Tongue Tied 3

Australia is Less "Correct"

Would the following headline be allowed in America?

"Black weekend for Aussie women sport

The Hockeyroos suffered their first loss to New Zealand in five years and 22 matches to cap a black weekend for Australian women's teams against their trans-Tasman foes. The 1-0 loss in the first Test of the three-match Oceania World Cup qualifying series followed the Australian netball team's record 61-36 defeat to the world champion Silver Ferns on Saturday night, also in Auckland........."

Source

More on Blacks in Sport

The big trouble Air Force football coach Fisher DeBerry just got himself into by noting that blacks tend to be faster runners reminds me of an earlier similar episode (from 2003), where a black sporting manager also attributed superior sports performance to race. Excerpt:

"Chicago Cubs manager Dusty Baker, dismissing suggestions he made a racist assertion when speaking with reporters about day baseball, stands by his comments that black and Hispanic players are better suited to playing in the sun and heat than white players. "I'm not playing the race card. I'm telling it like it is," Baker said by telephone Monday. "What I meant is that blacks and Latins take the heat better than most whites, and whites take the cold better than most blacks and Latins. That's it, pure and simple. Nothing deeper than that."

Source

Despite a lot of pressure, and to his credit, Baker refused to apologize but I don't suppose that option was really open to DeBerry. Keith Burgess Jackson said all that needed to be said about the Baker episode.

Holy Moses! "African-American" is Incorrect Now

And you are not allowed to say that blacks run faster either -- even though they dominate running events in the Olympic Games. Note the following excerpt:

"Air Force football coach Fisher DeBerry was reprimanded Wednesday for remarks about wanting to recruit more black athletes because they run faster. DeBerry, 67, in his 22nd season as the Falcons coach, apologized for the comments..... "There was no consideration to stepping down from my job," he said. "I feel like maybe a couple terms that I used should not have been used in any remarks that I would make to anybody. If I offended anybody by using the term African-American or by using the term minorities, I certainly did not mean to offend anyone....

During his weekly press luncheon Tuesday, DeBerry said, in part, "It was very obvious to me the other day that the other team (TCU) had a lot more African-American players than we did and they ran a lot faster than we did. "Afro-American kids can run very, very well. Their (TCU's) defense had 11 Afro-American kids on their team and they were a very good defensive football team."

Source

Even saying the obvious is now offensive in America. And how it can be offensive to compliment people on their athletic abilities when athletic ability is so prestigious in our society defeats my poor old brain too.

Update

Black sports columnist Michael Wilbon speaks some excellent good sense on the matter, saying: "DeBerry has nothing whatsoever to apologize for". Wilbon also comments on the call for more blacks in baseball.




Sense of Humor No Longer Tolerated

Low-fare regional carrier AirTran Airways can't take any hint of its being laughed at. As this excerpt shows:

"AirTran Airways said Thursday that it still has not resolved its tiff with Anheuser-Busch Cos. over an ad the beer company ran, and later pulled, that took a jab at low-cost carriers and their pilots. The ad, part of Bud Light's "Real Men of Genius" campaign, was called "Mr. Discount Airline Pilot Guy" and chided pilots for "minimal experience" and inability to work for a "reputable airline." AirTran executives said this week they would consider stopping sales of Anheuser-Busch products on its flights because of the ad, which is still available on the Internet".

Source

In boxing, a guy who is easily knocked out is said to have a "glass jaw". There are a lot of glass jaws these days that don't even need a punch to knock them out. The constant victim-talk of the political correctness mongers seems to have caused childish sulks to become routine among adults now. It was once a term of contempt to say of someone that "he can't take it" but it seems that no-one can take anything now.

(Hat tip to Peachtree Jaunts)




Surprise: school cancels Halloween celebration

If you can't even mention the Devil these days, it is obvious that the political correctness police (among whom our "educators" are prominent) will ban ANYTHING that is even vaguely religious if at all possible. And the supernatural references in Halloween were an obvious target. As we read in the following excerpt from the People's Republic of Massachusetts:

"When students at Underwood Elementary School walk to their classrooms on Monday, there will be no witches, SpongeBob SquarePants, or Johnny Damons there to greet them. No skeleton paintings or Frankenstein tattoos, either. The school's principal said yesterday he acceded to the complaints of a handful of parents who said that because the school's traditional Halloween celebrations offended their religious beliefs, they would not send their children to school if the revelry continued this year.... Of nearly a dozen parents interviewed outside the school yesterday, none supported the decision to cancel the celebration. Several parents said they are considering staging a protest by donning costumes on Monday and standing in front of the school.

"If they can cancel Halloween, what about Columbus Day and Valentines Day? We get Jewish holidays and Christmas off, so what's next?" asked Andrea Newman, whose two sons attend the school. ''All it takes is one person to be offended, and our school will ban it." Parents interviewed yesterday said they didn't mind not being able to celebrate the holiday, but they complained that it was political correctness run amok, particularly at a school where one-fifth of the student body is nonwhite and the website is in both English and Chinese. "The beauty of having diversity is to celebrate different cultures and holidays," said Renee Levin



Source

So some sorts of diversity are good -- particularly if lots of people disagree with it. But other sorts of diversity are bad -- particularly if only a tiny minority disagree with it. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it? But it makes sense if you realize that the real agenda of political correctness is not to help anybody but to upset as many ordinary people as possible. The political correctness creeps love humanity. It's just people they can't stand.




Women Driving Racing Cars

This bit of incorrectness gave me a laugh:

"Jenson Button, the Formula 1 driver, has dismissed the ability of women to compete in Grand Prix racing by claiming they are unsafe to drive during their periods and that their breasts stop them fitting into small racing cars. In an extraordinary interview, Button dismissed the prospects of Danica Patrick - an American racing car driver, who finished fourth in this year's Indianapolis 500 - moving up to compete in Formula 1 on the grounds that her figure could distract male pit mechanics. He told men's magazine FHM: "Danica is very quick. But in F1 cars I can't see it happening due to the G-force in fast corners. And one week of the month you wouldn't want to be on the circuit with them, would you? A girl with big boobs would never be comfortable in the car. And the mechanics wouldn't concentrate. Can you imagine strapping her in?"

Source

I don't care whether he was right or wrong but I am glad he still felt free to say it. And lots of people felt free to disagree with him too. Which is as it should be. It's called free speech.




Pigs and Ham Sandwiches

Was the story I mentioned yesterday about a ban on piggy banks "fake but accurate"? Apparently the banks concerned have denied the story. But I guess they would after all the adverse publicity. Anyway, the story has been heavily covered in the mainstream media and we all know how careful they claim to be about their "fact checking", don't we?

But whether that particular story is true or not, there have been other similar stories about pandering to Muslim "sensitivities" about pigs that do appear to have been confirmed -- such as this one.

One of the things I asked in my post yesterday was: "Will we soon be banned from eating ham sandwiches?" And it seems that I might have been a bit prophetic there. A reader writes: "Actually the company across the street from us has already told the vending companies to delete all pork products from the break rooms and cafeteria. Why? The Muslim employees. So, the Muslim employees have decided, backed by a spineless, whimpering management, that no employee can buy pork products at lunch. What's next, banning the employees from bringing a ham sandwich from home?"

I report, you decide

It Had to Happen

I knew that piggy banks could not last. In case you have not seen the story already, note the following press excerpt:

"British banks are banning piggy banks because they may offend some Muslims. Halifax and NatWest banks have led the move to scrap the time-honoured symbol of saving from being given to children or used in their advertising, the Daily Express/Daily Star group reports here. Muslims do not eat pork, as Islamic culture deems the pig to be an impure animal. Salim Mulla, secretary of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, backed the bank move. "This is a sensitive issue and I think the banks are simply being courteous to their customers," he said".

Source

How come WE have to give up OUR customs when THEY come to live in our countries? How about Muslims showing some "sensitivity" to our customs? Will we soon be banned from eating ham sandwiches?. It's the same logic (or lack of it).

Viscount Horatio Nelson

As I hope we all know, last Friday was the 200th anniversary of the destruction of a large Franco/Spanish fleet at Trafalgar by a British force under the command of Admiral Nelson -- thus ending the threat of an invasion of England by Napoleon. In the expected politically correct way, official British government celebrations have been muted for fear of "offending the French". See one account of that here.

So I am going to do my little bit here to mark the event and I don't give a damn about whom it might offend.

I want to concentrate on just one thing: Why did Nelson in effect commit suicide during that battle? He stood in full view in a prominent position on his flagship dressed in every bit of the colourful regalia he was entitled to. He made himself as prominent a target as he could, in other words. And he remained there even when his ship came to close quarters with a French ship full of musketeers. One of those musketeers eventually got him, of course.

Why would he do such a thing? He was the most popular man in England at the time and was sleeping with the most beautiful Englishwoman of the day. He can hardly have been depressed. I think the reason is is clear. He was displaying a virtue that is incomprehensible to the politically correct whiners of today: Heroism.

He knew that his fleet was heavily outnumbered and he knew that the fate of England hung on the battle. And as every military man knows, the spirit and morale of your troops is a hugely important factor in who wins a battle. So although his sailors already regarded him as someone not much less than the Messiah who would lead them to the promised land, Nelson wanted to ensure that every one of his men was a lion of courage. And he did that by setting the example personally.

Update

I am delighted to read that, despite initial British government resistance, popular enthusiasm ensured that the great victory and great heroism of Viscount Nelson was in the end properly celebrated in Britain. See here




Babies Incorrect

A nice American Christian family (see here) have just had their 16th child and the invariably vituperative San Francisco far-Left columnist Mark Morford is trying his best to portray that as pathological. Excerpt:

"Who are you to say that the more than slightly creepy 39-year-old woman from Arkansas who just gave birth to her 16th child yes that's right 16 kids and try not to cringe in phantom vaginal pain when you say it, who are you to say Michelle Duggar is not more than a little unhinged and sad and lost?...

But that would be, you know, mean. Mean and callous to suggest that this might be the most disquieting photo you see all year, this bizarre Duggar family of 18 spotless white hyperreligious interchangeable people with alarmingly bad hair, the kids ranging in ages from 1 to 17...

It's wrong to be this judgmental. Wrong to suggest that it is exactly this kind of weird pathological protofamily breeding-happy gluttony that's making the world groan and cry and recoil, contributing to vicious overpopulation rates and unrepentant economic strain and a bitter moral warpage resulting from a massive viral outbreak of homophobic neo-Christians across our troubled and Bush-ravaged land...."

Source

There is really no arguing with someone as hate-filled as that but I suppose I should mention that large families of 10 or more children were normal in 19th century America and Australia and still are in many parts of the world today. I myself am descended from one such family. And Morford's claim that such large families are causing the world to become overpopulated is certainly common Green/Left rhetoric but is totally fact-free in the usual Leftist way. Almost all of the countries of the developed world are in fact at the moment undergoing sub-replacement birthrates. So their populations are in fact in the process of SHRINKING. Only immigration is keeping the numbers up.

Doll Incorrectness

The busybodies of this world have always hated Barbie dolls but now even the language you use to talk about dolls has come under fire -- using some very far-fetched reasoning (if you can call it reasoning). Apparently you can't "adopt" dolls. As the following excerpt notes:

"A popular toy-marketing campaign, in which girls browse through hospital-style nurseries to choose a lifelike doll to "adopt," has come under fire from prominent adoption advocates who say the program - featured at scores of stores nationwide - conveys a harmful notion that adopted children are salable commodities".

Source

So something that appeals to the natural motherly instinct of little girls is now incorrect. Why am I not surprised? Could it be that all political correctness is primarily aimed at upsetting ordinary people rather than helping anybody?




Can you Refer to a Sports Team without Using its Name?

It seems you can in Kansas City -- particularly if the team concerned is the Washington Redskins. The Kansas City "Chiefs" recently had a win over the "Redskins" but the Kansas City Star referred to the losing side only as "the Washington team". That there are all sorts of teams for all sorts of things in Washington did not bother them apparently. The excerpt below explains the reason behind this insulting behavior.

"In a story about the protest, the paper said, "The Star's policy is not to use Washington's team name because it is a racial slur."

And what about the "Chiefs"? The paper wrote that, "the Chiefs were actually named for former Mayor H. Roe Bartle -- known as The Chief -- who was key in getting the team to come to Kansas City in the 1960s."

Source

A racial slur? I thought "Redskins" conveyed an heroic image! Why else would a sports team have adopted it? I don't think they meant to portray themselves as primitive morons, do you? Or is it a slur to portray someone as heroic these days? I guess it is in certain loony Left circles.

I get pretty red in the face myself at times so maybe the Redskins will have to come up with a story that their original coach got red in the face a lot when he was coaching them and so they are really named after him. It would be no sillier than the present farce.

Update

A reader has emailed me with the following sarcastic comment on the explanation given for the name "The Chiefs":

"So I guess the former Mayor was a participant in the sport of primitive archery since that's the arrowhead that's been on the side of the helmet forever".

Do I See a Name-Change Coming up?





I don't know exactly where the place above is but apparently it is for real

Update

Here is an actual map to Satan's Kingdom!

Black or Colored?

Further to my speculation yesterday about how long the term "black" would remain politically correct, a reader sent in the following interesting comment:

"When I was a kid in Alabama, in the 1950's, my housekeeper (we called her a maid) who was the woman who basically raised me and is likely responsible for the few people skills I have, hated being called "black" more than "n*****". She said that she was brown or colored or a Negro but not black. At that time it was a major pejorative term. There is a reason that the NAACP is not the NAABP.

You Can't Mention the Devil Either Now

This is a really curly one. Being myself an atheist, any mention of the Devil merely amuses me. So why are Leftist unbelievers bothered by mention of the Devil? Do they secretly fear that he is real and that he will come and get them if he hears his name mentioned? That's the only way I can explain the story below, anyway. Excerpt:

"When C.D. Hylton High School's marching band performs during Friday night's football game, they will be playing a different tune. This year, the marching band is performing a Georgia-themed halftime show, to celebrate their upcoming trip to perform at the Peach Bowl in Atlanta in December, band director Dennis Brown said. Until recently, the Charlie Daniels Band song "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" was in the marching band's line up of Georgia-themed music. The lyrics of the song describe the devil's attempt to steal the soul of a fiddle player in Georgia by challenging him to a fiddling duel. On Oct. 2, The Potomac News & Manassas Journal Messenger published a letter to the editor arguing that while no one objected to that song about the devil, there would be objections if the band were to play a song about God or other spiritual beings. After that letter ran in the paper, Brown dropped the song from the marching band's program".

Source

So it looks like the objector really does believe that the Devil is a spiritual being and that all mention of spiritual beings is taboo -- unless of course it is the Dalai Lama or some primitive tribe explaining their beliefs. In which case the whole thing is treated as great wisdom, of course.

Since most of the world has always believed in spiritual beings, we seem to be required to cut out a vast area of discussion and debate if we are not allowed to mention them.




No Freedom for Circuses any more

Circuses are a form of entertainment and entertainment has to be varied or people will lose interest in it. That seems to be lost on the regulation-loving Europeans. As the following excerpt shows:

"The European parliament is set to vote on a report calling for standardised rules for circuses performing across the continent. MEPs suggest circuses should be referred to as part of Europe's cultural heritage, but they disagree on whether they should include presentation of animals or not. The report contemplating the "new challenges for the circus as part of European culture" is to be voted on Thursday

Source

And this is not pie in the sky. European circuses are already regulated. But even more regulations are needed, apparently.

Fatheaded British Police


One of the earliest politically correct commandments was that people are not "short" but rather "vertically challenged". I think that one got laughed to death, however. And its logical corollary for fat people -- "horizontally challenged" -- was never even proposed to my knowledge.

But the British police are something else again. They are no good at dealing with a huge upsurge in gun crime (even though guns are supposedly banned in Britain) but they are super duper at victimizing ordinary people for what they do and say. And they crack down on any mention of "fat". As the following press excerpt shows:

"When Mary Magilton told police a hit-and-run driver was fat, she didn't think she was being rude. To her mind, it was merely an accurate description of the woman who had run into her on the pavement before driving off. But to the police officer interviewing the mother of three about her traumatic experience, "fat" represented inappropriate language. And she astonished Mrs Magilton by giving her a ticking-off for using the word.

Staff in the officer's force, Greater Manchester Police, have to abide by a 16-page document listing words and phrases which they should avoid so as not to cause offence, with suggested alternatives. Terms such as policeman and spokesman are described as sexist while phrases such as "accident blackspot" and "a black look" are deemed negative....

It does not, however, cover terminology for referring to those who are overweight. And it tells officers that, even if a witness uses an inappropriate term they should record it, putting it in quotation marks. Yesterday, with the suspect still at large, 54-year-old Mrs Magilton said the nit-picking attitude of the officer - who was of average build - had left her feeling like she was the criminal"

Source

So even 16 pages of rules about speech are not enough. Politically correct attitudes are now so deeply ingrained in the British police that they add extra rules of their own. No surprise that the hit-run driver has not been found. She no doubt has become a "victim" for being described as fat.




"White" Unmentionable Again


I have previously mentioned this story -- where "white flight" was deemed to be a "racist" phrase that cannot be mentioned. Now we have more of the same. There is a city in Texas called "White Settlement" -- and you can guess the rest can't you? Here is a press excerpt:

"White Settlement Mayor James O. Ouzts says the city's name has turned off potential new residents and businesses. Now, with the city falling on hard economic times, voters will decide whether to change White Settlement to West Settlement, a name more inviting to outsiders. "One of the first things they say is 'What's up with the name?' " Mr. Ouzts said. "They have a negative perception, and you have to try to overcome that. You expend a tremendous amount of energy trying to explain the name."

Source

Maybe I am missing the point here but perhaps they could rename the place "Non-Black Settlement". "Black" seems to be an OK word these days -- as long as you don't use it too often, of course.

Just a passing thought: I wonder when people who are actually brown will start objecting to being called "black"? When they do, maybe "colored" will come back into vogue and "black" will become incorrect. What a merrygoround it all is!

Hitler the Peacenik


One topic in politics that seems to have been almost completely silenced is how Leftist Hitler was. Any suggestion that he was a socialist (which is what he himself said he was) is shrilly denounced. Well, my tongue is untied on the matter so I am putting up below a picture of a Nazi propaganda poster of the 1930s that you won't believe unless you are aware of how readily all Leftists preach one thing and do another. It reads "Mit Hitler gegen den Ruestungswahnsinn der Welt".



And what does that mean? It means "With Hitler against the armaments madness of the world". "Ruestung" could more precisely be translated as "military preparations" but "armaments" is a bit more idiomatic in English.

So even the preaching of "peace" by the bloodthirsty Soviet regime of the cold war period had its parallel among the Nazis of the 1930s. You have now seen it with your own eyes.

Spanish Becoming Compulsory?

If your staff speak only English that seems to be no longer good enough in Ohio. At the very least you are not allowed to mention it. Press excerpt:

"A tavern's sign, "For Service Speak English," violates Ohio civil rights law, a commission ruled Thursday - as the sign still sat in the window of the Pleasure Inn on U.S. 42. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission says that, because of the sign, the Pleasure Inn "engaged in discriminatory practices." As a result of the finding, the business could be ordered to remove the sign, to pay for advertisements about nondiscrimination, and its staff could be ordered to undergo diversity training or cultural sensitivity training, said Christia Alou White, commission spokeswoman..... Ullum responded that "the sign means exactly what it says. ... None of (the tavern's) employees speak any language other than English and, therefore, would be unable to communicate with any patrons who are not versed in the English language."

Source

The bar owner said he does not exclude anyone on the basis of race, color or creed but because he was so bold as to tell the truth about his staff he is in the gun. But truth is always secondary to Leftists.




How Homosexual Correctness Makes Life Insurance Costly for All Single Men


Life insurance is something that you take out to help out those who are in some way dependent on you if you die young. The younger you are when you take it out, the cheaper it is. So it makes sense to sign up before you start a family etc. But if you are young and single you will often be inclined to put it off. Recent insurance rules regardsing AIDS, however, look like making it even more likely that young single men will put it off. It is about to become prohibitively expensive for young men to take out such policies -- because AIDS sufferers are a major category of single men who die prematurely and it is now forbidden to single out the category of young men who account for something like 90% of AIDS sufferers in the Western world -- homosexuals. As the following press excerpt notes:

"British life insurance agents cannot ask male applicants questions about their sexual practices in order to determine HIV risk, according to new guidelines from the Association of British Insurers that went into effect on Saturday, the Financial Times reports (Cumbo, Financial Times, 9/30). About 400 companies are members of ABI and, between them, provide 94% of domestic insurance services sold in the United Kingdom"

Source

So those who follow the safer lifestyle of heterosexuality cannot be in any way rewarded for that and will face the same high premiums that homosexuals do. The insurance companies will have to assume that any single young man who applies for a policy could be a homosexual who will contract AIDS and die young. They would go broke if they didn't allow for that. So homosexual correctness has become a good way of preventing heterosexual men from thinking ahead and providing wisely for their futures.

So it is foreseeable that, among young single men, it will almost entirely be homosexuals who take out such policies. In which case they will face the high premiums that their risky lifestyles necessitate and which the recent rule change is designed to save them from. So nothing will be gained for homosexuals and much may be lost for heterosexuals.





Miracles Incorrect


As an atheist myself I've really got no dog in this fight but one thing I do know is that the New Testament has many accounts of miracles in it and I also know that belief in the reality of what the New Testament describes is central to the Christian faith. And "Pentecostal" and Catholic churches which believe that miracles can still happen to this day seem to me a reasonable outgrowth of Bible teachings. So denying Christians the right to preach about miracles seems a fundamental attack on religious liberty and on the teachings which helped make the modern world what it is. Obviously, then, we must expect that such attacks will come from the religion-hating Leftists. And this excerpt from Britain is one example:

"Complaints about a church poster saying "Miracles Healing Faith" have been dismissed after an investigation. Two people felt the headline was misleading because it could not be scientifically proven and "preyed on the credulity of vulnerable people". The Advertising Standards Authority said it had not breached any rules. The Pentecostal Michael Reid Ministries in Brentwood, Essex, welcomed the findings but said the decision to investigate was "a nonsense".

Source

Well, the Pentecostals won that round but no doubt there will be further bouts to come. I think they might have a bit of difficulty in stopping pilgrimages to Lourdes, though. My own view is that such things as pilgrimages to Lourdes seem to help a lot of people so I am perfectly happy with them. Unlike Leftists, I don't need everybody to think as I do. I practice the tolerance that they only preach. And it isn't even an effort.

Free Speech for Leftists Only

Nobody is quicker to stifle freedom of speech than Leftists. Try saying "homosexuals are from the Devil" almost anywhere (but particularly on college and university premises) and you will be in big trouble. In Canada you can even go to jail for it. But, when conservatives object to obscenities directed at them by Leftists, freedom of speech is suddenly rediscovered. The press excerpt below tells you what actually happened. Read further in the article to hear about the Leftist protests:

"Southwest Airlines earlier this week booted a Washington woman off a flight in Reno after she refused to cover up a T-shirt some considered to be in poor taste. The cotton T in question played off the comedy film "Meet the Fockers," and featured black-and-white pictures of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice alongside the movie's title - with a strategically misplaced vowel.... And in the Southwest case, it was fellow passengers who objected to the T-shirt. Beth Harbin, a spokeswoman for the airline, said Thursday that it was not a case of stifling criticism of the president. "It could've been a (T-shirt) of Michael Jackson - it doesn't matter," she said. It simply was, she said, that the language is not "appropriate for Southwest Airlines." ....

While an airline can prohibit passengers from wearing certain types of clothing, only government incursions on free expression are considered a violation of the First Amendment, said Scheer, of the First Amendment coalition. Southwest calls it a "contract of carriage," and Page 10 of the document reads: "Carrier may refuse to transport" passengers whose "clothing is lewd, obscene or patently offensive." "

Source

So apparently speech that offends Leftists on government-funded property (as most universities and colleges are, at least in part) is rightly suppressed in violation of the first amendment but speech which offends conservatives should NEVER be suppressed -- even when it occurs on private property and the property owners are perfectly within their rights to suppress it. Double standards anyone?




Racist Milk

When they are not condemning our speech, the busybodies of the Left are also busy condemning our food -- usually under the banner of preventing "obesity". The idea that your weight might be your own business cuts no ice with them. Nor does the fact that moderately overweight people on average live longer than slim people hold them up any. This time, however the problem seems to be that milk is both racist and not vegetarian enough. The busybodies have fastened onto the fact that milk can give you indigestion if you are not used to it -- though people of Northern European descent rarely get such indigestion. So it is "racist" not to demonize milk. And it's a perfect excuse to promote a "vegan" diet and vegetarian "alternative" foods too! Press excerpt follows:

"Milk isn't for everyone, according to a new lawsuit demanding that each and every carton sold in Washington carry a warning label for people who are unable to tolerate it. Filed yesterday in D.C. Superior Court by an organization that promotes vegetarian diets, the suit charges that Giant, Safeway and other milk retailers have failed to warn lactose-intolerant consumers of the risks of drinking milk. At a morning news conference, where the coffee was lightened with soy milk, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine accused doctors and the dairy companies of failing to address the problem of lactose intolerance, particularly among people of African, Asian and Hispanic descent. Blacks, Asians and Hispanics are much more likely to have low levels of the enzyme needed to break down lactose, the predominant sugar in milk. As many as 75 percent of African Americans and 90 percent of Asian Americans are lactose intolerant, according to the National Digestive Diseases Information Clearinghouse.

But two national experts say the gastrointestinal problems that can result are far less prevalent than the lawsuit claims and are hardly the basis for a warning label. "This is not a health hazard," said Richard J. Grand, a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School who has studied lactose for about 30 years. "It's made out to be a health problem, but it isn't." People who have low levels of lactase -- the enzyme that breaks down lactose -- but want to consume milk products can adapt, Grand said. Introducing milk in modest, managed amounts over several weeks typically builds the capacity to break down lactose, he said"

Source

So the latest campaign makes two lots of wackos happy at once: The food freaks and those who see racism under every bed.




The Incorrectness of Adam Smith

Scottish intellectual Adam Smith is universally acknowledged as one of the founding fathers of economics. His idea that free markets work like an "invisible hand" to ensure the supply of goods and services without any need for someone regulating them is constantly quoted to this day. So it is no wonder that Leftists who think that the government should control everything loathe Smith. As this news excerpt shows:

"If anyone deserves permanent recognition for a lasting contribution to the improvement of humanity it is Adam Smith. But to a band of leftist students in Smith's hometown of Kirkcaldy (pronounced "kercoddy"), this is the last thing that should be done. Two merged colleges located in Kirkcaldy, Adam Smith's birthplace in eastern Scotland, were recently renamed after the town's most famous figure. But the new name, Adam Smith College, has not sat well with 30 radical students who refused to call their campus club the Adam Smith Students' Association. According to the Sunday edition of The Scotsman, as far as these student activists are concerned, "Adam Smith's name is linked to exploitation and greed" and with "socioeconomic policies that work against the people.""

Source

I suppose all-powerful governments such as those of the old Soviet Union ensure the best interests of the people? Seeing that Russia itself has abandoned the Soviet system, you'd have to be a Leftist fruitcake to believe it. But mental maturity is not to be expected of student radicals, I guess.

And you can't Mention Bullets, Either!

A lady (Hey! Am I allowed to use the word "lady" or should I do as the police do and refer to a "female person"?) who has been accepted into the "Teach For America" program (where graduates of top colleges spend a few weeks learning how to teach and then get sent off to inner city schools) and is embarking on her first year teaching in New York City. She notes on her blog:

"Today in our weekly PD it was mentioned that the region doesn't want us to use the term "bullet points" anymore because it has a negative connotation".

Source

So what do we call bullets now? "Leaden messengers"?

(Hat Tip to Mike Pechar)




Now You Can't Mention Whites!

We all know that you can't use the "N word" and that the word "race" is getting pretty suspect too but it seems that mention of whites is becoming pretty bad too. Note the following news excerpt:

"When Myers first mentioned the phrase "white flight" eight years ago, she says she was dismissed as a racist..... At two recent board meetings, Tom has presented research that shows many San Jose schools are more segregated than ever before because of white flight, resulting in lower test scores and a wider achievement gap. But the trustees have merely shushed Tom when his two minutes were over. He says they're just afraid of talking about race. When questioned by Metro, longtime board member Rich Garcia carefully avoided mention of white flight-instead he gushed about the greatness of San Jose Unified and said parents mistakenly think their kids will get a better education at private schools".

Source

One of my readers thinks it is incorrect to use the term "white flight" too. He says that since whites have been chased out of their original homes by high levels of violence which nobody seems willing or able to stop, we should refer to "ethnic cleansing" of whites.

Soviet Britain

In totalitarian countries it is normal for it to be a criminal offence to "insult" the "Leader" (or whatever he is called). That now seems to be true in Britain too. The British Prime Minister is deemed to need the same sort of enforced respect that a Fascist or Communist dictator requires -- as the news excerpt below shows:

"A girl was arrested for wearing her "Bollocks to Blair" T-shirt at the Midlands Game Fair last weekend. Charlotte Denis, 20, a gamekeeper from Gloucestershire, was stopped by police as she left the Countryside Alliance stand because of the "offensive" slogan. Shocked and dismayed to be made a public spectacle, Denis tried to reason with the officers: "What do you want me to do? Take my top off and wear my bra?" At this point, two officers marched Denis towards a police car. "They grabbed me as if I was a football hooligan," she says".

Source

Socialist Britain has obviously long ago given up on free speech. "Bollocks" is a very mild expletive and the girl was conveying in restrained country style the outrage many British country people feel about the recent ban on hunting. But political opposition in Britain obviously can now be conducted only within very strict limits -- which will no doubt gradually get more and more restrictive -- until Britain gradually morphs into a genteel type of totalitarian State.

A Niggardly Cartoon

There is a very good cartoon here about use of the word "niggardly". See here and here for examples of the uproar that use of the word "niggardly" has produced in the past. Despite appearances, "niggardly" has nothing whatever to do with the famous "N word".




The DNA of Race

There is no topic on which Americans are more tongue-tied than race. Even mentioning the word is almost taboo. About the only thing you can safely say on the subject is the monotonous Leftist chant that "race does not exist". Yet Americans not only notice racial differences but they respond very strongly to them -- as the "white flight" phenomenon shows.

So in such circumstances it is perhaps encouraging that some geneticists (many of whom seem to be Asian) are resolute enough to continue their studies of the matter. And what they find is that the different races (which Leftists assure us are all "a social contruct") are genetically very distinct. You can predict from a person's DNA which "social" race he belongs to -- and you can predict it with a very high probability of getting the prediction right.

The Abstract (scientific summary) of the latest research report is here and you can find some interpretative commentary from an anthropologist here

More on Male/female IQ

On August 27th. and 28th. I posted on this blog (See here) a few comments about differences in male and female intelligence. The posts were in reponse to a recent paper on the subject in the British Journal of Psychology by Profs. Irwing and Lynn.

I think I should therefore mention that there has recently come out a new book by Charles Murray, The Inequality Taboo, which also deals with the subject. You can access a big review and discussion of it here from last Saturday's edition of a major Australian newspaper.

I don't really see why it should be so incorrect to say that men are better at some mental tasks and women are better at others but saying so really seems to generate an uproar.

It's been known to psychometricians for around a century that women tend to have better verbal skills and men tend to have better mathematical skills but evidence does not seem to be what is at issue here.

Even Pictures of Pigs are Incorrect

We all know that Jews and Muslims alike are not allowed to eat pigs or any part of them. The unfortunate porker is neither Kosher nor Halal. It sounds like swinish prejudice to me. What have pigs ever done wrong? (OK: I know all about Maimonides, trichinosis etc.)

And, being one of those pesky libertarians, I am perfectly happy for people to eat or not eat whatever they like. I myself even occasionally commit the ultimate sin of dining at McDonalds and any food freak worth his salt (sea-salt, of course) would envisage an early death for me over that. But is even seeing a picture of a big Mac an offence? Isn't it the EATING of it that is bad? Does a picture of a big Mac do me any harm? Maybe it does. Because all pictures of pigs now seem set to be banned. Excerpt from a British report:

"Novelty pig calendars and toys have been banned from a council office - in case they offend Muslim staff. Workers in the benefits department at Dudley Council, West Midlands, were told to remove or cover up all pig-related items, including toys, porcelain figures, calendars and even a tissue box featuring Winnie the Pooh and Piglet. Bosses acted after a Muslim complained about pig-shaped stress relievers delivered to the council in the run-up to the Islamic festival of Ramadan".

Source

Oink! Oink! is my comment on that. See if you can come up with a better one.

What exactly is a pig-shaped stress-reliever anyway? My mind is quietly boggling as I try to imagine it. Does it vibrate or what?

And if you want to see something that is REALLY piggishly offensive, click here (backup here)




Can Something be Offensive if it Doesn't Actually Offend Anybody?

In PC Britain it can be, apparently. Note the following news excerpt about one of Britain's major art galleries: The Tate.

"Tate Britain "misunderstood" a piece of art it took out of a show to avoid religious offence, its creator said. The gallery cancelled plans to display John Latham's "God Is Great", concerned in particular that it could upset Muslims after London's 7 July bombings. Latham was angered by the decision and said that the work, made 10 years ago, was "not offensive to anybody". "It shows that all religious teaching comes from the same source, whatever name you give to it," he told BBC News. "God Is Great" consists of a large sheet of glass and copies of the Koran, the Bible and Judaism's Talmud that have been cut apart.

Source

Apparently the work concerned has been on display elsewhere for years and there have been no serious complaints. I myself don't like modern art so I might well complain about wasting public funds on it but nobody would take any notice of me. And apparently in this case, no actual Muslims were consulted before the work was removed and the Muslim Council of Britain has actually criticized the Tate's actions in removing the work.

I think self-congratulation on their "sensitivity" among the managers at the Tate was the real motive for the censorship. But you don't have to be censored. In line with my usual endeavours at defeating censorship, I have uploaded a copy of the "offending" artwork here in case the BBC take down their copy of it.

Selling Apples is Wrong

Apparently selling apples is bad. Yep. You've got it: Selling apples is bad. How come? Search me! It's only a problem in New Zealand so far but who knows? Perhaps it's "Today New Zealand, tomorrow the world!" A press excerpt:

"New Zealand apple growers say they are outraged over remarks made by Green co-leader Rod Donald on a recent visit to Australia. They say the remarks should eliminate the Greens as possible coalition partners in any government. According to the Apple Growers Action Group, on a visit to Australia before New Zealand's election Mr Donald stated that he was opposed to apple and potato exports to Australia from New Zealand "on the basis that they should be consumed locally." He also said he wanted to see an end to products crossing the Tasman which can be grown locally, such as dairy foods, the growers association said".

Source

By the way, poking fun at Kiwis (New Zealanders) is a well-known Australian sport and I am an Australian so forgive me for putting up two posts about Kiwis in one day. They do give us a lot of ammunition, though.

Update:

Hey! I've just realized: I'm in the wrong. I am being "insensitive" about New Zealanders! How dare I?




Illegal Immigrants should be "Protected"?

The problem with illegal immigrants in the UK is different to the U.S. situation. Many get in to Britain by claiming to be refugees seeking political ayslum. But for many that's just a ruse to get in. Once in Britain they vanish from sight. But Britain admits them pending investigation of their claims. If investigation reveals that they are not in Britain out of a reasonable fear of political persecution, they are judged to have made a false claim and are ordered to leave. But they generally don't leave. In fact they often don't even bother to attend the hearing of their case. Occasionally, however, the police do find them and grab them before they can disappear -- so that the process of deporting them can begin. Fair enough?

One would think so but that is not how the British Green/Left see it. They think that the illegals should be "protected" from the police. As the following news excerpt from Scotland about a presumably Muslim family shows:

"Ministers are to be urged to make sure the children of asylum seekers living in Scotland are better protected. The Green Party is raising the issue in Holyrood after Children's Commissioner Kathleen Marshall attacked the treatment of failed asylum seekers following a dawn raid on the Glasgow home of the Vucaj family. The removal of the Kosovans also sparked an outcry among students at Drumchapel High in Glasgow - where the Vucaj children had attended school. Pupils from the school will be in the Scottish Parliament for the debate, where the Greens' communities spokesman Patrick Harvie will tell ministers they have a duty to protect all youngsters.... The SNP's social justice spokeswoman Christine Grahame praised the role the Children's Commissioner had played in highlighting the way asylum seekers such as the Vucajs were treated but argued she should have more powers"

Source

So the familiar excuse "It's all for the children" is trotted out again. The fact that the children were illegally in Britain too is not mentioned.




Humorless Kiwis

Apparently some guy in New Zealand put up a hoax advertisement as a joke on a site similar to eBay. It offered a dolphin for sale! Presumably he was just baiting animal rights activists and knew they would go nuts over it. They did! Here's a small excerpt of the huffing and puffing:

"The Royal New Zealand SPCA has expressed outrage at a hoax posting on the `Trade Me' website, offering a dolphin for sale by auction. According to the posting, made from West Auckland, the dolphin was being kept in a swimming pool after being accidentally caught in a net during a weekend fishing trip. The SPCA describes the hoax as a "totally irresponsible attempt at self-promotion" at the expense of New Zealand's international reputation as a nation that cares for animals".

Source

But I don't suppose the same people get at all outraged when animal-lib types physically attack people and laboratories engaged in medical research that uses animals. "We can assault you but you can't even joke about us" would seem to be the idea.