Speaking of mascots . . . not all Irish-Americans are short and green. I should know. (Recognize the fellow in the hat?) You can watch part 2 by clicking on the link at the end of the video. It’s worth it.

This video does a great job of illustrating the idiocy of political correctness, which is primarily being propagated today by liberals searching for meaning in their lives. Fight the power.

As Joel L. posted earlier, the Ole Miss student body voted on the contentious mascot issue today. I, along with some 75% of those who voted, chose “YES” for student involvement in a new mascot selection process.

The mass confusion surrounding this vote stems from the way the vote was posed. The vote was not about whether to replace Colonel Reb, but whether the students or administration would lead an inevitable effort. The vote was a false dilemma as there was not a “do nothing” option.

The problem then was that deciding whether to vote “YES” or “NO” reuqired parsing the two options.Initially, it seems that voting “NO” would be a vote for Colonel Reb. However, voting “NO” merely supported deferral of the matter to the administration.

Because of this confusion, there was a huge effort to point out this “trap” to students, aided by none other than Admiral Ackbar.

Essentially, a new mascot effort is a foregone conclusion. The choice facing the students was whether the initiative would be led by students or an unfettered administration. Thus, the student body voted overwhelmingly to take the lead rather than leave it to the administration.

Contrary to the assertions of Joel L. and his friends in the news media, this fight is far from over. Students who want to reinstate Colonel Reb and students who want a new mascot were strange bedfellows today, voting “YES” together. Although the ultimate outcome is uncertain, the decision today ensured that the student body would retain the ability to fight when the day comes.

Frank Beckwith has the story here, with a link to there.

Basically, the Democrat Senate Majority Leader has shot off his idiot mouth once again. Harry Reid’s subtext was actually if Obama had been too “black,” America never would have elected him.

But Commenter “Jay” agreed on the face of it, that

It surely IS true that Obama would have had a much harder time getting elected if he spoke stereotypical Ebonics, just as a white candidate who sounded like he’d come straight from a trailer park…would lose votes on that account.

as did Commenter BSK, who noted that

Obama’s looks and diction may have played a role in his presidency (something true of all candidates)…

And that should be like, duh? to any denizen of the 21st century. If you can’t articulate the English language at least as well as the twits who read the 11 O’Clock News, you can’t be president.

OK, OK, George W, Bush couldn’t quite talk that talk and Sarah Palin could, but let’s move on, and also past Barack Obama’s relative “light-skinnedness,” which actually cuts both ways.

Because there’s a far more serious issue at hand here.

Reid’s use of “Negro” is unfortunate in this day and age, but I’m a generation younger, and I remember MAD Magazine referring to the “TV Negro,” who looked black but sounded like he went to Harvard.

Which—or who—Barack Obama is.

And there’s a PC flap right now over the 2010 US census, that in addition to self-identifications of “race,” “Negro” was kept in, as well as “Black” or “African American,” since some folks from Harry Reid’s generation prefer “Negro.”

But little of this, the word “Negro,” has anything to do with what’s important.

GOPers have some room for a righteous whine here, but not much: Lott’s praise of Strom Thurmond

“I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have all these problems over all these years, either.”

was substantive, not just a comment on Barack Obama’s cosmetic appeal.

Yes, it was rhetorical carelessness on Lott’s part. His retraction:

“My comments were not an endorsement of his positions of over 50 years ago, but of the man and his life.”

Yeah, yeah. But it went far deeper than that. When Strom Thurmond ran for president in 1948, he was deeply committed to segregation and opposed to anti-lynching laws.

So the Republican Party can enjoy a “gotcha” moment on Democrat Harry Reid and on the press giving him a relatively free ride for violating political correctness.

But it’s a hollow victory, and indeed not a victory atall. Harry Reid mouthed some thoughtless words, but Trent Lott thoughtlessly gave voice to an abominable idea, that Strom Thurmond should ever have been elected president in 1948.

All stupidities are not created equal. Sadly, it’s just more evidence that when it comes to race, today’s GOP still doesn’t get it. Yes, Republican Ike sent in the troops to Little Rock to enforce desegration of our schools. And Sen. Everett Dirksen swung the day in 1964 to win passage of the Civil Rights Act.

But in 2009, The Party of Lincoln has few other laurels to rest on. It can’t even tell the difference between Reid’s stupidity and Lott’s. This has simply got to change.

You gotta walk the walk, but as a politician, you also have to talk the talk. When you speak an alien language like Trent Lott did that night, that Strom Thurmond should ever have been our president, even in loose party talk, you’re not speaking American atall.

Lyrics follow:
(more…)

“I don’t think we put enough stress on the necessity of implanting in the child’s mind the moral code under which we live.

The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.

If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

OK, OK, you’re waiting for the other shoe to drop. It’s not Glenn Beck.

The answer is

Harry S. Truman
Address Before the Attorney General’s Conference on Law Enforcement Problems
February 15, 1950

Now, I don’t necessarily agree with him chapter and verse, but it wasn’t all that long ago that such talk was uncontroversial.

Although these days it seems like a million years…

___________________
[HT: WorldTribune-Editor.]

Minter is also the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting Here’s a little gem from a review of The Ultimate Man’s Survival Guide at Human Events:

Driven by his belief that “the U.S. has lost its code of honor…enumerated by the Founding Fathers” and his own harrowing personal experiences, Miniter has composed the book every father who loves honor and heartland-American-values will wish they’d written for their son. And everyone who reads this book will agree that it’s no exaggeration to describe it as Boy Scouts meet Marine Sniper, and Marine Snipers meet Frank Sinatra.

Read the rest of the review here.

(By the way, I’m back. I know you’ve all missed me.)

Sadly, I can’t claim credit for this one.  I stumbled across this per a friend of a friend of a relation of a loose acquaintance (or something like that) online, but check out the acorns. Maybe I shouldn’t post this. I don’t want to give anyone ideas.

In the wake of the scandals and persistent self-absorbtion of Mark Sanford and John Edwards, Mark Steyn asks this pertinent question:

Is politics some kind of affirmative-action program for sociopaths?

Good question, Mark. The answer is yes.

The way I look at politics is this: Think of Frank Capra’s classic film ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.’  Recall the climax where Senator Smith (ably played by Jimmy Stewart) collapses during his filibuster.  Now, imagine that Senator Paine, instead of confessing his complicity with the Taylor machine in a fit of guilt, goes on to say “I believe Senator Smith has yielded the floor. I would now like to move for a vote on the proposed public works bill.”  The bill passes.

Senator Smith leaves Washington, disgraced. The Boy Rangers disband. Clarissa Saunders, her cynicism affirmed, rises in her profession and eventually becomes the co-anchor of CBS News.  Senator Paine, drunk on power and cheap liquor, later gets involved in a car accident with a young campaign staffer as his passenger, and leaves the scene of the crime; nevertheless, he continues to be reelected.  The end.

Too cynical?

This following is from an article that was posted on the Salvo Blog (h/t my dad) which addressed something that has often bugged me: why one who opposes gay rights is  suffering from “homophobia”

In Communist Russia, dissidents were sentenced to forced treatment in psychiatric hospitals, not because they were mentally ill, but because they had wrong thoughts. I believe it is no accident that the Gay Rights term for disapproval of homosexual behaviour is a mental illness term. In all my years as a mental health professional, however, I have never encountered anyone with an irrational fear of homosexuals. But the definition of homophobia, as defined by gay activists, is the unwillingness to approve of homosexuality. Even toleration without approval is defined as homophobic. So if you have a moral objection to homosexuality, you are “mentally ill” and require re-education.

Oh well, as long as inventing phobias and diagnosing people with them  is cool, lets make up some more! Here is what I have so far:

Deophobia = fear of God (not the good kind)
Protectophobia = for the anti-gun
Fetalphobia or vivaphobia = fear of letting unborn children live
Freedophobia = fear of a hands-off government
Successophobia = income tax lovers
Southophobia = fear of us
Ninophobia = fear of Justice Scalia (h/t to Feddie, from his post the Miss Cali story was making waves)
Traditionophobes = fear of anything from more than 6 months ago
And of course, Heterophobia

Any others come to mind?

Things I did not know and for which I am very thankful for people like Mary Rose Rybak and First Things:

In 2007 alone, eleven porn stars died of HIV, suicide, homicide, or drug overdose, and, according to a study by the Pink Cross Foundation in 2008, at least thirty-six porn stars have committed suicide since 1970. If you think the posh Playboy lifestyle (they have a mansion, right?) evades these horrors, think again: Since 1953, nine Playboy “Playmates of the Month” have died of either drug overdose, suicide, or homicide. Of the playmates who have died, the average lifespan has been a low forty-four years—much lower than the average seventy-nine-year lifespan of the American woman. One look at the data reveals the porn-star life is as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short as you get. (more…)

Should we be politically correct at the expense of being factually accurate? My class recently studied the Supreme Court’s decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. A fellow student was asked to recite the facts of that case. The student began by saying, “A Louisiana law discriminated against African Americans…” We have since moved on to many more cases dealing with racial classifications, and I have noticed in my classmates a seemingly inherent propensity to refer to racial classifications as discriminating against “African Americans.” But when it comes down to it, the classification in Plessy, as well as the classifications in nearly all of the other similar cases we have covered in my class, deal not with nationality, but rather with skin color. (more…)