In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Political correctness prefers emotion to honesty
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Political correctness prefers emotion to honesty
Posted: June 24, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
One of the most destructive elements of political correctness involves its preference for emotion over accuracy - the casual disregard of normal standards of evidence and objectivity in pursuit of some "higher" cause. Two recent distortions, in the worlds of motion pictures and education, demonstrate this preposterous preference for feelings over facts.
The ambitious new film "Windtalkers" bills itself as an historical epic, complete with the declaration (featured prominently in the ads), "INSPIRED BY TRUE EVENTS." The story attempts to re-create a fascinating sidelight of the Pacific campaign in World War II, in which the Marine Corps recruited nearly 400 Navajo Americans to develop and utilize a secret military code based on their native language. These "code talkers" performed a valuable service and managed to foil all Japanese efforts to break the code.
The film, however, introduces additional elements of racism, exploitation and even murder to advance its dominant theme of U.S. mistreatment of native Americans. Nicholas Cage and Christian Slater co-star as two Marine sergeants assigned to protect Navajo code talkers, and to execute them if they face any danger of falling into enemy hands. The entire film focuses on the moral dilemma of dedicated warriors asked to assassinate their own comrades for the sake of victory.
The problem with this premise is that it bears no connection to reality. USA Today interviewed some dozen survivors of this military experiment and all of them energetically denied the existence of any such orders about committing murder to protect the code. In fact, even the glossy press kit released with the movie by MGM acknowledged that the central element in the story line amounts to a grotesque distortion of history:
"After thorough research, Marine Corps historians were unable to locate any evidence that such orders ever took place - it would be illegal for a Marine to be ordered to kill a fellow Marine," the studio conceded. But the filmmakers refused to feel thwarted by anything so trivial and inconvenient as the truth. As the press materials announced: "But the notion that a serviceman might have had to kill one of his own, someone he'd fought alongside and with whom he'd become friends, resonated with the producers."
In other words, the fact that a murderous notion "resonated" with some executives overcame any reluctance about an irresponsible and libelous fabrication about the United States military.
In a similar vein, a recent controversy involving a public high school in the scenic town of Poulsbo, Wash., demonstrates the current eagerness to dispense with accuracy when it gets in the way of politically correct preachments.
Local members of the American Legion energetically objected to a popular class called "The Vietnam Experience" because it suggested that American troops regularly engaged in atrocities, and included graphic readings of a highly sexualized nature. The teacher of the course, Anthony Bressan, managed to shield himself from all criticism because of his status as a decorated Vietnam vet, wounded twice in service to his country, who held his students spellbound with first-person accounts of his nightmare experiences in Southeast Asia.
After extensive investigation, however, the teacher's critics could find no evidence that he ever served in the armed forces in any capacity - during the years Mr. Bressan purported to fight as a "grunt" in "Nam," he was actually registered as a full-time student at Central Washington University.
Asked to document his purported service, Bressan abruptly resigned - and evidence later appeared that he had lied about holding a master's degree (which had resulted in a higher pay rate for years). In response to the scandal, a number of his loyal students wrote revealing letters to the local newspaper. One of them, Risa Di Cicco, baldly declared: "Whether he did or did not serve in the military, in my eyes, is insignificant . Nothing changes the fact that Bressan's teaching touched numerous students. Lie or no lie, he impacted students in wonderful ways ."
Another alumnus of his controversial class, Mary Kaplan, proclaimed: "He wanted his students to grow into intelligent, inquisitive citizens instead of cows . The lessons he taught us are valid, whether he lied about his Vietnam War experience or not."
Fabrications are acceptable, in other words, if they advance some notion of higher "truth." Another student, Mercedi Smalley, makes that conclusion chillingly explicit: "Why are we so quick to judge Mr. Bressan anyway?" she writes. "We know the truth. We know what happened during the war and we learned from it. So some people got offended. Good."
Examining the history of totalitarian states like the Soviet Union, many historians feel puzzled that so few citizens ever questioned the laughably obvious lies the regime regularly force-fed its people. Now, Hollywood producers and Washington state high school students reveal the continued existence of the warped attitudes that allowed such propaganda to flourish. In the name of some emotional imperative or ideological compulsion, they insist that an old-fashioned concept like The Truth must be purposefully, even proudly, discarded.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28064
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Posted: June 24, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
One of the most destructive elements of political correctness involves its preference for emotion over accuracy - the casual disregard of normal standards of evidence and objectivity in pursuit of some "higher" cause. Two recent distortions, in the worlds of motion pictures and education, demonstrate this preposterous preference for feelings over facts.
The ambitious new film "Windtalkers" bills itself as an historical epic, complete with the declaration (featured prominently in the ads), "INSPIRED BY TRUE EVENTS." The story attempts to re-create a fascinating sidelight of the Pacific campaign in World War II, in which the Marine Corps recruited nearly 400 Navajo Americans to develop and utilize a secret military code based on their native language. These "code talkers" performed a valuable service and managed to foil all Japanese efforts to break the code.
The film, however, introduces additional elements of racism, exploitation and even murder to advance its dominant theme of U.S. mistreatment of native Americans. Nicholas Cage and Christian Slater co-star as two Marine sergeants assigned to protect Navajo code talkers, and to execute them if they face any danger of falling into enemy hands. The entire film focuses on the moral dilemma of dedicated warriors asked to assassinate their own comrades for the sake of victory.
The problem with this premise is that it bears no connection to reality. USA Today interviewed some dozen survivors of this military experiment and all of them energetically denied the existence of any such orders about committing murder to protect the code. In fact, even the glossy press kit released with the movie by MGM acknowledged that the central element in the story line amounts to a grotesque distortion of history:
"After thorough research, Marine Corps historians were unable to locate any evidence that such orders ever took place - it would be illegal for a Marine to be ordered to kill a fellow Marine," the studio conceded. But the filmmakers refused to feel thwarted by anything so trivial and inconvenient as the truth. As the press materials announced: "But the notion that a serviceman might have had to kill one of his own, someone he'd fought alongside and with whom he'd become friends, resonated with the producers."
In other words, the fact that a murderous notion "resonated" with some executives overcame any reluctance about an irresponsible and libelous fabrication about the United States military.
In a similar vein, a recent controversy involving a public high school in the scenic town of Poulsbo, Wash., demonstrates the current eagerness to dispense with accuracy when it gets in the way of politically correct preachments.
Local members of the American Legion energetically objected to a popular class called "The Vietnam Experience" because it suggested that American troops regularly engaged in atrocities, and included graphic readings of a highly sexualized nature. The teacher of the course, Anthony Bressan, managed to shield himself from all criticism because of his status as a decorated Vietnam vet, wounded twice in service to his country, who held his students spellbound with first-person accounts of his nightmare experiences in Southeast Asia.
After extensive investigation, however, the teacher's critics could find no evidence that he ever served in the armed forces in any capacity - during the years Mr. Bressan purported to fight as a "grunt" in "Nam," he was actually registered as a full-time student at Central Washington University.
Asked to document his purported service, Bressan abruptly resigned - and evidence later appeared that he had lied about holding a master's degree (which had resulted in a higher pay rate for years). In response to the scandal, a number of his loyal students wrote revealing letters to the local newspaper. One of them, Risa Di Cicco, baldly declared: "Whether he did or did not serve in the military, in my eyes, is insignificant . Nothing changes the fact that Bressan's teaching touched numerous students. Lie or no lie, he impacted students in wonderful ways ."
Another alumnus of his controversial class, Mary Kaplan, proclaimed: "He wanted his students to grow into intelligent, inquisitive citizens instead of cows . The lessons he taught us are valid, whether he lied about his Vietnam War experience or not."
Fabrications are acceptable, in other words, if they advance some notion of higher "truth." Another student, Mercedi Smalley, makes that conclusion chillingly explicit: "Why are we so quick to judge Mr. Bressan anyway?" she writes. "We know the truth. We know what happened during the war and we learned from it. So some people got offended. Good."
Examining the history of totalitarian states like the Soviet Union, many historians feel puzzled that so few citizens ever questioned the laughably obvious lies the regime regularly force-fed its people. Now, Hollywood producers and Washington state high school students reveal the continued existence of the warped attitudes that allowed such propaganda to flourish. In the name of some emotional imperative or ideological compulsion, they insist that an old-fashioned concept like The Truth must be purposefully, even proudly, discarded.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28064
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
Posted: June 24, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
Enviros are NUTS!
In Sacramento, last week, the U.S. Forest Service said it will remove 80 percent of the dead trees burned last August on some 2,400 acres of federal land burned near Lake Tahoe in the Star Fire. But more than 16,000 acres burned in that fire - no plans yet for those dead trees.
But the environmentalists already say "no"! They want more trees left because they say the plan concentrates too heavily on removing wood that could feed another fire.
Say again?!? They want to feed fires?
We're in the midst of a flaming disaster. The pictures are horrifying and words to describe them push editorial creativity. First, the Colorado Hayman fire blazed through 100,000 acres, then Arizona did the same. Monster fires - and still out of control.
How do you describe hell on earth? How do you describe tornadoes of flame so hot and fast moving that firefighters are pulled off the lines. As one said, "We're not going to risk their lives to save a house." Or any other human property. Or domestic and wild animals. Or indeed, the forest itself.
The fire rules, and flames are in charge. Almost nothing man can do will make much difference. The situation was (and remains) a recipe for disaster: Lots of fuel, heat, wind, rugged terrain, drought - plus, in some cases, help from humans in getting the inferno started - add up to a perfect combination for an inferno. Which is what we have.
The blaze in Arizona is being blamed on human causes. No suspect yet. In Colorado, it's different. Thirty-eight-year-old Forest Service worker Terry Lynn Barton has been indicted on four federal charges: setting the fire, damaging federal property, injuring a firefighter and using fire to commit a felony. She pleaded not guilty.
Perhaps she thought she'd be a hero - she first reported the blaze. Then the holes in her story became clear and she pulled a female trick saying she was angry over a letter from her ex and burned it. The fire got out of control.
My, my - and on company time too. I was imagining her legal defense - you know . poor woman and PMS and all that.
But that didn't last long. She's been charged and if convicted on all counts, faces up to 65 years in prison and a $1 million fine.
That's all? I'd vote for life. As for a fine, the total amount of the damage caused plus the cost of fighting the flames. Even that wouldn't be enough.
As I write this, more than 19 major fires are burning across the country with nearly 1.9 million acres blackened. By the time you read this - well, I don't even want to think what the total might be as flames sear the tinder-dry landscape.
Nature has its own way of dealing with fires: They begin, they burn, they go out. Flames are part of the cycle, allowing germination of various plant seeds and encouraging the healthy forest re-growth. These kinds of fires clean out the forest floor, ridding it of dead wood and debris and keeping the soil cleansed and healthy.
Under natural circumstances, monumental fires, like those burning now, didn't happen. Remember when Yellowstone burned? People were shocked. But why? It was just a matter of time, because humans got involved and environmentalists made it worse.
For the last century, we've gone to great lengths to ensure fires happen rarely and are extinguished quickly. With Smoky the Bear as the leader, the goal was prevention at almost any cost. Great for saving houses, lousy for saving forests, and ultimately, as we see today, we end up losing the houses and the forests.
But then the Greens - "environmentalists" - came on the scene with their credo "nature good - human bad." Their goal is to keep man out of the country - no roads, trails, camping, hiking, riding, hunting, driving, living, logging. Nothing.
They use lawsuits as weapons. They've prevented the construction and use of fire access roads, prevented the removal of dead trees and underbrush (which act as fuel when fires do start), have forced a "zero cut" logging policy which promotes abnormal forest growth and, in documented cases, prevented using river water to fight adjacent fires!
When liberal courts give them victory, the money to pay their lawyers comes from funds allocated for forest restoration and maintenance. You couldn't have a better plan for environmental destruction. They're still at it.
And consider this: Last weekend was only the start of the fire season.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28065
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878