse yet, when Christakis’ husband stood up for her, the Precious Snowflakes of Yale™ went into full turnip mode and began accusing the couple of racism and discrimination. That’s right – RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION – for daring to suggest that maybe the university should lay off controlling its students and allow these ostensibly legal adults some freedom to form associations, make mistakes, mature, and grow, as well as discuss their issues like, you know, adults.

A heated crowd of students encircled Nicholas Christakis after 3 p.m. and accused him of racism and insensitivity, with many in attendance demanding an apology for the email statement, which admonished the censure of Halloween costumes deemed culturally appropriating. They also criticized Erika Christakis’ behavior during an open forum hosted at the Afro-American Cultural House Wednesday night — in particular, her attempt to leave the room before speaking or answering questions directed toward her.

Nope! The nefarious offender needs to be fired at the very least! Yale needs to do something to protect the feelings of its Precious Snowflakes! Their fragile feelz need a safe space – safe from dissent, safe from things they might find offensive, safe from diverse points of view, safe from criticism, and safe from having to adult.

The Washington Post also covered this story, quoting the Precious Snowflakes of Yale™ at length. The entitlement mentality of these sad, inconsequential rodents is beyond unbelievable! They’re entitled to never be offended by anything. They’re entitled to demand everyone bow to their emotions, no matter how unreasonable or irrational. They’re entitled to ensure that anyone who disagrees with them or even voices a slightly dissenting view of their demands is fired. They’re entitled to never have their views challenged.

And if someone does dare to point out that maybe – just maybe – facing adversity, discussing their issues like adults, and working toward mutual understanding are more desirable than thought control, attacks on those who have the temerity to disagree with your point of view, and attempts to destroy the livelihoods of dissenters, they’re entitled to demand retribution due to their butthurt!

Apparently asking college students to act like adults is equivalent to racism.

Apparently treating all college students equally, regardless of skin color, race, gender identity, or sexual orientation is discriminatory, because every special snowflake deserves his/her/its own special treatment, and colleges are just not equipped to handle that daunting task!

And apparently, asking the Precious Snowflakes of Yale™ to be tolerant of others’ views, especially when those views were presented respectfully and in the spirit of tolerance, not just for the Chafed Cunt Club, but for all Yale students, will result in infantile screeching and refusal to accept a diploma from the “offender,” as well as deep and emotional hyperventilating to the press.

Fortunately both Christakis stood their ground and demanded that adults act like adults, and not like petulant children whose daddy refused to buy them a pony making him THE. WORST. DAD. IN. THE. WORLD. “I apologize for causing pain, but I am not sorry for the statement,” Nicholas Christakis said. “I stand behind free speech. I defend the right for people to speak their minds.”

Good luck with that, Dr. Christakis.

The screeching SJW rodents will target you until your lives and your livelihoods are ruined.

They don’t want freedom.

They don’t give a rat’s flying fuck about people’s right to speak their minds.

yoda-wisdom-feminism-sjwsTheir precious rubbed raw labia are much more important than anything you have to say – right, wrong, or otherwise. Your rights, your freedoms, and your insistence on being an individual and thinking independently do not matter in light of their precious butthurt.

This is the society they desire. One day, their shrill screeching will be silenced by another, MOAR underprivileged, victim who will be offended and demand their censorship.

The carnage will only stop once these destructive, authoritarian fools have eaten one another.

UPDATE: The Atlantic… No, really, THE ATLANTIC agrees. 

As students saw it, their pain ought to have been the decisive factor in determining the acceptability of the Halloween email. They thought their request for an apology ought to have been sufficient to secure one. Who taught them that it is righteous to pillory faculty for failing to validate their feelings, as if disagreement is tantamount to disrespect? Their mindset is anti-diversity, anti-pluralism, and anti-tolerance, a seeming data-point in favor of April Kelly-Woessner’s provocative argument that “young people today are less politically tolerant than their parents’ generation.”

Young people today are not just intolerant, they’re bullies, who believe they are entitled to insulation from life, from reality, and from being challenged. 

Voraciousness for learning, for free and unfettered discussion, and for diverse views has turned into a voraciousness for victimhood. 

They believe the volatile emotions they experience outstrip others’ rights and somehow justify their abuses. 

They are embarrassing, not just to their schools, but to this country, and I hope my son is strong enough to stand up and face them like a man as he makes his college journey. 

Self-Defense “Expert” Speaks Out Against Self-Defense

31 Comments

You ever read something so stupid, it makes your eyes bleed? I’ve been wanting to blog about this all weekend, but with no computer and only iPhone access to the Internet, this wasn’t going to work. The blog post would have looked like it was written by a slow child.

But now that I have a computer, the urge to address the utter dumbassery coming from the ignorant maw of alleged “self-defense expert” Mary Anne Franks is strong. In a recent debate about whether or not to allow concealed carry of personal firearms on Florida campuses, Franks testified in the Florida legislature against restoring the right of trained, law-abiding Floridians to defend themselves while studying in the state’s universities.

“Guns are highly effective in committing crimes. They are rarely effective in preventing them,” Franks said.

Franks’ ridiculous claim would come as a surprise to anyone who is actually capable of reading comprehension.

Why, just in the past few days, the media has reported on a concealed carry license holder who stopped an armed robbery in a Chicago neighborhood store, a pizza delivery guy in Florida, who used a gun to defend himself against an armed thug,  an armed Oklahoma man who successfully defended himself against an assailant in his own driveway, an armed father who protected his daughter from an armed thug who held a gun to her head, an armed Michigan homeowner who held off eight… that’s right EIGHT thugs until police arrived, and a California gun owner who ended a hammer rampage. That’s right, hammer rampage.

So maybe Franks just doesn’t have access to the Internet. Maybe she doesn’t make enough money as a “self-defense expert” to purchase a newspaper. Or maybe she’s just too stupid to read. Whatever the reason for the hoplophobic ridiculosity that she spewed, she’s obviously wrong. Very wrong.

Franks said law enforcement officers and military members receive extensive training in firearms yet “struggle to use them effectively and accurately,” citing an 18 percent “hit rate” in gun fights involving the New York Police Department.

A study that examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police and civilians revealed that armed civilians successfully stopped criminals 83 percent of the time, compared 68 percent of police. Additionally, only 2 percent of shootings by civilians resulted in an innocent being shot, compared to 11 percent of shootings by police who mistook an innocent person for a criminal.

So what does this mean? Apparently, armed civilians are much more effective at actually preventing crimes than police. This is not to impugn police officers. Many of them are dedicated, skilled professionals. But fact is they can’t be there all the time, and when seconds count, they’re still minutes away. Additionally, while police do have training requirements, many gun owners I know impose much stricter requirements on themselves. They enjoy the training. They practice longer and harder – not because they have to, but because they want to.

And yes, as a member of the U.S. Army, my training was extensive – in basic training. After initial entry training was over, we were lucky if we got the opportunity to qualify once per year.

Again, I don’t say this to impugn our military, but given our jobs, and especially on deployment, it’s not like we could go out and plink whenever we wanted.

Franks then doubles or triples (I’m having trouble keeping up with this much dumbshittery) down on the stupid.

“The fact of the matter is guns escalate aggression. They create a false sense of security. They encourage violence as a first resort,” Franks said.

Is that why 92 percent of defensive gun uses result in no injuries and no shots fired?

And then comes the real doozy from a woman who obviously has never experienced sexual assault, but whose goal is to ensure that everyone else is unable to prevent it should the situation arise. She noted that most assault victims know their attackers.

“Unless someone is going out on a date with her hand on a gun, this is not going to help her,” Franks said.

Franks then went from full retard to full turnip when she inexcusably squawked that “it’s an illusion to think crime victims will exhibit the calm, objective demeanor of a movie hero in defending themselves.”

“Studies done by many, many professional have shown that it is really, really unlikely for anyone to use a gun effectively in self defense, especially in cases of sexual assault,” said Franks.

What’s disgusting is that this is a woman who actually is testifying in a legislative proceeding that women are too incompetent to use a gun in self defense! What’s appalling is that she wants to keep women defenseless, because most sexual assaults are committed by those known to the victim.

While it’s true that 82 percent of sexual assaults are perpetrated by a “non-stranger,” Franks thinks (if you can call her twisted logic that) the other 18 percent don’t deserve the opportunity to defend themselves against someone they don’t know. Additionally, she assumes that every sexual assault happens on a “date” and that a woman shouldn’t carry a self defense tool in those instances.

Franks is like many other hoplophobes who believe that if the odds are against you successfully defending yourself, you shouldn’t even try. Much like the sniffly gun grabbers who point out that the Warsaw Ghetto uprisings were unsuccessful in stopping the slaughter of Jews, and therefore, why even bother, Franks assumes that since a rapist will likely be someone whom the victim knows, she is less likely to be successful at fending off a sexual assault, so why try?

anti-rapeThat’s how little this “self-defense expert” cares about the lives of women! Why bother, ladies? Just lie back and enjoy it. Or piss yourself, because rape isn’t about power and control, but about getting one’s rocks off!

Moron.

This repugnant invertebrate is an insult to feminism and an affront to all women!

The fact that she considers women too incompetent and emotional to successfully use firearms to prevent assault flies directly in the face of logic and empowerment, as well as actual research.

A 2005 study revealed that resistance does reduce the chances of the rape being carried through to completion. What will armed resistance do? An article by Dave Kopel in the Washington Post this year quotes this study to show that armed self-defense does, indeed, stop an assailant.

The Colorado Sheriffs’ support for defensive arms carrying is confirmed by national data. For example, the U.S. Census Bureau conducts in-person interviews with several thousand persons annually, for the National Crime Victimization Survey. In 1992-2002, over 2,000 of the persons interviewed disclosed they had been raped or sexually assaulted. Of them, only 26 volunteered that they used a weapon to resist. In none of those 26 cases was the rape completed; in none of the cases did the victim suffer additional injury after she deployed her weapon.

That’s right. Women who admitted to have used firearms in self-defense to prevent a rape were successful in doing so.

Franks’ contention that women are incapable of rationally defending themselves is offensive to its core. It’s cowardly. It’s false. It’s insulting to strong, independent women.

Those who think the right is waging some kind of “war on women,” because goddammit, every woman should be able to buy condoms at taxpayer expense, and if you don’t think so… SHUT UP MISOGYNIST! are apparently not appalled at this barely coherent snatch impugning the ability, good sense, skill, and judgment of fellow women. They’re apparently not disgusted at Franks’ lack of respect for her females and their lives and dignity. They don’t care that she advocates rendering women helpless – unable to use the most effective self-defense tool on the market today – apparently as long as she supports taxpayer funded condoms and abortions!

Of course we shouldn’t be surprised that this progtard would advocate disarmament of women, given her publication history in such notably leftist publications as the Huffing-glue Post and the Atlantic.

We also shouldn’t be shocked that her political agenda trumps all, including common sense, women’s dignity, and safety on campus.

Social Justice Warriors Take on the Sombrero

23 Comments

What, you think I’m kidding?

Nah, folks. Luckily this isn’t taking place in the United States, but rather at the University of East Anglia in the (formerly) Great Britain. Although if you think that America’s SJWs won’t be looking to this example to end cultural appropriation, white privilege, cisnormativegender… something… I have no idea, let me disabuse you of that notion at once. Just think about the current discussion here in the United States about whether or not braids represent “cultural appropriation.”

But back to the University of East Anglia, where the student union has banned students from getting free sombreros from a local Tex Mex joint.

The University of East Anglia student union officials even took the big floppy hats from students at the Freshers’ Fair, because non-Mexicans wearing the traditional item of headwear could be seen as offensive, according to a new initiative.

The Union has stated that the handing out of sombreros breached a key advertising policy which was sent to all stallholders before the event, prohibiting any use of stereotypical imagery in advertising.

Because sombreros are considered not only racist, but “cultural appropriation.”

It’s OK. I’ll wait until you pick your jaw up off the floor. Here’s a comedic interlude while you do so.

62989677

Done? Good.

Next up, we will have DNA tests to prove you’re really German before we allow you to wear the lederhosen, mein freund. There’s a reason why Ancestry.com now has that mouth swab thingy you can send in to find out what your DNA says about you! We wouldn’t want you to be culturally insensitive, now would be?

Screw diversity. Screw getting acquainted with and celebrating other cultures. Screw joy. You’re not allowed, you white, privileged racist.

Oh, and by the way the British Mexican Society backed the Tex-Mex eatery for giving away the free hats. The Mexican group dedicated to promoting the Latin American country’s cultural heritage praised Pedros for giving out the free sombreros. “We are delighted to learn that there is a Mexican restaurant in Norwich and hope that they would like to join us to become members of the British Mexican Society,” they said.

The douche pickle trying to whitesplain the contrived outrage is Campaigns and Democracy officer Chris Jarvis, who is quite obviously not Mexican, but is offended on their behalf anyway.

Chris Jarvis BANNER

“We know that when it comes to cultural appropriation the issues can sometimes be difficult to understand and many don’t realise that they may be about to cause offence or break a policy.”

Well thanks for the palesplanation, ass goblin. We’re so glad we have you to explain the outrage on those poor, uneducated Mexicans’ behalf!

Drooling, Cross-Eyed Retard Issues non-apology

5 Comments

So apparently, Newsweek and Perlstein have been experiencing an avalanche of roiling shit ever since they saw it fit to publish the tripe about the “racist” POW/MIA flag. The comments I have seen were mostly negative, even from diehard leftists, and only the most dedicatedly ignorant of the bunch saw it fit to defend this dreck.

Looks like both Perlstein and Newsweek had to do a little mea culpa verbal dance after getting hammered by anyone with half a brain.

A Writer’s Apology

I sincerely regret the use of the word “racist” to describe how the POW/MIA flag distorts the history of the Vietnam War. The word was over the top and not called for.

I’m deeply sorry it hurt people—especially people who’ve selflessly served their country. Most of all, I’m sorry because many of the people offended by the word “racist” are the same people who were hurt when the experiences and feelings of common soldiers and veterans were manipulated to serve the powerful interests and individuals who blithely and perennially send men and women to war, then don’t take care of them when they return home. And, of course, I regret the pain caused to the families of those who gave the last full measure of devotion to their country in Southeast Asia.

I would ask the people I angered to consider carefully reading the article, which explains, for example, that the Chinese Communists cynically leaked lies about the existence of live POWs in the years after the war in order to harm their rival Vietnam.

Most of all, I wish to express my regrets. Other than that, I stand by my article. —Rick Perlstein

The Editor’s Response

We published Rick Perlstein’s article on the POW/MIA flag, because it insightfully examines the cynical manipulation of public opinion at the expense of the downed pilots and foot soldiers the creators of the MIA movement claimed to represent. Perlstein is an accomplished historian who has spent years researching the Nixon and Reagan years. He knows this material. Our prolonged national discussion of the tragic Southeast Asian war that extended beyond Vietnam is often framed in what can be reasonably described as racist terms. The defenders of an Asian country that was invaded, bombed, defoliated and savaged (see: Kill Anything that Moves by Nick Turse) are vilified, while the invaders are beatified. Neither position is correct or fair. It was a persistent yet perhaps understandable disregard for the “other” victims of a war, beyond our own nation’s tragic losses, that informed the piece.

Nowhere is it suggested, nor do we imply, that individuals who remain devoted to the POW/MIA flag are racist. And it was neither Mr. Perlstein’s intent, nor ours, to dishonor those who served in Vietnam, although based on comments of readers, many were offended. A more careful editor would have moved the term “racist” lower in the body of the story and kept it out of the headline, where it was an unintended red flag that provoked the understandable ire of many readers. —Lou Dubose

First, Perlstein should learn the difference between “I’m sorry I said it,” and “I’m sorry it hurt people.” It’s a coward’s cop out, and had people not expressed their indignation at his spew, he would have happily continued to use the “racist” epithet to the delight of every screeching, perpetually offended, CHORF (click the link for definition).

Second, the piece “insightfully” does nothing. Perlstein has no concept of what cynical manipulation of public opinion really is, and he distorts history to fit his myopic view of it. You want cynical manipulation of public opinion? Try burning tons of “banned” food to make a point that sanctions aren’t affecting you, even as your people starve, and you do nothing to actually feed the poor in your country, and THEN see your approval ratings at 87 percent, because you’re fighting for Mother Russia!

That’s cynical manipulation of public opinion!

And yes, you don’t just imply that “individuals who remain devoted to the POW/MIA flag are racist,” you outright SAY it! With every dripping, disgusting sentence, you imply that the flag vilifies them poor Vietnamese, because RACISM! That was the point of your entire screed, you lying piece of detritus, and frankly, your removal of the word from the article does nothing to mitigate the very reason you wrote and published it.

It was a persistent yet perhaps understandable disregard for the “other” victims of a war, beyond our own nation’s tragic losses, that informed the piece.” And that disregard was due to, of course, RACISM, as explained in the very first paragraph. “You know that racist flag? The one that supposedly honors history but actually spreads a pernicious myth? And is useful only to venal right-wing politicians who wish to exploit hatred by calling it heritage? It’s past time to pull it down.”

As for your “accomplished historian,” certainly allegations of sloppy scholarship and possible plagiarism certainly don’t serve to support your contention.

Try some honor, Perlstein. It should be a new experience for you.

h/t: TSO

Newsflash: We’re stupid!

10 Comments

I’m probably going to piss off a whole lot of you with this post, but you know what? I don’t care. I’m in a mood, so I’ll tell you right now – you’re free to disagree. If I see one post telling me how you’re offended by what I’ve said, and you will no longer read my blog, I’ll tell you to go eat a very large, fat bag of dicks. That’s how much I give a shit.

OK?

Now…

A few days ago, there was a report about a high school that was holding “Foreign Language Week.” As part of that educational curriculum, the school decided to read the Pledge of Allegiance in foreign languages, including Arabic.

Well, you can imagine the clutching of the pearls, and the shitting of the pants that resulted!

One parent claims the New York State Department of Education has regs that specifically state the Pledge of Allegiance should be read in English.

People who lost loved ones in Afghanistan (where they don’t speak Arabic, but whatever) got upset, as did Jews.

Students Tweeted. Parents screeched.

The result? The entire idea was scrubbed. That means students wouldn’t hear the pledge in Italian, French, Russian, or any other language.

So much for education.

What the hell is the matter with this country? Have we become such a nation of pansies that we can’t even allow learning and education to interfere with our delicate sensibilities? Dog forbid something offends us!

We can’t learn Arabic, because ihaverelativeswhodiedinafghanistan / imjewish / imchristian / thisisamericalearnenglishdammit!

We can’t learn about Islam, because imoffended / imchristian / imjewish / theyattackedourcountry / sendthembackiftheyrefusetointegrateintoourculture.

We certainly can’t learn about the history of Pagans or have anything resembling a pentagram on a school bus, because SATAN!

And in order to ensure that no precious Snowflake feels slighted, we have begun demanding the infantilization of our adult populations… “safe spaces,” so no one’s experiences are invalidated – even if those experiences involve Twitter Trauma and imaginary slights stemming from society’s lack of sensitivity toward treasured punkins who are just not capable of adapting to the cruel world that won’t give them the pony they’re entitled to!

Oh ferfuckssake!

Believe it or not, Islam is part of this world’s history, and Arabic is actually a language spoken by millions of people.

Banning the knowledge of its existence or exposure to it from American classrooms makes your kids sub-educated and ignorant. Is it any wonder most high school students can’t point out Sudan on a map?

Reciting the pledge in a different language, doesn’t mean you eschew English in America’s classrooms. It’s a way to expose your precious snowflakes to other languages and cultures. No matter what language you use to recite the pledge, you’re still pledging allegiance to America – to that nation that you all purport to love, but insist on keeping in the bowels of ignorance.

And by the way… the pledge – that bunch of words you all claim to hold so dear – you probably don’t know this, but it was composed by Francis Bellamy, a Christian socialist *GASP*!

The original pledge read as follows, until 1954 when Congress added the words “under God” to it: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Why don’t you boneheads focus on learning about the world around you? Explore various languages and religions. Learn history – because believe it or not, religion is a huge part of history. Education is not indoctrination, and if you fear exposing your child to new ideas, because they might *GASP!* change their faith or become curious about other cultures, generally means your own faith in both your religion and your child isn’t too strong.

Frankly, I don’t give a damn what language you recite the Pledge in – as long as you mean it. As long as your love and your allegiance to the ideals of this country are real. No, that doesn’t mean I think you should recite a pledge of allegiance to your government, or to the idiot politicians sitting around slowly grinding the gears of this nation to a halt. You should recite it as a commitment to the ideals on which this nation was built: courage, self sufficiency, individual freedoms, limited government, limitless opportunities, and the ability to achieve and succeed by your own efforts, intellect, and commitment.

Everything else… get real!

You haven’t stopped any indoctrination by getting the idea tossed out of your high school. You’ve simply prevented them from learning.

Morons.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: