Political Correctness Or Something Else?

Last night, I appeared on Greta’s show to discuss why Nidal Hassan was still allowed to wear a uniform despite numerous red flags that he was both unstable and had expressed a clear allegiance with our enemies. You can watch the appearance above.

Greta and I discussed if “political correctness” was to blame for the fact that authorities did not aggressively purse Hassan despite the warnings. (Read this NY Times article for more details.)

But after the interview, I wondered if “political correctness” is the right term to use. When most think of political correctness, they think of hyphenated names and gender neutral terms. Sure, they sound a little silly. But political correctness as a threat to our safety?

So I’m asking for your help. As we grapple with the nature of the threat from Radical Islam, what is the best term we can use to describe the pressure to be willfully blind to apparent threats, to put lives in danger out of a fear of offending someone?

Is it “politically correctness” or something else? Let me know what you think.

Tag |

Email |

Print |

Comments

By Anonymous @ Sunday, December 27, 2009 7:04 AM

How about: Affirmative Ignorance?

By Anonymous @ Monday, November 23, 2009 9:12 PM

"Multicultural Masochism"

(thanks to Christopher Hitchens for this phrase)

By Anonymous @ Monday, November 23, 2009 1:24 PM

Western Civilization (Magna Carta, Cromwell, John Locke, Rousseau, American and French Revolutions) led to the intrinsic value of the individual. These events and philosophers have no equivalent in Islam. The result is we are, or rather we should be, at war against Islam. The delusion that this is a religion of peace hijacked by a small minority of "radicals" is the reason for our current crisis. If there are "Muslims" who are loyal to the US then they are, by definition, disloyal to Islam. If they are outwardly practicing Muslims then they should be considered enemies of Western Civilization and dealt with accordingly. A religion that considers strapping explosives on their own children is not a religion that can be tolerated in any nation that claims to value human life. Tolerance of such people is, in itself, barbaric.

By gedoug @ Sunday, November 22, 2009 2:02 PM

Greta, I love you to death but you are displaying an uncommon level of naiveté believing the military, federal, and local law enforcement agencies don’t practice political correctness. I spent 21 years in the Army and since have worked in an around other government agencies. Let someone in any of the those organizations here what they consider an insensitive comment (read: not PC) and you will find yourself in a 1-2 week sensitivity seminar...and not by request. It’s really bad in the Army and has been for some time. I know it’s counter intuitive but hell.....look what is being done to this country now. Nothing is making sense and there seems to be no one challenging the policies that are taking us down the road to ruin. The decisions seem to be intentional. Only when one stops to remember that the man in charge of this decline was raised to hate America does the apology tours, the refusal to adopt policies to grow the economy, the initiation of policies that will weaken the economy, weaken defense, the support of tyrannical governments, and turning our backs to long time allies, does any of this make sense.

By gedoug @ Sunday, November 22, 2009 1:42 PM

Why change it? It needs to be clearly identified for what it is. Renaming it is nothing more than an attempt to ignore it so we don’t have to deal with it; thus it continues. Similar to the Obama administration ignoring the war on Islamic Extremism by renaming it "man made disasters". We are not at war with Terror. Terror is a technique applied by Islamic Extremist. Political Correctness resulted in 13 deaths. PC takes it's toll in daily living by controlling speech and ignoring truths. If we can't or won't identify the enemy we cannot defeat the enemy. PC and Islamic extremism are the enemy. Don’t change the name. It is more Orwellian thinking...double speak. We truly are living in an America where 2+2=5.

By Anonymous @ Tuesday, November 17, 2009 3:58 PM

It's fear.

People have been cowed into silence because of the fear of being labeled islamophobic, racist, bigoted, unenlightened, extremist, stupid hillbillies, etc. if they dare to criticize someone in a "protected" voting bloc.

Few will risk being reprimanded, sent to sensitivity training (a polite word for re-education camp), sued, fired, shunned, docked, run out of town and personally destroyed all because they stepped up and said, "Hey, this person's giving off bad vibes."

Political correctness is political intimidation.

-Michelle

By mgsjake @ Tuesday, November 17, 2009 1:34 PM

The object is to get attention ! Albeit a bit crude, the following, ultimately used as an acronym is the best !!

Politically Induced Suicidal Syndrome !!!!!!

By Anonymous @ Monday, November 16, 2009 1:16 PM

"Political Correctness" as a misnomer is on par with "Hate Crimes " ... Both disable our common sense for a certain subject , allowing the government to give special status to certain groups that are absolutely preaching a religion ... Both terms seem to disable our Constitutional assurance against our government promoting one religion above another ... Our freedom of speech takes a hit even if we are not bigots ,, but the real bigots get enhanced freedom and protection ,,, and even enabling . "Political Suicide might be a better term ...

By Anonymous @ Monday, November 16, 2009 12:01 PM

Is there some reason that our President is selecting paths that take him out of the possible position of having to sign an authorization to kill a Muslim? Would that put him or his family in danger due to his past commitments to that religion?

By Anonymous @ Sunday, November 15, 2009 11:07 PM

Newt, if you had raised enough money to run for president I would have voted for you however I've seen the Republicans are still trying to be chameleons and unforturnately you seem to incline that way at times. It won't work, just be fiercely honest speak the truth and take what comes.

By Anonymous @ Sunday, November 15, 2009 8:57 PM

You would know all about PC, Newt. What was that little ad you did with Pelosi? Oh yeah, it was about CLIMATE CHANGE. Yep. We get it. You're a fair-weather opportunist. You had to make the greenies like you. Tell us all about political correctness, Newt.

By Anonymous @ Sunday, November 15, 2009 8:37 AM

The Democratic Party is taking this country down the path of Marxist ruin, and the Republican Party is following submissively behind them like little lost puppy dogs looking for a home. I see little hope for change in our current plight. America; Abandon all hope ye who enter here.

By Anonymous @ Sunday, November 15, 2009 2:33 AM

I wonder why Newt persists with his attempts to be in the spotlight.

His record is one of shameless rinoism, with his support of Dede Scozzafava in the NY23 race being the most current example of his willingness to sell out Conservatives.
Immediately on the heels of that disgusting conduct was his instantaneous switch to supporting Hoffman after his (Newts) betters managed to run Scozzofava off.

I mean, Newt is such an arrogant dolt that he actually believes no one realises how often he switches sides on the issues and how very treacherous he really is.

Newt really has no business attempting to fashion himself as any sort of Conservative 'leader'.
And his pal, Hip Hop Michael Steele, isn't any sort of trip ticket (for Newt) back to believability.
Steele has absolutely no strength of character and no clue at all regarding what Conservatism is and what Conservatives want.

Had the GOP base been given a vote on who would lead the party...Steele would have been relegated to the job of paper weight or door stop, and a real Conservative would be at the helm, making progress...right now.

It's obvious that the days of rinoism never served America well, and actually lead...cowardly and traitorous capitulation, by cowardly and traitorous capitulation... to the disastrous state of affairs this nation is in now, under the marxist coup.

And no intelligent person can help but notice that when Americans who have moral values, a belief in god, a love of Constitutional law, a desire for an end to the illegal invasion, an aversion to homosexuality, and concerns about Obama's marxist policies were branded Terrorists by the DHS...Michael Steele was no where to be found for a defence of Conservatism and the decent Americans embracing that discipline.
Nor was Newt.

Who in this fresh hell does Newt think he is now, to come mincing up onto his soap box and acting as though he has any right at all to present himself as any sort of friend to freedom?

The guy clearly despises Conservatism.

By Anonymous @ Sunday, November 15, 2009 12:01 AM

I think political correctness is dividing our nation. It separates people into catagories and groups. Instead of everyone being americans they are african american or arab american or muslim american. The worst part is I find myself fighting being pc because of this but worrying about being called a racist if I'm not pc. I'm not racist, I believe that everyone should be treated based on the way they act, not on some superficial distinction. If people felt this way this man would have been stopped before he could have killed and injured all those people. PCness has caused us to become too concerned with skin color or religion to look at people for who they are. I work with a woman who converted to islam when she marred, she was catholic. I asked her one day why more muslims don't speak out and she said if they do they are put on gov't watch lists. She also told me she was worried about finding a job when she moved to Chicago because she wears a head scarf. People are judging her because of a scarf, not because of who she is. That tells me that all this pc bs is more divisive than helpful.

By mgsjake @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 11:21 PM

I believe the name should indicate what will happen !! Ergo: The new name----

" POLITICAL INCORRECTNESS "

By Saint Zita @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:02 PM

"Willing Suspension of Disbelief"

Troops were scared to say anything. "Discrimination Label" and runination of career.

We need to Profile all Muslims and when they beef, say "Sorry, your bretheren have put you in this bad situation. If you are innocent, we'll find out, otherwise... jail with 3 squares a day".

Obama's Trial Lawyers won't permit "Profiling All Muslims".

Walter Reed pushed "The Problem" to Fort Hood. Fort Hood had plans to push the problem to Afghanistan.

Once in Afghanistan, perhaps the Terrorist Major would have been "fragged", met an untimely death on the dusty streets or rocky hills of Afghanistan.

God Bless the United States Military and Their Families.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 9:58 PM

It is called treason

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 9:46 PM

The Ft Hood Massacre was caused by multiculturalism. Multiculturalism itself is something of a misnomer because it really is not concerned with 'multiple cultures', in practice it just divides American culture from all other cultures. It also makes an oppressor/oppressed distinction where is assigns American culture the role of oppressor.

In this scenario Hassan is assigned a victim role because he belongs to the 'oppressed' Muslim class.

Consequently, Hassan is automatically advantaged in the scenario where somebody attempts to discipline him for two reason:
(1) because he is entitled to an automatic defense because he is considered to be oppressed by American culture (i.e., a victim), and
(2) defending American interests (e.g., by removing an obvious security risk from the Army) is a reprehensible act of siding with an oppressor.

Multiculturalism acts delegitimize actions that defend our nation's interest. In fact this delegitimization is one of the primary purposes of multiculturalism.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 8:39 PM

HEY SCUMBAG.

YOU DID YOUR DAMNDEST TO GIVE US THE PC INSANITY THAT IS EATING THE COUNTRY ALIVE AND STILL CONTINUE YOUR ATTENION SEEKING RACISM TOUR WITH SHARPTON, THE "GLOBAL WARMING" BS AND ALL THE OTHER ATTROCITIES YOU COMMITED AS SPEAKER.

A 13% RISE IN SPENDING ON THE PROGRAMS THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA WAS SUPPOSED TO CUT OR ELIMINATE TELLS AMERICA ALL WE NEED TO KNOW.

CRAWL BACK UNDER YOUR ROCK, YOU ARE A DISGUSTING SCUMBAG POLITICIAN AND HELPED HOLD AMERICA DOWN AS SHE WAS RAPED BY YOUR CORRUPT FRIENDS.

YOU HELPED PUT US IN THIS SITUATION AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO FORGET IT.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 8:29 PM

It is many things. Litigation avoidance, programmed ignorance. Blatant cowardice. Let there be no misunderstanding, political correctness killed those soldiers, Hasan was merely the trigger. If it were a headline it would read: "Political correctness kills 13, wounds 30, Extremist Muslim infidel pulls trigger"

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 8:25 PM

HEY SCUBAG.

YOU DID YOUR DAMNDEST TO GIVE US THE PC INSANITY THAT IS EATING THE COUNTRY ALIVE AND STILL CONTINUE YOUR ATTENION SEEKING RACISM TOUR WITH SHARPTON, THE "GLOBAL WARMING" BS AND ALL THE OTHER ATTROCITIES YOU COMMITED AS SPEAKER.

A 13% RISE IN SPENDING ON THE PROGRAMS THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA WAS SUPPOSED TO CUT OR ELIMINATE TELLS AMERICA ALL WE NEED TO KNOW.

CRAWL BACK UNDER YOUR ROCK, YOU ARE A DISGUSTING SCUMBAG POLITICIAN AND HELPED HOLD AMERICA DOWN AS SHE WAS RAPED BY YOUR CORRUPT FRIENDS.

YOU HELPED PUT US IN THIS SITUATION AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO FORGET IT.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 8:14 PM

Sir,
I have always referred to these people as do-gooders, as they mean to do well, and they mean to be fair, but they are trapped in their own mindset of what they mean. It's like a social worker that wants to feed a poor man when he doesn't need food, tho he needs a place to live. It's like the nosy neighbor who thinks you are not taking care of your kids properly, tho you are doing everything you can and what you really need is a babysitter because you and your wife are working three jobs. A do-gooder is someone who is willing to give you something or do something for your own good, which you don't want or need, and when you express that, you are an ungrateful slob. They do it to attempt to lessen their own guilt. To alleviate their own pain. To be able to say they did something, even if it wasn't the right thing. In my personal experience, they are more harm than good, and they are often clumped into this category of "Politically Correct". Those people who are trying to be politically correct mean well, they really do.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 7:38 PM

Putting one's own personal career (either out of fear of retribution or willful negligence) in front of the safety and security of the nation one is sworn to serve and protect? I'd call it "treason", not PC.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 7:32 PM

I think the Bible gives us the only viable answer to your question.
2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12 "Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

There is no way they could be so stupid, except this: God sends them a strong delusion so that they can believe the lie!

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 7:01 PM

My sincere appologies for the tripple post, 64 Bit Windows 7 with 32 bit IE has not been without difficulties in post transmitions, even to my own website.
Sorry,
Tom Coss,

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 6:51 PM

Mr. Speaker-

I'm for Unconditional Tolerance recommended by my fellow citizen layopinions yesterday.

Unconditional Tolerance describes the results of what Thomas Sowell outlines in his book "A Conflict of Visions". Sowell identifies for us a group of people for whom good intentions and sincerity are more important than outcomes and results. For these people, no amount of negative results is sufficient to abandon actions whose intentions that are good, as promoted by enlightened and sincere people.

Unfortunately, for these progressive minded citizens among us, the loss of 12 souls in the terrorist act at Fort Hood will be viewed as aberration, and will by no means the fault of the sincere efforts of diversity and tolerance. What is heart breaking is that the thoughts and desires progressive and liberal continue to be acted out, we have lost the thoughts, opinions and actions of 12 citizens. For these citizens and their families, the terrorism at Fort Hood is real, painful and permanent. For these people their lives will forever be changed, not so, I fear, for progressive liberals.

We already see the next step of unconditional tolerance in the decision to have terrorists tried in New York City. Here too, intentions and sincerity are first, if it were not the case, why not Fargo or Fresno? No, this is about making a point with world wide exposure. This is a shamefully transparent prosecution of the actions prior administration in protecting its citizens. Like the guy at your work or school, always eager to throw someone “under the buss”, in order to save, protect or perhaps enhance themselves. This is about "I'm right and you're wrong"; this is about Obama, his vision of himself and that of his reality, and not at all about the reality in which you and I must live.

In our reality words have meaning, bullets penetrate and wound people, and too many of those people die. In our reality people who inflect great harm on others for the sake of their ideals, are called terrorists. Terrorists do what they do because their reality is different than ours, and they want us to abandon ours and abide by theirs. These people are not influenced by reason, good intentions or sincerity of others, they just know their "reality", their sincerity and vision for the world around them; they are fundamentally and unapologetically intolerant.

In this, terrorists are not so foreign to the desires of progressive liberals. Not that progressives or liberals approve of terrorism, they certainly do not, but they understand it because it is within the penumbra of what they deem sometimes necessary. Being so convinced by their own "enlightened" the progressives among us are confident that the ends justify the means; outcomes are independent of the process by which they were achieved. This is why an act that is so clearly and obviously terrorist in nature, intent and execution, is less clear to liberals. They are reticent of the label “terrorism” because they understand. You can see the con-trail of this sensibility through the “if all else fails, force it” approach of the democratic congress on the healthcare bill. Motivated by sincerity of their own good intentions, they believe that force is occasionally necessary to achieve their desired outcomes, and herein lays an underlying sensitivity to those who are similarly motivated.

By way of remedy, may I recommend Intolerable Ambivalence? Perhaps I and others can refuse to remain ambivalent to what people say, even when it is very well said. Perhaps it is OK to call the President a "liar" when he is indeed lying even though it is not OK to call what happened at Fort Hood a terrorist act.

It is time to call'em as we see'em

Thomas A. Coss,
Las Flores, CA

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 6:50 PM

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 6:49 PM

Mr. Speaker-

I'm for Unconditional Tolerance recommended by my fellow citizen layopinions yesterday.

Unconditional Tolerance describes very results of what Thomas Sowell outlines in his book "A Conflict of Visions". Sowell identifies for us a group of people for whom good intentions and sincerity are more important than outcomes and results. For these people, no amount of negative results is sufficient to abandon actions whose intentions that are good, as promoted by enlightened and sincere people.

Unfortunately, for these progressive minded citizens among us, the loss of 12 souls in the terrorist act at Fort Hood will be viewed as aberration, and will by no means the fault of the sincere efforts of diversity and tolerance. What is heart breaking is that the thoughts and desires progressive and liberal continue to be acted out, we have lost the thoughts, opinions and actions of 12 citizens. For these citizens and their families, the terrorism at Fort Hood is real, painful and permanent. For these people their lives will forever be changed, not so, I fear, for progressive liberals.

We already see the next step of unconditional tolerance in the decision to have terrorists tried in New York City. Here too, intentions and sincerity are first, if it were not the case, why not Fargo or Fresno? No, this is about making a point with world wide exposure. This is a shamefully transparent prosecution of the actions prior administration in protecting its citizens. Like the guy at your work or school, always eager to throw someone “under the buss”, in order to save, protect or perhaps enhance themselves. This is about "I'm right and you're wrong"; this is about Obama, his vision of himself and that of his reality, and not at all about the reality in which you and I must live.

In our reality words have meaning, bullets penetrate and wound people, and too many of those people die. In our reality people who inflect great harm on others for the sake of their ideals, are called terrorists. Terrorists do what they do because their reality is different than ours, and they want us to abandon ours and abide by theirs. These people are not influenced by reason, good intentions or sincerity of others, they just know their "reality", their sincerity and vision for the world around them; they are fundamentally and unapologetically intolerant.

In this, terrorists are not so foreign to the desires of progressive liberals. Not that progressives or liberals approve of terrorism, they certainly do not, but they understand it because it is within the penumbra of what they deem sometimes necessary. Being so convinced by their own "enlightened" the progressives among us are confident that the ends justify the means; outcomes are independent of the process by which they were achieved. This is why an act that is so clearly and obviously terrorist in nature, intent and execution, is less clear to liberals. They are reticent of the label “terrorism” because they understand. You can see the con-trail of this sensibility through the “if all else fails, force it” approach of the democratic congress on the healthcare bill. Motivated by sincerity of their own good intentions, they believe that force is occasionally necessary to achieve their desired outcomes, and herein lays an underlying sensitivity to those who are similarly motivated.

By way of remedy, may I recommend Intolerable Ambivalence? Perhaps I and others can refuse to remain ambivalent to what people say, even when it is very well said. Perhaps it is OK to call the President a "liar" when he is indeed lying even though it is not OK to call what happened at Fort Hood a terrorist act.

It is time to call'em as we see'em

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 6:18 PM

Dereliction of Duty gets my vote.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 6:08 PM

Lawfully Unpatriotic

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 6:06 PM

Blinding Social Compassion This has everything to do with our society's belief in the good nature of humans vs the reality of man. Humans fight, torture, rape and kill. In the US we strive for a more evolved society. We want this so bad we blind ourselves from the reality that a human would even think of much less act out such crimes. It will never change. As we continue to incorporate people in our society with different beliefs especially those who don't value all human life we face this challenge. Islamic extremism is a major threat because of this Blinding Social Compassion.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 5:55 PM

It is "Politically Induced Suicidal Syndrome."

It has an unfortunate acronym.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 5:50 PM

How about passively hopeful political ignorance?

Passive like Carter, hopeful like Obama, and politically ignorant like both of them.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 4:58 PM

Irrational socio-ethinic accommodation.

Ethnic and social accommodation keeps a diverse nation civil. These accommodations become irrational when adding or removing a social or ethic definition changes logical response.

Had Nidal Hassan's actions been viewed through a lens that filtered his ethnicity and religion it is likely that the his co-workers, his military superiors, the FBI and even some neighbors would have responded differently to numerous red flags.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 4:50 PM

Two problems I see.

First, an overapplication of tolerance unfettered from rational discernment, a willingness to identify and defend objective moral and ethical truth, and confidence in the revealed truths of scripture.

This last point leads to my second point. The reason we tolerate Islam is because we lack the ability to condemn the muslim ideology is because we lack our own religious and ideological convictions and world view. We need to educate ourselves.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 4:46 PM

What about FEAR? Have we & our government become so afraid that we believe if we give everyone the benefit of the doubt - hoping that they'll somehow decide to like us instead of kill us? "There is nothing to fear but fear itself" might need to be dusted off.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 4:45 PM

As I have been teaching over the past 14 years, I have seen the same 'items' pervading the minds, emotions, and decisions of adults and students.

There are those of us who are wanting to teach/facilitate learning and as I (and others) have begun to assert intelligently our needs, boundaries, and what we will and won't accept, we are beginning to see students be fortified in modeling their character... as they see their leaders modeling theirs. We have full support of our admin, police officer, and wise parents. btw... this is a very diverse population of admin, teachers, students, etc... We are focusing on doing what is correct/right/safe/productive.. in order to provide a safe/productive/healthy environment for learning.... We (students, teachers, admin) were sick and tired of being paralyzed by the decisions which prohibited us from getting the criminals out of our schools... not ebd students... just students who are making BAD decisions, who have not gotten a clue, yet, that there are consequences to actions...

As we have been supported by our admin and each other, we have more hope and it is being reflected in the students.

If we can't change federal down to local... maybe we can take our country back... by influencing our students ... teaching them the necessity for learning how to think, the vital need of thinking.. and judging what is best.. from reliable, valid, and viable resources.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 4:24 PM

It is call "In your face Ha!Ha!Ha!" Remember the Flying Imams? They purposefully did their calculated stunt because they knew our weak society wouldn't do anything to them. We used to be able to shame bad people and bad behavior - not anymore without being called a racist or a bigot. Sad state of affairs.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 4:24 PM

Political correctness is an affront to individuals who value personal integrity. To minimize an individual in a wide swath of group identification undermines what I believe is a person's intrinsic desire to find purpose, social connection, and spiritual meaning in his or her life. Minimizing personal responsibility for any act, no matter how large or small, is a covert message that the individual who committed the act is not fully acknowledged as a person. Excusing or minimizing personal responsibility does not exclude the possibility of forgiveness and redemption, but holding people responsible for their actions with the understanding that there is a path of civil redemption (paying a debt to society) may have saved some lives.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 4:20 PM

Political correctness is making America worse. In the end it keeps us from valuing and rejoicing in each others differences. Do we not notice when someone is black or white or whatever? Yet we're not allowed to discuss it, or to even acknowledge it. This is unenlightened. Lawyers created this, first in employment law and then it carried over into schools.
How are we to understand and value each other if the very fact that we are different can't be appreciated.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 4:16 PM

This is all part of some effort to "not make muslums angry" Political correctness was used as part of an effort to destroy governments and bring about either a socialist or totalitarian society (ie. Nazi Germany). Whatever action of horror is committed by whoever to whoever must be accurately described. This was a radical muslim hiding in the military due to political correctness and diversity. It was a matter of time for someone of this "kind" to commit treason, an act of war, and a terrorist act against our citizenry.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 4:15 PM

Peer pressure of political correctness

Spineless robotrons trying to fit in

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 4:00 PM

Newt: PC has everything to do with bring our country to its knees, if people continue to subscribe to it. However, it is not one of the amendments to our founding Constitution. When things begin to get muddled, it's time to go back to 'Square A' and determine where the breakdown is, not add a ton of new 'squares', which is what PC has done. It's an out-of-control pity party!

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 11:43 AM

apologies for not proof-reading first posting
posted by ldhendrix:

Saracenopia? Saracenphobia?

I suppose Islam can be no more "mainstream" than the Prophet himself. Consider his own words:

“Different prophets have been sent by God to illustrate His different attributes: Moses, His providence; Solomon, His wisdom; Christ, His righteousness; but I, the last of the prophets, am sent with the sword. Let those who promulgate my faith enter into no arguments or discussions but slay all who refuse obedience. Whoever fights for the true faith, whether he fall or conquer, will assuredly receive a glorious reward, for the sword is the key of heaven. All who draw it in defense of the faith shall receive temporal and future blessings. Every drop of their blood, every peril and hardship, will be registered on high as more meritorious than fasting or prayer. If they fall in battle, their sins will be washed away. And they shall be transported into Paradise, to revel in eternal pleasures, and in the arms of the black-eyed houris.”

Quote attributed to the Prophet Mohammed

Beacon Lights of History, Vol. III, Part 1, The Middle Ages/Saracenic Conquests
By John Lord, LL. D.
New York: Wm. H. Wise & Co., Inc. 1921
pp 42-43

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 11:33 AM

Saracenopia? Saracenphopia?

I suppose Islam can be more "mainstream" than the Phrophet himself. Consider his own words:

“Different prophets have been sent by God to illustrate His different attributes: Moses, His providence; Solomon, His wisdom; Christ, His righteousness; but I, the last of the prophets, am sent with the sword. Let those who promulgate my faith enter into no arguments or discussions but slay all who refuse obedience. Whoever fights for the true faith, whether he fall or conquer, will assuredly receive a glorious reward, for the sword is the key of heaven. All who draw it in defense of the faith shall receive temporal and future blessings. Every drop of their blood, every peril and hardship, will be registered on high as more meritorious than fasting or prayer. If they fall in battle, their sins will be washed away. And they shall be transported into Paradise, to revel in eternal pleasures, and in the arms of the black-eyed houris.”

Quote attributed to the Prophet Mohammed

Beacon Lights of History, Vol. III, Part 1, The Middle Ages/Saracenic Conquests
By John Lord, LL. D.
New York: Wm. H. Wise & Co., Inc. 1921
pp 42-43

By Anonymous @ Saturday, November 14, 2009 7:16 AM

Appeasement - The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace

By Anonymous @ Friday, November 13, 2009 10:10 PM

I will tell you what I think. Newt, you should get out of the way. You support status quo big government republicans, your ideas are rewarmed government control and policies and think tanks...

Thanks, Newt, but when you screwed over conservatives in the facedown with Clinton on the Contract with America 1...well, sorry but you are a relic. Get lost.

By Anonymous @ Friday, November 13, 2009 9:49 PM

Fear, not political correctness. It's not that "we the people" are afraid of anything in particular, such as terorism or race. It's fear of being different, as apposed to indifferent. This is much more common than most people would think. But especially in today's military, both high and low rank, people are afraid to stand out and be the one to make a gutsy call. The courage that made men hard during World War II would now be considered politically incorrect. Very sad in my opinion. God have mercy on us if we ever get into a war that effects ALL Americans, not just the ones in uniform. However, I believe it would wake the American peope up, and that it could stop the massive indifference that affects us, and leads to situations like this.

By Anonymous @ Friday, November 13, 2009 3:41 PM

Suicidal Correctness

By jas_usarocks @ Friday, November 13, 2009 2:44 PM

Suicidal Sensitivity

By Anonymous @ Friday, November 13, 2009 2:34 PM

There is no "radical" Islam, only Islam. They have been at war with us (Christians) for 900 years, and with all infidals longer. WAR! What about this don't you get?!?!Wake up.

By Anonymous @ Friday, November 13, 2009 2:21 PM

Mandated Tolerance.

By Anonymous @ Friday, November 13, 2009 2:15 PM

The very idea of Political Correctness is utterly repugnant and it is stupid to minimize it's destructiveness by artificially trying to separate some of its effects from others.

By Saint Zita @ Friday, November 13, 2009 1:53 PM

By Anonymous @ Friday, November 13, 2009 1:52 PM

Is it Political Correctness to avoid saying things that might well result in a discrimination lawsuit? I believe it is, and that makes not calling him an Islamic Terrorist PC. He is an Islamic Terrorist

By Anonymous @ Friday, November 13, 2009 1:50 PM

Is it time for to play NO MORE MISTER NICE GUY??

By Anonymous @ Friday, November 13, 2009 1:26 PM

Suicidal Correctness Syndrome. James Burnham predicted it in his classic 1964 book "Suicide of the West." It's a form of aiding and abetting the enemy, with deadly results.

By Anonymous @ Friday, November 13, 2009 1:09 PM

Suicidal-ambivalence

By Anonymous @ Friday, November 13, 2009 1:02 PM

"Willful Delusion"

By Anonymous @ Friday, November 13, 2009 12:55 PM

I think the term being "MUDDY" serves your purpose very well...
M - Misinformed about the facts of islamic extremism
U - Unrealistic to expect courtesy to stop islamic extremists
D - Deluding yourself about the danger from radical islam
D - Disserving your countrymen and moderate muslims... Read More
Y - Yellow-bellied and selfish to endanger others for fear of looking "politically incorrect"

By Anonymous @ Friday, November 13, 2009 12:35 PM

Please forgive me if I am ignorant on the subject, but were it not for the Patriot Act what would we know of this nefarious individuals e-mails?? I am good with treason being the word and pc has backed us into the corner that allowed this individual to infiltrate our nation's defenders of freedom!

By layopinions @ Friday, November 13, 2009 12:19 PM

Unconditional Tolerance -
We are expected to not only accept and respect, but also to accommodate, embrace and , dare I say, appease other cultures, lifestyles and viewpoints even if doing so requires us to ignore common sense or compromise our own values or security.

By Anonymous @ Friday, November 13, 2009 11:26 AM

I think this is an important enough phenomenon that if no term readily comes to mind then it's worth inventing one. I propose "hoodblindness", with both the obvious reference to Fort Hood, as well as the imagery of pulling our collective hoods over our faces and pretending the problem we have here doesn't exist.

World War II had Christians fighting Christians. Somehow that didn't get in the way.

By Anonymous @ Friday, November 13, 2009 11:14 AM

Incompetence is too forgiving - I would be with treason also

By Anonymous @ Friday, November 13, 2009 11:05 AM

How stupid is it to suggest that it is immoral to place muslims in a position to kill other muslims in the military? When they blow themselves and each other up every day with the blessings of the Imams, expecting rewards in the afterlife.

By Anonymous @ Friday, November 13, 2009 10:55 AM

I would call it social injustice.

By Anonymous @ Friday, November 13, 2009 10:54 AM

How about Neville Chamberlainian? Or we could just go with what it really is: treason. We can't be afraid to call it what it is.

By Anonymous @ Friday, November 13, 2009 10:54 AM

inferiority complex

Click Here to post a comment