What does that phrase mean and where did it come from? And how does “political correctness” stop someone from going on a killing spree? There’s this notion (link below) that if not for people being “PC”, the Fort Hood shooter wouldn’t have had a chance to go nuts. If someone had hard evidence that this cat was going to snap or rolled with terrorists, I don’t think “Political Correctness” would have prevented them from presenting said evidence. “I think that camel jockey is a terrorist!” doesn’t do much help. “I think that camel jockey is a terrorist, and here’s a plan he created of his plot to shoot up Fort Hood!” … actually sort of useful - politically correct or not.

But, beyond even that, the point behind “PC” (for me) isn’t a prescribed list of things you can’t do or say - the point is to not be a dick. I suspect it’s called “Politically Correct” because politicians can’t say the same shit normal people can and win elections. I’m not sure how this notion became a force in everyday culture for people who aren’t politicians. These days, it seems like nothing more than a really easy way to muddy the waters in a dispute where one party is obviously being a dick.

Ohhhh… I forgot… you can’t say things like “fag” or “RTard” or “Alabama Porch Monkey” because it’s not “politically correct”. Well let’s get beyond this “political correctness” that’s killing our country and really talk to each other.

No… you shouldn’t say things like that because it’s inappropriate and kind of dicky. You can if you want to - it’s your choice. And then I will think you’re kind of dicky - that’s my choice, and it doesn’t matter if your dicky action is on some official “List of things that are not politically correct”. As long as a person is okay with that, they can do whatever they want.

Check the link below from Fox News Commentary (which is, by the way, a organization full of dicky, dicky people).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/20/fox-news-poll-mixed-views-calling-ft-hood-shooting-act-terrorism/

Interesting post from TNC on race. Choice quote: “I’m reporting out a story now in which I had to talk with older black folks who’d grown up in an industrial city in the 40s and 50s. One of the things that comes through from them is that being smart and black, during that time, was really scary.”

This is an important thing to keep in mind: in the 50s, being black and smart was a reason to fear for your safety. If you wanted to reduce the chances of physical harm, and if you were black, it was important to not be smart. Some of the people who are in legislative positions in our government, who would insist that the playing field is level and we’re doing enough and minority (black, et al.) communities don’t need anymore help, were alive when black people had to weigh the pros of an education against the chances of physical harm or death because of being too intelligent. And then those black people raised children - the same children who, necessarily, were steeped in the same intelligence = danger mentality and now are getting no re-socialization help from the society and government that fucked them up in the first place. You can still see, to this day, in certain elements of black culture how it’s okay to be cool and rich and charming and powerful and fantastic in bed… and *street smart*… but not so much book smart.

What people need aren’t just opportunities. The communities need to have something more basic and instinctual in them shifted, such that they understand it’s okay to be street smart and book smart (both are important), understand how to do it, can have some models for that sort of success with which they can identify. I think a huge part of a kid doing something as simple as going to college is being able to have a relative that went to college. Just being able to see how it’s done and how it can fit into his/her life. Having a model for success that’s close to home. When people have no relevant models for success, how can we expect them to be successful?

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/community_1.php

I just watched a commercial produced by a drug company warning that “Condoms may not fully protect against HPV”. This drug company also sells HPV vaccine. Wow.

A post from Between the Columns.  It’s rare that someone writes something political that actually makes me think while reading it.  They only post once in a while, but it’s definitely worth adding to your RSS feed.

The first memory I have of Glenn Beck is video of him crying on camera because he loved America so much and people were trying to destroy it (whatever that means). It never crossed my mind that this dude could actually become some sort of viable force of political power, which, of course, he and the stooges of Fox News (and MSNBC and CNN, to a lesser degree) have become. As much fun as it is, and as easy as it is, to hate on Fox News, the real problem isn’t that Fox News exists. And it’s not Fox News’ fault that it’s so popular. Fox News only has as much juice as the people watching Fox News give it. Even if someone bought Fox News from News Corp and shut it down, it doesn’t change the fact that there are millions of Americans who love Fox News. Fox News (et al.) is symptomatic of a larger issue and attacking the symptom doesn’t cure the illness.

Anyone who watches football with me knows I say this very often: it’s a disgrace that there’s a professional sports franchise in our nation’s capital named “Redskins”.

The Supreme Court just refused to take on a lawsuit to have the name changed, which may have been the right thing for the Supreme Court to do, technically. However, it’s a shame that this is even an issue.
Favorite quote of the article: “The federal district judge who heard the lawsuit also said the activists had not proven that the name was disparaging. ” What? We all have skin… theirs is red. What’s the big deal?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/16/AR2009111601298.html