Showing posts with label hmph! political correctness!. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hmph! political correctness!. Show all posts

Monday, November 14, 2016

"Everyone Moving To Canada Post Election: #CheckYourPrivilege"



Published on Nov 14, 2016
In this video, Project Veritas Action Journalists encountered the Assistant Director of Leadership and Civic Engagement at Columbia University. She told the PVA journalist that saying "I am moving to Canada if Trump wins" is a privileged statement. Following statements from many members of the Hollywood elite who said they would also move to Canada if Trump won, PVA felt it was necessary to suggest they check their privilege.

NJO: Title, video and blurb from James O'Keefe's YouTube channel Project Veritas Action.

Friday, September 23, 2016

UNDERCOVER: FSU and UVA Embrace Fictitious 99.99% Society



Published on Sep 23, 2016
In part II of a video series released by Project Veritas, James O’Keefe once again takes on the overly sensitive college policies and professors who are mollycoddling students on campuses across the country. The video uses undercover footage to highlight the thought processes of several university faculty members and administrators at Florida State University (FSU) and University of Virginia (UVA) who take political correctness to such an extreme that they agree to the most outlandish of scenarios presented by the investigative journalists. This video features O’Keefe, VICE co-founder Gavin McInnes, Fox News contributor Guy Benson and Lucian “Twinks for Trump” Wintrich.

Watch part I here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uooL-...

Website: http://projectveritas.com/
Donate: http://projectveritas.com/donate
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ProjectVeritas
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Project_Veritas
NJO: Title, video and blurb from James O'Keefe's YouTube channel veritasvisuals.

Monday, September 19, 2016

HIDDEN CAM: University of Houston Facilitates "Emotional First Aid Kits" for Students



Published on Sep 19, 2016
In this hilarious and satirical video, James O’Keefe once again takes on the overly sensitive college policies and professors who are mollycoddling students on campuses across the country. This undercover video highlights the thought processes of two University of Houston faculty members who take political correctness to such an extreme that they help create “emotional first aid kits” distributed by the 99.99% Society as a way to protect students from “microagressions”. With an original musical track entitled “Emotional First Aid”, which has a catchy hip-hop beat, pop sensibilities and mildly political lyrics, this video features O’Keefe, VICE co-founder Gavin McInnes, Fox News contributor Guy Benson and Lucian “Twinks for Trump” Wintrich.

Website: http://projectveritas.com/
Donate: http://projectveritas.com/donate
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ProjectVeritas
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Project_Veritas

NJO: Title, video and blurb from James O'Keefe's YouTube channel veritasvisuals.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

"Grow some T-Rex scrote": Ted Nugent and James O'Keefe on Periscope



Published on Jan 28, 2016
The Motor City Madman and James O'Keefe hijack Shemane Nugent's Periscope to talk about the Constitution, the heroes who serve our country in the military, political corruption and the recent Project Veritas Common Core videos.

WARNING: If you feel "micro-aggressed" or "triggered" when hearing conversation about certain masculine body parts, go find yourself some "safe space" instead of watching this video.

Website: http://projectveritas.com/
Donate: http://projectveritas.com/donate
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ProjectVeritas
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Project_Veritas

NJO: Title, video and blurb from James O'Keefe's YouTube channel VeritasVisuals.

Thursday, April 09, 2015

New O’Keefe Video Shows Support for ISIS, Hamas & Hezbollah Across California



Published on Apr 9, 2015
Professors, Administrators, and Students Pledge Economic Support to Terrorist Organizations ISIS, Hamas, and Hezbollah on Numerous California Campuses

NJO: Title, video and blurb from James O'Keefe's YouTube channel VeritasVisuals.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Miami U Students attempt to ban Lucky Charms



Uploaded on Aug 23, 2011
Miami University Offical says he will take complaints about Lucky Charms being racist to the "highest levels" at the University...

NJO: Title, video and blurb from James O'Keefe's YouTube channel VeritasVisuals.


Minions / fellow culture warriors involved:

John M. Howting

John Howting

Friday, November 21, 2008

From the files of Ben Wetmore: "Restructuring Leftist's Fancy Language"


NJO: "Benjamin Wetmore: A mentor of mine; a genius", said James O'Keefe in an interview in September 2009. So let's take a look at some of the wisdom of this certifiably mentorial influence on James' life.

On this day, "Restructuring Leftist's Fancy Language [sic]":


If you read enough leftist literature, especially college-oriented texts, you find a variety of words that only make sense in context, ones that you've never heard in normal conversation. Such gems as "heterosexist" and "pseudovalues" or "moral pathologies" or "neocolonization" are bandied about as though, well, as though they're real words.
 
And God bless these leftists, they are incapable of producing one dollar worth of real value, or "value" to our postmodern readers, to the economy but are remarkably creative and productive when it comes to making up words, or, bear with me, "pro-neovernacular construction."

And while these leftists are busy making up new words, we're faced with the challenge of figuring out what the hell they mean, and also dealing with the inherent connotations that these new words bring. We're always playing defense! We ought to go out of our way to define their crazy thoughts with the same flair that they obviously enjoy ridiculing our principles.

This exercise is also pertinent to the longer discussion about the tactics of pivot-point and also the Leesburg grid.

So, in the pro-neovernacular constructionist spirit, we've listed out some fancy new words to describe leftists on the left and would love to hear any input or suggestions that you might have to add to, amend or correct any of the words and phrases. As you can see, we could always use the simple answers to describe them, but the fancy language just makes it sound so much better.


- their fancy language - normal language - our fancy language -
Marxist Thief neocollectivist rationalizer
Queer Pervert anal-centric hypersexualist
Pro-"Choice" Pro-Abortion infant termination apologists
Clinic Doctor Abortionist infant terminator
Feminist Man-hater Woeman - antiphallic gender discriminator
Postmodernist Idiotic pro-definitionless
Relativist Coward subjectivist
Deconstructionist Whiner academically intolerant
Religious Hater Atheist deistiphobic
Communist Red Bastard Genocidal communitarian
Lesbians Dykes vaginal hypersexualist
Pornographers Degenerates sexual addict and social sexual infector
Neoconservative Liberal Democratic Imperialist
Radical Blacks Uppity Afrikan reinventionist
Racial Instigators Outside Agitators Corporate racialists
Modernists Modernists Ageists - elderly intolerant

Thursday, August 31, 2006

The American Flag at Rutgers: The Shame of Old Glory

THE SHAME OF OLD GLORY

By: David J. Maxham III

Last week, along with some fellow students[*], I went to Old Queens to ask if the Rutgers administration would consider putting American flags in classrooms. While I’m still not sure if we were surprised or if we expected the response that we got, it was saddening nonetheless.

 On our way to Old Queens, we interviewed students on the street at random. Without exception, each agreed that the American flag should have a place in the classrooms of Rutgers’ hallowed halls. And really, why not? As one girl put it, “Well, it is the State University...”

 Our first visit was to Assistant Dean Julie A. Traxler, who told us that she felt putting up the flag was “a bad idea” and that our time would be better spent on “other things.” Dean Traxler was quick to change the subject once we told her that we knew individuals that were ready and willing to pay for the flags. Incredibly, she expressed her dismay that there were people out there willing to fund flag in classrooms, but not our Rutgers sports programs. Horrors!

 Next we spoke to Brian T. Rose, Assistant to Gregory Blimling, Vice President of Student Affairs at Rutgers. When I asked if we could hang American flags in classrooms, Mr. Rose didn’t miss a beat. “I don’t think so... but I’m willing to check into it for you.” Mr. Rose’s immediate logic was such: if one student group – for example, students who love America – put up an American flag, then that opens the floodgate to any other group – like the terrorism apologists at NJ Solidarity – to display a “message” of their choice. Or, as Mr. Rose put it, “Do we make our classrooms available for people to put up whatever message they want?” That’s an interesting question, albeit rhetorical.

 Apparently Mr. Rose hasn’t been in a lot of classrooms recently, because many lecture halls and rooms are littered with posters and flyers, some of questionable and possibly offensive content, many of which have nothing to do with the subject taught in those rooms. Never mind the fact that courts have already ruled on the issue, finding that the American flag in and of itself does not constitute a distinct message belonging exclusively to one or another group or entity. It’s too bad people like Mr. Rose live in a world called Academia, a world that lives by its own rules, infringed upon by no external authority, least of all an authority that might disagree with Academia’s radical – and often anti-American – worldview.

 We also paid a visit to Dean Michael Stillwagon, whose response included the brilliant deduction that with the American flag, “there’s an issue of propagandaing [sic].” Bad grammar aside, the notion that the American flag, minus any additional text or images, comprises “propaganda” is so mind-numbingly stupid that it hardly deserves a response. However, considering that this mindset seems to permeate the Rutgers faculty, my response is forthcoming.

 For two hundred and thirty years, Americans have fought and died under the American flag. It was a symbol against British colonial oppression, and for the more than two centuries that followed, it was a unifying symbol for the millions upon millions of immigrants that came to this country – my own ancestors included. Our soldiers are buried with the flag, and the flag adorns every institution that makes our great Republic function. The flag doesn’t belong to any political party, any race or class, any sectarian ideology, any private club.

 In short, the American flag belongs to all of us; according to the Supreme Court, even desecrating the flag is protected by the ideals of liberty the flag represents. For any official, either in the government or at our beloved alma mater, to eschew display of the one thing that all Americans have in common ought to be a matter of scandal and shame. Let’s end the politically correct garbage, and return Old Glory to a place of honor in our classrooms and in our consciousness.

NJO: Originally published in the September 2006 issue of The Centurion.

* Also James O'Keefe, who by this point was no longer a student, at Rutgers anyway.

Sunday, March 12, 2006



The German Backpacker.


SION, SWITZERLAND.
Switzerland's supposed vastness frightens a foreigner, but its geography, mountains aside, is simple and the trains which traverse its cantons are strikingly effiecient - in a few hours you can cross the entire country. With an youth pass, approximately 250 dollars for two weeks, you can ride its trains indefinitely, exploring its towns, cities, valleys and countryside.

My program gave me the pass and a free weekend, so I decided to take a quick train to Geneva to catch the auto show. I stayed overnight in a small french town called "Sion." The story follows from my hostel there.
I waited at the counter for 15 minutes, then entered a frenchie dressed in all black, smelling of cigarettes, with an expression of a sad puppy dog, worried I would scold him for being late. He said something in french, then german, then english. Unlike Italian-switzerland, I immediately notice more reception, more friendliness, people are less matter of fact, not so much kind as gentle. I went to the bathroom to wipe all the yogurt I spilled in my backpack. Yogurt is cheap and convienent in Old Europe, but has a saran wrap cover, and as a result, is not the best to stuff in a bag amogst books.

I entered the 4 person hostel room, old orange blankets and bunkbeds. THe hostel was completely empty, save a few backpacker hangers on. Sunday night, in the dead middle of Swiss Winter, in a small town 3 hours southeast of Geneva. Thought to myself, is a sunday night and I don't have school tomorrow. In fact, Im three thousand away from everything I know. I felt free, but too free, the type of space-time feeling that made me miss having priorities and deadlines. I was grown up, and made a conscious decision to be so far away. What am I doing here. In this place. At this time. nostaliga took over. Back to reality, I scanned the room and there was a man scrunched overhimself snooring. Looking around 30 years old, couldn't tell if he was American or not. Appartenly, all the backpacking got the best of him and he fell asleep sitting in his bed, map and pack still on his shoulder.

It turns out his name is Herald, he is from East Berlin, Germany. and for the first time yet, I made a local friend. Story of Ticino, really, emersed in Lugano, and no significant deep convo, but meet a wandering German in the mountains... Harold is a 24 year old college student on "vacations," spending two weeks backpacking down throught Italy and Sardinia. I told him I wanted to see downtown and maybe grab a bite to eat. His stillness meant he wanted to go too.

The french receptionist with crazy black clown hair reccomended a place downtown, I expected ski-bums and swiss blonds and breweries, distilleries, what I got was an abandoned city block with one single french pizzaria. Herald and I acquiesced. Fate would bring us to more than just food.

Harold and I immediately started talking politics. His English was good and I tried to speak slowly so he could understand, often times i felt like i was going overboard, but he never gave indications except for facial expressions, though he did tell me he barely understands American Engligh but understood me quite well. but he often gave me a blank stare, the kind of stare that is ambigiuous between a. you look fucking ridiculous speaking so slowly - I understand what your saying or b. I am smiling because I don't know what you're saying - tis polite to smile.

Harold and I were both well educated young lads on a jouney, adept in political and sociological matters, and engaged with our surroundings, secure with our views, experienced in debate. Biggest difference was he was German and I was American.

He used the word "reunification" alot, often relating to the collapse of the BerlinWall. He struggled to produce vocabulary words, often pulling out one of a dozen pocket dictionaries. He was curious to a point, about the American political structure, but unsurprised at my confessions, again giving me that goofy ambiguous gaze. He understood archaic American concepts like the electoral college system. And he knew a hell of a lot more about America than I knew about Germany.

I have always wanted to tacklet Hitler with a German, but didn't know how to raise the subject. So Harold just went on talking about the division in America, especially related to Bush. It could be the language barrier but I do believe Europeans have an innocense to them about politics. The differences between the East Berlin and the West Berlin, however great, are nowhere as near as huge as the differences between West Kansas and East Harlem. These myopic sociocultural contrasts amaze europeans. And they haven't the slighest clue about how grand they are. Harold was fascinated by the "partisanship" in America. For in germany, ther are the christian democrats and the dems, slight difference really. Then he mentioned an incredible small minority of neo-nazis. There was my chance to bring up Hitler.

"some People in the US call Bush Hitler" I said.
Harold scoffed.
"that makes HItler's actions not as bad."
I asked him more bout the German conception of Hitler.
"We are ashamed of what happened, but we are tired of being labeled as the Hitler-generator country. We don't want to be remembered by this event."
Then it got really interesting...
"But I cannot, help being German. I was born here. I did not choose to be."
Harold began talking about how divided Germany was, how there was a subtle sense of shame about the country, their flag isn't as glorified, their history is debunked, the berlin wall collapsed, but its just a wall. Ideologies still burn in hearts and minds. families "don't fly german flags in their flowergardens." "If you see a guy with a germany flag on his shirt, you think it's wierd." Seeing all the swiss flags in switzerland, I can understand where he is coming from - but I found his observations so somber, so cynical, unfortunate. Could it be because he was from East Berlin. Or maybe his age. Is Germany really that confused, ashamed, lost.

We spoke about euthanasia, and eugenics, both words he had to look up to tell me about. Those were too of the most shameful acts of nazism, according to the Berliners. Harold was adament about a person's right to terminate his own life and I gently challenged that assertion, his moral stubborness, with the rhetorical quip, "what if that person is not able to make a decision." Harold put down his wine glass and gave me that gaze of his through those emo-german glasses, and mentioned the terry schiavo case. he helped me understand how poweful ameican politics were. Could I, could any of you, name one german moral issue today.

Up came Nietzche, and his "god is dead" assertion. Both Harold and I agreed it was missaplied by the German Socialists. Nietzche wan't a nazi, which led to another one of my realaizations. We both shared common conservative grounds. Whereas there was a form of German political correcntess, i.e. not allowed to appreciate romantic era poetry and art and music because it was a precursor to nazism, also in America we can not appreciate certain forms of literature because they are, well, a precursor to racism. To some, Naturally, anything from 1860-1930 in Germany was a cause of nazism. To others, anythign written by a white man in the 1940's does not include the necessary cultural obligation of the supressed black female. Harold was nostaligic for the culture, not the politics. He was a young leftist, simple in his decscription of foreign affairs, on common grounds with me on logic, different in our application of that logic. And he made such moros observations about the current situation in Berlin.

Such morose correlations between two travelers using the equivalent of a third grade vocabulary. Funny how that works.

NJO: Originally posted on the blog Feathers of Steel at liberabit.blogspot.com.

Thursday, September 01, 2005

Inside the Mind of the Rutgers Professor, Part VII: Sex

Sex

The sexual revolution is a mess. While the professors accuse much literature of being racist, all is sexist. Feminists at Douglass College can’t decide whether they should support pornography for sexual liberation purposes or oppose it due to the degradation of women. They celebrate women’s sexual identity all the while espousing the absence of differences between men and women. The lesbian philosophy at Rutgers has been one of censorship rather than liberation, especially in relation to the grease trucks and the banning of The Medium in previous years. In summary, the Ladies Against Feminism, an anti-feminist group, says it best; “men and women are not identical creatures. Are we equal in human worth? Yes. Equal before the throne of grace? Absolutely. Equal in dignity? Indeed. But when it all boils down to it, if you insist that “equal” means exactly the same, you will have to fly in the face of biology, historical fact, Biblical truth and just plain common sense. In many ways, woman is not equal to man; and, by the same token, man is not equal to woman. They are different creatures with differing roles. Will we complement each other in our distinctive, God-given roles, or will we tear each other to shreds in a territorial dispute? L.A.F. promotes the former.”

NJO: Originally printed in the September 2005 issue of The Centurion.

Inside the Mind of the Rutgers Professor, Part VI: Equality

Equality

The decline of the Rutgers man (“man” being used to denote male or female human). There is no such thing as a “Rutgers Man” anymore. There is no such thing as a renaissance man. Rutgers does not produce gentlemen as well as scholars, does not shape students anymore, at least not in the way it should. While professors play the role of brainwashers, the administration promotes a form of sensitive homogeneity, using academic methods like “creative ambiguity,” where both sides strongly disagree but come to mutual agreement. The administration’s focus is primarily on skin color, ethnicity and non-western religions. The colorblind demands of the civil rights movement have mutated into the color consciousness of today. Since professors believe that all civilization and culture come directly from race and we are all created equal, the Rutgers anthropologist believes all civilizations and cultures are created equal. The Professor has become so obsessed with race, he will often ignore an argument, instead making ad hominem attacks on the basis of the arguer’s race or social status only. Professor James Livingston of the Rutgers History Department, a self-described “Marxist, Socialist, Feminist and Pragmatic Postmodernist,” made such attacks against the editors of The Centurion last fall, accusing the paper of “White Hysteria.” (Professor James Livingston is a white man who makes around 100,000 dollars a year).

Statewide Affirmative Action mandates demanding quotas on race have produced a segregated campus. Livingston College for blacks and Hispanics. Rutgers College for whites. White students are contemptuous of black students and athletes with lower admissions standards and doubt their merits, even though they deny doing so. Attempts to level the playing field bring standards down. English Professor William Dowling has spoken of the decline of academic standards and demanded the university return to its traditional, historical roots. Dr. Dowling has also published a list of works that are considered the great English Classics. In an August 25, 2003 article in Sports Illustrated, he pointed to a football player named Nate Robinson who was accepted into Rutgers with a combined SAT score of 800.

The University wanted none of it.

The “Academic Oversight Committee” demonized Dowling in a Targum column later in September, where they accused Dowling of calling football players “morons.” One student, then Rutgers College sophomore John Little, resorted to an ad hominem attack and accused Dowling of being a “racist.” His April 24th, 2001 quote (for Dowling’s 2003 article was not the first in which he questioned the University’s acquisition of sports players) about Dowling embodies much of the Marxist philosophy: “Professor Dowling only recognizes one style of learning. One leftover from the days when only the wealthy could attend college. Not all students can achieve academically in a typical classroom setting, thus making athletics, drama or art a valuable tool in the teaching process. The lessons that these activities teach students are numerous and every bit as valuable as anything is that can by learned in the classroom.”

The white Rutgers students, faculty and Administration feel uncomfortable talking about campus segregation between the colleges. They do not like it because it does not fit in their prevailing view that all the races get along and their university has become fully integrated, when in fact is has not.

What results is a barrage of aesthetic “diversity” reassurance and sensitivity training. There are dozens of caucuses, programs and councils to beat the importance of skin color and multicultural sensitivity into the segregated students minds. Diversityweb.rutgers.edu says all Rutgers students needs to be welcomed, valued and respected,” but the administration’s plans to emphasize distinct “cultures” (races) only promotes hostility between them. Heck, there is even an Institute for Executive Leadership and Diversity (http://diversity.rutgers.edu) at Rutgers University. At an “Algeria” award conference for Rutgers College student organizations on May 3rd, 2005, more than half of the awards were for cultural organizations, lauding skin color and little else. The Centurion was peculiarly absent from the “Excellence in Student Media” award ceremony.

NJO: Originally printed in the September 2005 issue of The Centurion.

Dear Freshmen, ahem... "First-Year-Students"

A year ago, this publication did not exist. Since then we have violated 37 copyrights in our satire of The New York Times, done a review of the most decorated liberal professor doors, investigated the rampant fiscal and electoral corruption of NJPIRG, documented our speech code, and investigated faculty contributions to political parties to find out professors gave 104 times more money to John F. Kerry than George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election. We have exposed the Stalinism of Rutgers favorite son, Paul Robeson, and printed the appropriate forms to relinquish your United States Citizenship if you are ashamed of your American identity. Additionally, we have filed a “bias incident report form” on one student who wrote “Die” all over one of our issues. We sent Valentines to NJPIRG requesting our money be refunded while documenting threats made to us by our old faculty advisor who told us “not to f*** with him.” We investigated our bureaucracy to find over 33 distinct offices, committees, programs, projects, caucuses and councils that advance nothing but diversity of skin color. As a response to Campus Censorship of the Grease Trucks' sandwiches, we attempted to ban Lucky Charms from the dining halls in a form of satirical protest. We, tragically, succeeded. And we got it on tape. We interviewed Bret Schundler for Governor and confronted a Professor who chased a student out of his classroom because he disagreed with the professor’s worldviews. We responded to the "Vagina Monologues" with the “Penis Monologues.” At Tent State, we counter-protested with patriotic country music and an affirmative action bake sale where we sold brownies for less money to minority customers. Students signed our petition to ban water. Anarchist ninjas assaulted us when we told them about the state scandals. Professors have tried to expel us when we exposed their lies, and the administration has disavowed us when we printed the truth. We have been assaulted, betrayed, and, at times, ignored. But we will never surrender in our pursuit to challenge the academic monopoly of thought. We will never surrender at trying to get students to look at both sides of an issue. We will never surrender in upholding our motto, Veritas vos Liberabit.

Read on.      - THE EDITORS

NJO: Originally printed in the September 2005 issue of The Centurion.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Mr. Roberts Neighborhood

The Washington Post editorialized that Supreme Court Justice Nominee John Roberts is “a man of substance and seriousness.” The LA times reported that he is a “Judicious choice.” Almost. The New York Times brings us a slice of what we know best. Trying to create controversy where there is none, the editorial page of the old grey bitc… er… lady, says that the white house Failed to mention Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society. This act of omission concerns the New York Times which writes that only “washington insiders” knew about it. Hmm. Every other publication and major newspaper seemed to know about it. Maybe the New York Times needs a better Washington Editor. The times editorializes on the failure of the white house to “reveal” Roberts’ affiliation with the Federalist Society. “This apparent contradiction raises questions about how forthcoming Mr. Roberts and the white house has been.” Ah those contradictions! And those forthcomings! Looks like the desperate democrats are fishing for documents to sink Roberts. The times goes on; “for a politically well-connected lawyer and sitting judge, Mr. Roberts has a remarkably opaque record when it comes to his views on controversial issues.” This is good news for two reasons. Personal views on controversial issues like abortion should not be relevant in deciding the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice, and the “opaqueness” is a virtue in itself, indicating a solid commitment to foundation of the constitution rather than the whims of judicial activism. We will see further demands from most media outlets demanding for papers and other memos from Robers’ Past. This will be the Democrats last leg to stand on, exhausting two of three reasons to oppose a nomination; claim insufficient consultation by the white House and two; paint the nominee as a right-wing ideologue. As Duncan Currie of the Weekly Standard writes in this week’s edition, it will make the “aggressor look like the aggrieved.”
Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and international consultant, wrote in the Washington Times this morning that recognizes Roberts’ modesty and willingness to strictly interpret the constitution, rather than make law. Roberts will bring the Supreme Court’s Constitutional law closer to the people who ratified it. He is an originalist. There is no place for the questioning of his views on Roe within this debate. (Or his wife’s)
But there are still hounds. Salivating and leading the charge is Sen. Chucky “Cheese” Schumer, whom John J. Miller of the National Review calls “The Inquisitor.” Interviewed by my host Greg Corombos on Dateline: Washington, Miller spoke in his vacuous, raspy voice (inbetween French jokes) that Schumer scored a perfected 1600 on his SAT. But Schumer’s greatest accomplishment doesn’t lie within his degree of Harvard Law, it lies within his main talent of grandstanding. First was his attack on guns inside the beltway. Then was his declaration that pro-life activists should avoid fines by declaring themselves insolvent. Schumer adores the spotlight. He craves it. Let the inquisition begin.
But some no likey Roberts… and its not based on his achievements or his qualifications. Roberts has and undoubtedly will not be scrutinized on these things. No friends, it’s based on his skin color, his style of dress and his… name. Oh isn’t the quota patrol ironic! But seriously… “John Roberts.” How much more conventional can you get? And how much more of a politically incorrect president can we have to go so far as electing a (gasp!) white male to the supreme court!

NJO: Originally posted on the blog Feathers of Steel at liberabit.blogspot.com.

Thursday, March 17, 2005

The New McCarthyism

“You have no first amendment rights,” said Richard Dienst, Director of the Rutgers Undergraduate English Program, to Rutgers College Republican Darren Cimillo, when he dared to challenge Duke University guest speaker Susan Willis on March 8th, 2005. Willis “consider[ed] the history of the Ku Klux Klan and its relationship to current U.S. foreign policy.” Richard Dienst and English Department Chair Richard Miller called the police and physically chased Darren out of Murray Hall and onto College Avenue. A police report confirms this.

On March 10th, Justine Mertz and I confronted Mr. Dienst with a video camera and asked him a) why the English department’s procured student fees are sponsoring a highly politicized event with no relation to the subject of English Composition and b) why he doesn’t believe in the United States Constitution. He told us to take it to “judicial affairs.” The video can be viewed at www.rucenturion.com.

On March 11th, a letter written by Richard Dienst and Richard Miller was sent to Dean Kirschner of Rutgers College and Dean Stauffer of Mason Gross in what apparently was a request for disciplinary action against Justine and myself for our “misguided actions.” The letter continued, “If there is a pattern of disrupted and improper behavior…we hope that an appropriate response will be made by University officials.”

From The Alien and Sedition Acts, to the silencing of Abolitionists to the McCarthy era of the mid 20th century, throughout history this country has learned to accept the First Amendment. John Stuart Mill’s argument for unfettered free speech was simple: if one’s ideas are not constantly discussed and challenged, their ideas will become prejudices and we would be unable to explain why we believe in them. The moral philosopher would undoubtedly find it ironic that an institution as morally relative as Rutgers would begin espousing that there exists a”right and wrong” political view and way to speak. No professor or bureaucrat is omniscient or qualified enough to make such determinations. For in America, the “free marketplace of ideas,” all things compete for public acceptance without restriction, especially on college campuses where debate and discourse are needed.

But from recent events at Rutgers, it is has been established that higher learning and free speech are incompatible. Rutgers, a public university that must comply with the 14th and 1st amendments of the Constitution, has four draconian speech codes (www.speechcodes.org) that silence minority opinion and suppress speech that is vaguely deemed “offensive” or does not comply with the university’s political orthodoxy. It has also developed a resume of constitutional violations that undermine the pursuit of truth and threaten the very foundation the Academy is supposed to rest upon.

In September 2002, Rutgers violated the US constitution by banning the InterVarsity Multi-Ethnic Christian Fellowship from using campus facilities and stripped the group of university funding because it “violated anti-discrimination policies” by requiring that its leaders be committed to InterVarsity’s “basis of faith and purpose.” John Leo, a columnist from townhall.com, pointed out that after the campus sponsored witch hunt, Rutgers anti-defamation laws would require the RU Democrats to “allow a Republican president, a Jewish group to allow a Holocaust-denying president, and a Muslim group to accept a leader who believes in Christianity, animism or voodoo.” Touché.

Then on March 6th, 2005 THE CENTURION was banned from participating in Tent State University, apparently due to our views; clearly a violation of the university’s anti-discrimination policies. The organizers of TSU, an anti-war demonstration in support of state-funded education, published staff meeting minutes on their website at www.tentstate.com. Organizers of the event declared illegally “THE CENTURION as an organization is not welcome at TSU under any circumstance” and “[T]hey cannot be affiliated officially with TSU in any way.” No action taken by University officials.

On February 10th, 2005 Rutgers violated the US constitution by censoring fast-food sandwiches names, locally known as “Fat Sandwiches,” because the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered communities deemed sandwich favorites, including the Fat Bitch and the Fat Dyke “offensive.” Meanwhile, the LGBTQI (the ever expanding acronym) community has not been “offended” by Bitch Magazine (www.bitchmagazine.com), whose mission statement reads that they seek to be a “voice for feminism.” The magazine advertises its readers to “Join TeamBitch!” “Host a Bitch event!” and “Talk Bitch up on the street and on campus!” On the website, the editors of Bitch Magazine advocate taking the insult “bitch,” as a compliment, because it is another name for an “outspoken woman.” Rightfully so, but notice the contradiction.

While feminists and queer communities at Rutgers are successfully banning sandwiches and reforming language, they have been failing to recognize football players who get away with beating their girlfriends. Last semester, Rutgers Athletic Director Bob Mulcahy cleared starting defensive end Alfred Peterson to play football after he was indicted for allegedly assaulting a female student. Peterson was exonerated by a university judiciary committee before the season began, but pleaded guilty to assault charges last month. Given identical circumstances and considering the testimony he heard, Mulcahy said he would make the same decision. And where is the outcry by feminists? At a newspaper called The Medium.

Last semester, 5,000 copies of the The Medium were stolen by self-described “progressive activists,” who combated the paper’s feminist-mocking not with debate, reason, or due process, but with thievery and deception. Worse, before the crime, students of the class “Woman, Culture and Society” were required to sign a calling for a campus-wide ban. Barbara Balliet, Director of the Women’s Studies Department, disassociated the petition with the missing papers saying, “I don’t even know that they’re stolen… Do you have evidence that they’re stolen?” While women on Douglass Campus were “offended” by nude pictures of women in The Medium, the all-female staff of the of Douglass’s self-described “progressive” magazine The Caellian recently printed graphic pictures of a softball sized sphere lodged inside of a young girl’s anus. Aren’t men repugnant?

In March 2005, Rutgers violated the US constitution and academic freedoms by prohibiting The Daily Targum from investigating the University’s spending habits of a budget of more than $1.2 billion, some of which comes from our rising 9% state user taxes. John Palvik, the Chairman of the Rutgers Journalism Department, refused to allow students to make such investigations since Pavlik and his department were subject to an investigation about how student athletes receive special perks including reserved courses in communications.

Luckily there exist organizations which fight constitutional violations, such as the non-profit Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (theFIRE.org), a group dedicated to uphold freedom of speech, legal equality, due process and religious liberty on increasingly repressive campuses. Groups like InterVarsity continued to exist, but that took a lawsuit. Meanwhile, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance and Students for a Free Tibet are not required to consider for leadership students of opposing beliefs. Groups like Tent State are free to discriminate on the basis of belief, simply due to their views.

At Rutgers, a school that prides itself on “making diversity a way of life,” “diversity” is only about skin color. Freedom is given to those who have the “correct views.” The academic core values of freedom of thought and expression are in danger of extinction. In the words of Charlton Heston, we must not “let America’s universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism.”

Depending on how seriously Richard Dienst’s false threats and accusations are taken, THE CENTURION may soon be victim to another of the Rutgers’ witch hunts, where constitutional rights are not a defense.

NJO: Originally printed in the March 2005 issue of The Centurion.

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

The Conservative Manifesto - Part III


A spectre is haunting Rutgers — the spectre of conservatism.
All of the powers of the ivory tower (Rutgers) have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: “diversity” proponents, speech-code advocates, multiculturalists, feminist radicals, and your professors.

Where is the student that has not been decried as “conservative” by the liberals in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of conservatism, against the more advanced liberal ideology at Rutgers, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Conservatism is already acknowledged by Rutgers to be itself a power.
II. It is time that Conservatives should openly, in the face of all their professors, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of conservatism with a manifesto of the ideology itself.

To this end, I have assembled the following manifesto, to be published in THE CENTURION:

A conservative believes in natural rights. A conservative believes in natural rights; those rights endowed to human beings by their creator. They believe in a system of government ordained around truths that are self-evident. Furthermore, he does not believe “No culture’s way of life is better than another,” as anthropologist Theodosious Dobzhansky has argued. Allan Bloom claims in his book The Closing of the American Mind that America promises, “the untrammeled freedom to reason,” and
therefore the highest achievement of truth and self-actualization. Conservatives are guilty of the sin of pride. We are proud of our nation and its values. We would rather study the political philosophies of freedom, justice, and liberty by John Locke, Adam Smith, and Thomas Hobbes which have inspired generations of prosperity. We choose not to buy into the political philosophies of conflict theory and revolution by Marx or Mao which have inspired only genocide. A conservative is not afraid to tell the multiculturalists and western intellectuals that ridding the world of genital mutilation, infanticide, religious discrimination, patriarchy, cannibalism, forced abortions and corrupt dictators is not “culturally imperialistic,” or “ethnocentric.” It is rather our civic duty to our fellow man.

A conservative believes in objective truth.
A conservative professes external order. He is firmly opposed to relativism's claims that truth is relative to the eye of the beholder, or claims that it is contextually constructed. He defends his view that there exists an outside truth by pointing out that disagreement doesn’t entail interminability, that there are undeniable facts like “the world is round,” and if there was no ethical or moral truth, then there would be no distinction in virtue between Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler. A conservative believes strongly in virtue: pursuing the good life for man for its own sake. He also beliefs in family and the traditions ordained in the family. Discipline, faith, self-confidence, personal responsibility and conviction are essential in all of man’s pursuits.

A conservative believes in limited government. “Government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem” (Ronald Reagan). While law enforcement, basic education and maintenance of infrastructure are all necessary, the government does not have a good track record in succeeding at what it sets out to do. He knows this for two reasons. One, government is not some distinct, almighty, independent moral entity; rather it is comprised of human beings with all the innate characteristics and corrupt susceptibilities that affect those “evil” corporations and masses of ignorant citizens it attempts to govern. Second, government operated programs fail economically, because unlike profit, there is no measurable end to determine the level of achievement. The conservative prefers the alternative of privatization; private ownership of the means of production. Privatization is more successful that its government counterpart because it is vastly more efficient, self-regulating, and cost-effective. Examples of successful areas of privatization the conservative points to include health care, social security, mail delivery, prison operation, etc. While Norwegian president accused the United States government of being “stingy” with the tsunami relief effort and other charitable contributions, private United States companies had already donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the effort as well as to other charities worldwide.

Prosperity, incentive, free market, growth, human fulfillment and the pursuit of happiness are created from the bottom up, not the government down. He believes that a free-market will lead towards human prosperity and happiness. While doomsdayers and naysayers warn that overpopulation is due to prosperity, the exact opposite is true. The most industrialized places on earth have a birth rate far below what is needed to maintain their population.

Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefiting from their success — only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free, and only then can human beings achieve happiness. Trust the people. This is the one irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion that rigid government controls are essential to economic development.

A conservative is Politically Incorrect. A conservative reveals the facts regardless of whose feelings get hurt. He acknowledges there are differences between the sexes. He knows what a statistical bell curve is, and understands that an outlier or exception cannot disprove a rule, sin qua non. He is against language reform and other futile and aesthetic attempts to soften reality by calling toilet paper “bathroom tissue,” freshmen “first-year-students,” and more recently Christmas trees “trees of giving.” A conservative does his best to act rather than talk and does his best not to get caught up in names, labels, and terminologies. Buzzwords like “inclusion,” “tolerance,” and “diversity” are racist, hypocritical, and exclusive to, as Leo Strauss said, “those who have stated clearly and forcefully there are unchangeable standards founded in the nature of man and the nature of things.”

A conservative believes in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. That being said, he is strongly opposed to racism. He recognizes there are many human beings who lack opportunities. But current programs that institutionalize racial consciousness, like affirmative action, must be reformed on the ground that they encourage racial identity, promote suspicion of minority success, and violate civil rights by putting skin color before character. Racism is most prevalent in college admissions where skin color alone determines how one acts and thinks. In some cases, race is all that matters. “Diversity” becomes nothing but skin tone. One’s desires, intellect and even background become irrelevant. The postmodernists, whose philosophy is founded upon fragmentation, assume skin color alone can determine how one acts and thinks, therefore bringing a range of perspectives. Conservatives suggest an alternative program based solely on socioeconomic need. Such an alternative would bring diversity of economic backgroun and benefit minorities because, as the left itself confesses, a disproportionate amount are “socioeconomically disadvantaged.” A conservative is against “identity politics” and racial pride movements on the grounds that they too identify and polarize skin color. The conservative recognizes that since the 1960’s, activists have shifted their cause from civil rights to racial identity, a cause which will serve as an impediment to racial equality.

- James O'Keefe

NJO: Originally published in The Daily Targum in 2004 and later printed in Issue 3 of The Centurion in February 2005.

Monday, December 06, 2004

A Dose of Conservative Thought


Where is the truth?

Certainly it is not in some obscure interpretation of Marx's Capital or in the works of Trotsky or Spinoza or Friedrich Engels, Clement Atlee, Julius Nyerere or Noam Chomsky. Maybe it lies within the graves of the human beings slaughtered throughout the 20th century coerced into being equal by a government of armed thugs they didn't have a choice but to trust. Complete state ownership and collective ownership have both lead themselves down a path of good intentions to a hell so barbaric it's amazing rationalizations for their existence still exist. Especially given the empirical evidence. Your professors make the death list a cliché, a footnote and in some cases, even an impediment. Mao Zedong's butchering of 65 million people. 25 million in Bolshevik and Stalinist Russia slaughtered. Cambodia. Africa. Eastern Europe. Latin America. Your professors can hide behind textbooks and theories – even the promise of a socialist utopia – call the atrocities anti-socialist. (I could call racism anti-American and anti constitutional.) The Problem lies in their belief in this mysterious utopia which has never manifested itself ever. A belief which makes them more religious than Pat Robertson. In order to succeed, even in theory, they must confront arguments made by F. A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises about the inevitable failure of a controlled market. Have professors had their students read objections to socialism by Aron, Popper, Oakeshott, Sowell, Strauss, Blool, Kirk or Friedman? Absolutely not. Are your professors constituting a breach in academic responsibility by not offering you these extremely legitimate and historically proven objections to socialism? You betcha.

Have arguments been raised against these "utopian" paradises that currently exist on the planet earth anywhere at in the Academy? What about Sweden? Is this place heaven on earth or what? "Highest Standard of Living," they say. This tidbit seems to be based on wealth redistribution and median income. Not factored in are GNP, innovation or exchange rate. Neither is unemployment in the private sector (which has been close to 12%). Recent reports by the Swedish Institute of Trade indicate median income in Sweden is $26,900, compared to $39,400 in the United States. This is before taxes, and in Sweden taxes are everything. You're education and health care are certainly not "free." There is a national income tax of 55% not to mention a 22.5% sales tax on all items sold. Their socialized health care is on the verge of economic collapse, due to a funding dependency on a 30% private ownership of the means of production that is shrinking. Canada is facing similar problems. Meeting the costs of such welfare policies are barely possible in countries with 10 million people. Then how are they possible in America, with almost 300 million people?

I have seen students at the "Death of Humanity" rally as well as the extremist left-leaning conferences held throughout the month at Rutgers not address any of these objections. Should it be the responsibility of a couple of undergraduate students at THE CENTURION to challenge them? No. It should be the responsibility of Rutgers University. Professors should openly discuss both sides of the ideological coin as well as the benefits of electing both candidates for a presidential election (Especially if Students fees are sponsoring such conferences). In addition, our administration should pursue academic, conservative intellectuals to come speak who can pose defenses for our market structure, instead of conservative talking heads like Ann Coulter. It is the least they can do, if as our study indicates, the partisan ratio at Rutgers is a high as 13 Democrats to every 1 Republican.

Our Journal of conservative thought focuses upon the Rutgers Community and seeking balance within it as well as taking a stab at the current events. We recommend for students who want a conservative perspective devoted exclusively to current events read the impeccable prose of the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal or the columns of the National Review. Perhaps read one of the books we occasionally suggest. The differences between us and these other journals is our distinction of having the luxury of covering things that happen on our campus. By virtue of our firm belief in individualism, morality, and tradition our main goal is to challenge the students to see things through a different perspective.

Contrary to the sentiments of the angry and reactionary academic left, we are not on a coalition against benevolent causes like supporting of the environment and the need for racial equality. Our logic dictates that affirmative action programs should be based on socioeconomic need, not skin color. The majority of our student fees allocated from us towards NJPIRG, if collected from us without our informed consent, should go directly towards environmental causes. They should not go towards liberal lobbyists who pursue things other than the environment. We will attempt place needed scrutiny upon policies such as these because others seem not to for fear of some politically correct reprisal. Why call these arguments "racist" or "pro-pollution" when they could actually increase opportunity and decrease pollution, based on an increase in efficiency?

So you may very easily reject our humble attempts at introducing you to new perspectives. Laugh at us. Mock us. Call us "clueless." Our own faculty advisor did so in his December 1st entry of his weblog listed in the margin below. But in doing so, you'd just be rejecting yourself. Because our paper is not just a collection of legitimate or illegitimate points about particular political issues, rather it is the embodiment of the spirit of marginalized and isolated conservative students whose beliefs have much in common with the majority of citizens in the United States of America. Rutgers has an unchallenged partisan majority as witnessed in our study of campaign contributions. This threatens the impressionable youth who will soon depart the ivory gates of unregulated intellectualism into a real world, where contrary to the teachings of their sociology professors, anything is possible.

There is a world out there where is punishment for people who do bad things and there is no such thing as a free lunch. There is a world out there where your theories will be governed by consequences, your hard work rewarded by success and your destiny contingent upon your actions. Because that section of the world we live in is America, our potential as human beings is infinite.

And that is the truth.

James O'Keefe

NJO: Originally printed in the December 2004 issue of The Centurion (Issue 2) and also posted on the Centurion website.

Monday, November 01, 2004

The truth shall set you free


General George Patton once said "When everyone is thinking the same, no one is thinking at all." Throughout my life, in all my pursuits of obtaining knowledge, the one thing that has stimulated me most has been a good challenge. Everyone is in agreement that the only way to learn is through constant stimulation.

Conservatives and traditionalists are in this respect very fortunate in college. They are challenged. They learn material through postmodernism, historical revisionism and the plight of the disenfranchised. The are forced to disect morality and examine the ethical obligations of the West. They are lectured about the injustices and struggles of those who have been victim of systems favorable to those in power. They are drowned in relativism, concepts of distributive justice and redistribution of wealth. They are taught that there is no such thing as truth and you are not allowed to make judgments upon anyone or anything, except America. They are taught to be sensitive and defensive, emphasizing artifice and political correctness over fact. For Rutgers students who have not taken any classes in the liberal arts, look no further than your mandatory Expository Writing course. You read about the evils of capitalism and the gluttony of America. You read about the corruption of the elections processes which elect diplomatic morons. You learned about the consequences of globalization, the need for cultural contexts and the corruption of an all men's institution discriminating against women. Liberals are very unfortunate in college. They aren't really challenged at all.

Have advocates for progress with an alleged pursuit of tolerance ever attempted to understand or listen to their conservative counterparts, the same way they tell their America to listen to their political enemies? Have they been forced to read the Nobel Peace Prize winning works of free enterprise by Milton Friedman (A Rutgers graduate) or Friedrich Hayek the same way I have been forced to read the communist works of Karl Marx? Have they studied Ayn Rand's objectivism, Edmund Burke's belief in "sound practice" or William F. Buckley's "Up from Liberalism?" Do they see they are living in the most fruitful and prosperous country in the world, admiring egalitarian systems that in 20 th century have lead to more barbaric cruelty, famine and death than any privileged American intellect could ever fathom? Have those in academia been challenged morally? Have they studied the principles that this country was founded upon? Have they studied principles of liberty, freedom, justice, and equality, and truly compared them to the principles of other societies?

Why, in a country that is at least half conservative, do we not have this ratio represented in higher learning? Some will say conservatives shouldn't have a right to express themselves. Some say principles of limited government, personal responsibility or of an objective standard are flat out wrong. In the words of Michael Moore, "let's have that debate." But let's not have it through the filter of a professor who has endorsed a certain candidate or who always comes from a certain ideological perspective. Let Rutgers be a place as President McCormick envisioned in his Inaugural Address "where there is tolerance for the student who challenges the professor's ideas." If our arguments are so flawed, so unsound and so problematic, then let us expose them for everyone to criticize. Then we will rest our case.

There is nothing academic about an ideological majority. There is nothing liberal about a monopoly of thought, nothing enlightening about blatant partisan endorsement, and nothing equitable about discriminating against conservative students and professors because their beliefs are different than your own. Rutgers is a diverse research university with a goal not only to represent the citizens of New Jersey, but views and theories from all over the country and the world. More importantly, it is an academic institution that pursues something even deeper, beyond knowledge or ideology, beyond the rhetoric of a debate.

"Sol Iustate et occidentem Illustra." "Sun of righteousness shine upon the west also." For the past 200 years and to this day Rutgers lives by that motto. Give us virtue, give us justice, give us truth. So read about our truth to challenge yourself politically in the process. Find out that although we go about it differently, we are in pursuit of the same things you are. Disguising truth has helped every blood-thirsty tyrant and dictator keep the shackles on humanity throughout history. Let us rock the foundations of academia and challenge the thrones that have for too long indoctrinated us about our world and the context in which we live. As the Journal of Conservative thought at Rutgers university THE CENTURION will try its hardes to serve to that end. Turn the page. You may read things you agree with and you may read things that you disagree with. But at least you'll come closer to realizing your own truth, and in the words of Jesus Christ, "The truth shall set you free."


Cordially,
James O'Keefe
Founder, Editor-in-Chief
THE CENTURION
Veritas Vos Liberabit







NJO: Originally printed in the November 2004 issue of The Centurion (Issue 1) and also posted on the Centurion website.

So, some perspective.

James and some other students have just started a conservative-leaning college magazine. You pick up a copy of this new magazine, and right there on the front cover, James is telling you that if you get an abortion from an unregulated and unsafe practitioner and as a consequence suffer some horrible bodily harm which causes you to die, then as far as he's concerned it's really all a bit of a giggle because fuck you you dirty whore. It gets your attention in a trollish sort of way, so you turn to page 3, and you read the editorial above.

What are you supposed to think?

Thursday, October 02, 2003

Politically Correct B.S.

Politically correct language and its inane euphemisms are a menace to society. They are threatening your right to free speech and your ability to express yourself the way you want. Form is now becoming more important than substance. Prevalent social inequalities and oppressions look to language for remedy. What results is a thick, cunning manipulation of English - a lackluster solution to a problem that cannot be solved by words alone. A constant desire for some to be in power has turned those in our society into attackers - not physically, or even intellectually, but rather by cowardly accusation. Political correctness is shying away from simply being common courtesy and is turning into an epidemic. We accuse each other of being sexist if we say "mailman" instead of "mailperson." We accuse each other as being racist if we say "Indian" instead of "Native American." Your opinion of either entity does not change regardless of the term. Our attention is being focused not on the issues that matter, but rather on our defense. Why must we lower ourselves to such abysmal depths of linguistic nonsense? Because if we don't, our social doom will be swift, certain and inevitable. The worst thing to be labeled is a sexist or a racist. We must resort to learning how to communicate in this pathetic dialect that accentuates the appeasement of everyone and the offense of no one. We must sacrifice what was given to us in the constitution so we can succeed in a society with a politically correct social disease.

What used to be called the "Department of War" is now the Department of Defense. Bank tellers are supposed to refer to a disabled person as "a person with a disability," emphasizing his personhood first and not his disability. In business, "greed" has become the more positive sounding "profit motives." Special interest groups have transformed and, likewise, "anti-abortion" morphed into "pro-choice" and likewise "pro-life" into "anti-choice." "Used" becomes "Pre-Owned." "Liberals" have become "Progressives." Changes that were once somewhat necessary have become tiresome and pretentious. "Loser" becomes "second place." "Garbage men" become "Garbage people," and then become "sanitation workers" - which totally disassociates and dehumanizes the act of collecting smelly trash but at least gives those numerous female sanitation workers all the respect they've always wanted. (Notice my sarcasm.) Stealing one from George Carlin, "Shell shock" has become the verbose "Post traumatic stress disorder." This change disrespects the military veterans who actually experienced the horrors of battle - the mustard gas, the trenches, the death and destruction - just in sacrifice for all of today's super-sensitive. These euphemisms have been created by a manipulative, elitist few.


The term "politically correct" derives itself from Communism. Karl Marx coined the term P.C. as a cute reversal of C.P. (The Communist Party), and used it as propaganda. Even Hitler mastered the art of speaking in such a way that controlled the minds of others. Presently, The New York Times will give you more than a whiff of politically correct language. Much of the colorful, adjective- packed, progressive prose in The Times is on the threshold of up-to-date politically correctness. It has been used in various forms all over the spectrum, liberal to conservative, to brainwash others by manipulating the way of speaking.

The social and political implications of an artificial, politically correct language are destructive. The only things coming out of politicians' mouths are perfectly orchestrated pieces of well-planned sentimental glop. We have candidates being elected due to their (or their speechwriter's) magical talent of spitting out happy dribble, not due to character or morality or anything else that defines greatness. This new breed of language is a force to be reckoned with, putting more emphasis on one sentence that than a whole life of achievement. Any public figure that makes a politically incorrect statement is immediately attacked by the American media. David Howard, a Washington mayoral aide, used the word "niggardly" as a synonym for "stingy." Howard did not intend the racial epithet, it was a legitimate definition that a dictionary would confirm. However, the public and media were quick to accuse him of being racist, and he turned into a victim of political correctness run amok. Rush Limbaugh is the new target, although his statements were probably more racially directed, and therefore unacceptable. But there is a danger in letting one statement alone have such a huge impact on careers. Political Correctness can even cause controversy with those like John Lennon, who once said, "Only those with no hope take drugs." Bill Maher's show was canceled from ABC because he made a perfectly viable comment about the misuse of the word "cowardly" to describe the acts of terror on 9/11. This man's show was actually called "Politically Incorrect," and it was cancelled due to a controversial statement. There is a danger in encouraging those in the public sector to speak flawlessly. It will subliminally sway our attention from meaningful substance and force us to concentrate our attention on controversy and form. We will find it is impossible to satisfy the ears of everyone - we will just be fighting a futile battle we will never win. Every Targum column has its naysayers. Every speaker has protesters. Every optimist has skeptics. Don't live by them.

George Orwell once said, "All language is political." Perhaps we should address the actual issues themselves, not just sugarcoat them with an artificial and dangerous sense of false security. Understanding the world around us is contingent upon language. When that language is manipulated by the powerful, elitist source that seeks to use it as propaganda for a cause, language becomes a force to be reckoned with. When that force only appeals to the aesthetic and the superficial, we solve nothing; we achieve nothing. We cover up our problems with a fake blanket. This is America. We have the freedom to say whatever we want. Let's come together, stop accusing each other of things for our own political reasons and advancements, and talk the way we want. Let's have the courage to say what we feel. Because when it comes down to it, euphemisms suck! Well perhaps "suck" is much too vulgar a word; so I "dislike" them. Maybe I shouldn't judge a word based on its shallow qualities; so I suppose I find euphemisms "disagreeable with my preferences, per se."

James O'Keefe is a Rutgers College sophomore majoring in philosophy. His column "Feathers of Steel," appears on alternating Fridays.

NJO: Originally published in The Daily Targum.