Polite Kid

I don't watch the celebrity and glamor-oriented TV programming, but it's impossible not to hear about these things in real life and of course in the blogosphere. So there's no escaping them, even for those who are TV abstainers.
I am not going to mention the names of the principals involved because that will only draw the attention of those people who are googling the names and leaving idiotic and abusive comments on blogs and forums on this subject. The people involved are the current Miss California and some 'celebrity' blogger who practices a certain politically correct sexual perversion. I am sure most of you know who I mean. If not, the story is here.
And Old Atlantic's blog entry on the story is here.
I don't usually have much to say about these celebrity stories, but several issues about which I do blog are wrapped up within this story.
First of all, the 'culture war', which, like every aspect of the left-right battle, has heated up since November, and this includes the question of free speech and freedom of thought vs. political correctness. Then there is the dishonest newsertainment media which are fomenting all the controversy around this. There is also the issue of the increasingly virulent anti-Christian, anti-traditional morality faction in this country, which sadly includes not only the left-libertines, but the secular/atheist libertines on the 'right'.
To add one more troubling ingredient, there is the glaring picture of a dumbed-down apostate ''Christianity' which is illustrated by the remarks made by several professing Christian celebrities regarding this story:
"Love is love!" Britney Tweeted... "People should be able to do whatever makes them happy!"
Miley Cyrus Tweeted similar thoughts ... "Jesus loves you and your partner and wants you to know how much he cares! That's like a daddy not loving his lil boy cuz he's gay and that is wrong and very sad! Like I said everyone deserves to be happy. I am a Christian and I love you � gay or not. Because you are no different that anyone else! We are all God's children!"
Apparently her comments are right in line with those of "Hills" star Heidi Montag, who is expected to marry the show's Spencer Pratt this weekend.
"God says in the bible that we should love our neighbor and he created us all as equals. I know in my heart that gays and lesbians should have the same government rights that Spencer and I will when we get married. So, yes, this blonde Christian believes in gay marriage and I hope to one day go to your wedding, Perez!!!"
Now, I am proud to say I don't know who Mzz Montag is, nor do I really want to know; I care only that she pretends to represent Christianity and wrongly cites the Bible in support of her libertine and oh-so-hip-and-postmodern views.
Miley Cyrus can be excused somewhat, as she is still a minor child who has evidently not had a good grounding in the Bible nor in Christian morality as set out in the Bible. I suppose having a parent in show-biz is also a definite handicap when it comes to having a good upbringing and sound values and morals. Still, she should know better, and I fear that many gullible and malleable young 'Christians' will follow her example and adopt similarly unsound viewpoints, if they haven't already absorbed them from the corrupt and ugly culture that passes as 'entertainment' in our day.
And I am not sure that the person to whom their comments were addressed will suddenly soften his views towards the Bible or Christians in general; I have encountered many such people in real life and they are perpetually embittered that there is a Bible which condemns their pet vice, and they hate the fact that anyone reminds them of that fact. Ergo they hate Christians.
One more bit of trivia about the 'celebrity blogger' who was the center of all this: he is an example of the much-vaunted ''conservative'' Cuban-'American' community of Florida. Now, does anybody care to tell me again how Cuban-'Americans' who fled Castro are such staunch conservatives and Republican stalwarts? Or how they are poster children for legal immigration?
Over at the Big Hollywood blog, which is incidentally not exactly too staunchly conservative either, a commenter mentions something about the pageant:
On the subject: As a pageant competitor you spend an entire year doing mock interviews, discussing every hot-button or political topic under the sun. There is NO WAY her pageant directors were unaware of her stance on gay marriage prior to the pageant.''
This is the question that occurred to me: was the question a set-up? I suspected that they knew the young woman's Christian background and set a trap for her, asking her a question which they knew she would likely answer 'wrongly' -- after which they could gin up a public brouhaha and make an example of her. The object? To further marginalize and ridicule Christian believers, to remind everybody once again, lest anybody forget, that there is only one correct viewpoint on 'gay marriage' and that deviating from that PC viewpoint carries some penalties.
I give the young woman considerable credit for answering honestly; she was probably savvy enough to know that she was giving the 'wrong' answer and yet she answered honestly. Many people (not just Christians, but people in general) would have dissimulated rather than risk the consequences of giving an 'incorrect' answer. She stuck to her guns. Good for her.
I am also left wondering how and why our popular culture exalts people like the 'celebrity blogger' in this day and age. It was true, once upon a time, that to become a celebrity, one had to be, if not talented or fascinating, at least attractive and presentable and well-groomed. None of these are true of the walking grotesquerie who is at the center of this story. Standards have fallen; I lament this often. We seem to have dropped our standards in every area of life. Nowadays we celebrate the ugly, the sordid, the grotesque, the freakish, and the repellent, not only in popular culture but even in the high arts. What happened to our ideals of beauty and grace? How do we get them back? And how do we banish the ugly and the corrupt, which dominate our public sphere so relentlessly?
And what do we do about weakening this politically correct tyranny which exercises enormous power via our corrupt 'entertainment' media? I personally think that the so-called entertainment media wield far more power than academia, the school system, and the so-called 'news' media. More people get their PC ideas from watching trashy entertainment programming than from any other source -- other than peer pressure, which also is more powerful, even among adults, than many people acknowledge.
I know of a good number of people of mature years who have reversed themselves on social and political issues based on what they pick up from the media; they learn to like 'gay' celebrities, for example, and decide that not allowing 'gay marriage' is hateful and mean as well as 'behind the times.' Many people in my area learn virtually everything they ''know'' about blacks from the flattering media; they then begin to fawn over certain black celebrities, and slowly adopt the PC, pro-black attitudes they learn from the media, becoming de facto anti-Whites.
As I've said before, those who find TV and movies offensive or objectionable always get the facile advice ''just don't watch.'' But there is no isolating oneself; even if we don't watch the propaganda, we are exposed to it second-hand, or third-hand. And if we shield our children or grandchildren from it by throwing the TV out and boycotting movies, they still absorb it from their classmates or neighbors. Unless we take up dwelling in caves in the most remote areas we can find, there's no avoiding it. Ultimately it finds you. You can run, but you can't hide.
And here, James Edwards writes about how it's becoming 'uncool' to have traditional beliefs about homosexuality. Even the supposed 'conservatives' like Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Rick Warren have fallen in line with the PC viewpoint. I remember well when Dr. Laura was detested and denounced by gays because of her supposed 'homophobic' beliefs, and now she has recanted and joined in the PC chorus.
It may be that we are just seeing the wheat divided from the chaff; I never believed Warren was 'conservative,' especially in a Biblical sense, and Dr. Laura has been rather inconsistent on her religious beliefs, but it seems as though we are swiftly moving towards a time when it will not only be 'uncool' to refuse to toe the line on homosexuality, but it may soon be costly in terms of consequences, if not downright illegal.

Labels: Bigotry, Celebrity Culture, Cultural Marxism, Freedom Of Speech, Hate Speech, Mass Media, Political Correctness, Propaganda

So much of the 'news' lately reported in the old media, and even in the blogosphere, seems to be so much distraction from some of the rather unsettling things that are happening quietly, unbeknownst to most Americans.
I've alluded to this 'national service' plan which has been in the works, but few details have been publicly discussed, so there was not much to say about it except that I find it to be wrong in principle. However the Senate has just passed the bill which is called the GIVE Act.
The senate voted 74-14 in favor of the bill.
HR 1388
GIVE Act
Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act
The link above gives only a summary of the bill, and not the complete text, but I invite my readers to take a look at it.
The House version of the bill passed a few days ago, as WorldNetDaily reported, and with no less than 70 Republicans voting for it.
The House version is here.
Here is one part (among many) which is rather unnerving:
SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
...(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.''
There's also a related bill here.
Somehow in light of what these measures suggest, I can't help thinking of what a certain person said some months ago:
"Barack Obama will require you to work."
"He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation and that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage."
"Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual � uninvolved, uninformed � you have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eight years from now, you will have to be engaged."
These plans seems disturbingly open-ended, and though it looks as if the idea is primarily to indoctrinate young people (or further indoctrinate them, more accurately), the bills even mention programs for seniors over the age of 55. If we consider the quotes in the paragraph above, it sounds as though this 'service corps' will not just be another little VISTA program or something which provides busy work for idealistic young people, but something that sounds unsettlingly compulsory as opposed to voluntary, and it looks like it is meant to touch everybody, not just a 'commiitted' few.
Any reactions? Comments?

Labels: Communism, Congress, Indoctrination, Mass Media, National Service, Socialism, Volunteerism

A while back, I blogged about certain biased TV commercials, among them the Brinks Home Security Ads, one in particular involving a young woman at home alone as a White male attempts to break into her house. There are several such ads involving White male lawbreakers. The most egregious one lately depicts a thirty-something black woman, obviously representing an upper-middle-class single woman, who casually throws away documents into her recycle container. A thirty-something White male, who does not look like the 'criminal' type, but rather like your average middle-class White guy, jogs by and slyly steals the documents from the black woman's recycling. The commercial warns about 'identity theft.'
What are the messages of ads like this? Obviously that crimes are not infrequently perpetrated by White men, even by average, innocuous-appearing White men.
As the commenters here mention, it could be said that the Brinks people don't want to alienate minorities or be accused of 'racism' in depicting nonwhites perpetrating crimes --- even though many people are aware that statistically, nonwhites figure in more than their share of crime, proportionately speaking. No, there's no excuse for these ads. If the advertisers are so worried about the reaction of Jesse Jackson or other racial grievance-mongers, they could simply make the criminals vague, shadowy figures, who are racially unidentifiable. They could simply show the criminal in silhouette, or show his shadow, or a portion of him without indicating his race. But no; they give us a good look at the perpetrators, making sure we see that they are White, and rather ordinary-looking White guys at that, the type you would not edge away from if you met them on a darkened street. It seems that, whether or not the advertisers intend it, they are putting across the message that White men are not to be trusted, and that if you are victimized, chances are it's some Joe Average White Guy who has done it.
Another ad in the same vein, actually a 'public service announcement' about child abuse. I've searched for it on the Internet and it seems no longer to be available. But some of you may have seen it. In it, a little girl of 10 years old or so gets on an elevator with a man, presumably her father. The only other passenger on the elevator is an older black woman, of the type so often seen in commercials: the ultradignified type. The White man looks at the black woman and makes some small talk, 'how ya doing?' or something, and she looks warily at him, then at the little girl, who seems very subdued. As the man and little girl leave the elevator at the next floor, the black woman sees, emblazoned on the back of the man's jacket, the words ''Child Abuser." The little girl looks pleadingly back at the black woman, as if to say ''help me, save me from this man.'' The elevator door closes, and a voice-over says something like ''trust your instincts'' or something of that nature.
Some of you may have seen it; if so, please correct my description of it if I am remembering it incorrectly.
In any case, I don't think it's any accident that they chose a White man to be the evil child abuser, or that the 'good citizen' in the video is a black woman, just as the good citizen and victim of identity theft in the Brinks commercial is a black woman.
One of the most objectionable things about political correctness, to me, is that it lies. It turns reality on its head, and asks us to believe that this is a reasonably accurate reflection of the real world. Some will say ''people know that TV is not reality, and vice-versa." Well, some people do, but there have been a number of studies showing that people often base their view of reality on what they see on TV, whether on the news or in fictional programming on TV and in movies.
For instance it's been shown that those who watch a lot of TV (and thus, by definition, spend less time actually interacting with the real world out there) have a skewed perception as to how much violence occurs. And these ads misidentify the likely perpetrators.
This article actually acknowledges how the public's perception of the justice system is influenced by 'court TV' shows.
I am surprised that they admit that there is an overrepresentation of black judges on these ''reality'' courtroom shows.
During the 2000-2001 television season there were nine reality court shows in syndication, The People's Court, Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown, Divorce Court, Judge Hatchett, Judge Greg Mathis, Curtis Court, Judge Mills Lane, and Moral Court.
Six of the nine judges were male, two were white, and four were black. Three judges were women, one white woman, Judge Judy and two black women, Judge Hatchett, and Mablean Ephraim on Divorce Court. When the 2001-2002 television season began, there were eight daytime court shows, and none of the judges were white males. In January 2002 Larry Joe Doherty, a white male, aired on a new show entitled Texas Justice. When the 2002-2003 season began seven shows remained with three male and four female judges. The fourth woman was Judge Marilyn Milian, a Cuban American, who took over The People's Court. Of the seven current television judges, only Judge Doherty is white and male.
In real life, however, most judges are white and male. Only 3.3% of all judges in the United States are black, and the percentages are even lower for Latinas/os and Asian Americans. Women comprise only 7% are of all federal judges and 9% of all state judges. The percentage of black women judges is even lower than the percentages for blacks and women generally. Thus, it is surprising that two black women, one Cuban American woman, one white woman, two black men and only one white man preside over the seven reality court television shows that air daily in most major cities.
Perhaps the overrepresentation of women, blacks and black males on TV reality court shows simply reflects network attempts to reach targeted viewing audiences. Yet this over representation is not only a distortion of actual judicial demographics in the United States, it also is a distortion of demographic make-up of the television population generally. A recent survey of the small screen by Children Now found that only 17% of the prime time television population is black; 75% of the prime time television population is white. Women account for only a third of prime time television characters.
The Children Now study concedes that increasingly women are portrayed on television as professionals like lawyers and doctors, and whites and blacks "appear with about equal frequency as physicians, attorneys and in service/retail/restaurants jobs." Thus, television creates the impression that women and non-whites, primarily black male lawyers, are well represented in the legal community.
Whatever the reasons, the over representation of women and non-white judges on reality court shows, coupled with the perceived over representation of black judges on television in general, is problematic in the highly racialized society in which we live. The over representation of women and black male judges on television not only sends an erroneous message about the extent of their representation in the judiciary, but may actually undermine popular support for increased racial and gender diversity on the bench by suggesting that our nation's benches are already diverse, or that blacks and/or women have taken over the courts.''
Of course the writers turn this around to demonstrate how reality does not measure up to the fanciful world of TV in this respect; obviously, as they see it, blacks and women are underrepresented and White males overrepresented in the real-life judicial system, as lawyers and judges.
On television the court room is integrated. On the shows the race of the bailiff is always different from the race of the judge. Also male judges tend to have female bailiffs and female judges tend to have male bailiffs. Since all the shows share this feature, clearly race and gender are factors considered by snydicators. Perhaps syndicators realize that integrated courtrooms with women and black judges appeal to television audiences. The presence of women and non-white judges in integrated settings reassure viewers that justice in the United States is meted out impartially. While there are positive aspects to this portrayal of the courts, there are negative aspects as well.
One political scientist speculates that white's misperceptions about blacks' standing in American society make be the result of the success of some blacks. "As the black middle class swells, more whites see blacks who have the same skills, earn the same money, and live in the same kinds of neighborhoods," and the increased sense of competition these observations engender in white Americans. It is no surprise that whites with the greatest misperceptions about the socio-economic status of blacks are less educated and affluent. Since less affluent and educated viewers are some of the same people who watch more daytime television, the possibility of the distorted information about the gender and racial composition of the judiciary is increased.
When virtual integration actually occurs, it easy for this group of whites viewers to doubt claims of the under representation of women and non-whites in the judiciary and the need for American society to make meaningful steps to address this problem. The fantasy of a racially integrated society keeps many whites from confronting how little contact they have with non-whites, especially black Americans, in real life.''
So they admit that there is a desire to change reality by means of presenting these skewed, inaccurate images to viewers, thus influencing them towards more 'egalitarian' attitudes.
Far from showing viewers a more equitable and realistic picture of life in the real world, and of minorities as individuals and as a group, TV shows us a make-believe world in which virtually the only blacks are those who are affluent, educated, upscale, and urbane. And of course they are usually shown as the ''good guys'' in contrast to the depictions of Whites as nerds, incompetents, slobs, or criminals.
If we didn't know better, we would assume that all the stories of high crime rates or other social 'dysfunctions' in the ghetto are mere stereotypes created by 'racists' who have it in for blacks. And not coincidentally, this is exactly what is alleged all the time by black 'activists' and politically correct advocates for minority groups.
And many Whites who have no real-life experience of blacks believe the TV stereotypes; it's those people who constituted the pro-Obama White voters. Sure, there are a certain number of self-hating far-left Whites who voted for Obama, but there are a lot more who know nothing about other races except what they see on TV and in the movies. These people are the targets of the advertisers who are busy creating a make-believe parallel universe in which middle-class White guys steal black women's identities.
Just as this writer says, TV and the media generally foster anti-American, anti-White attitudes. And I suspect that is what they set out to do, whether consciously or unconsciously.
Television entertainment is mostly boring, immoral and disgusting. Content is so disgusting and unreal as to be a factor in anti-American hatred and anti-American terrorism around the world. A people whose main or only contact with American culture is the crap they see on American television programs would, reasonably, develop a strong anti-American attitude based on what they watch on U.S. television and not based on the reality of American culture. If my only contact with American culture were American television, I also would hate America.
For decades, television and the media in general have been throwing at us an unending stream of weird, violent, smart alecky and perpetually enraged Hollywood Negroes, glorified homosexuals, sexually irresponsible urban women, assorted terrorists and criminals, unethical business people, and anti-American, anti-family, anti-White, anti-government, anti-religious, anti-personal-responsibility, anti-achievement, and anti-American-culture messages.''
Just as the writer concludes above, TV is more than ever a 'vast wasteland.'
Whenever the subject of media bias and the general worthlessness of television comes up, the usual cries of 'kill your TV' are heard. But is that the ultimate answer? If you overhear somebody slandering you, insulting you, lying about you, even threatening you, is the answer just to stop your ears and ignore it?
I think we have to be aware of what the public in general is being told and being fed, and we have to be cognizant of the effects of the pernicious propaganda in the media, and try to counter it, rather than attempting simply to shut it out.
Many of us, in more optimistic times, thought that if we wrote letters to the media or to advertisers, or boycotted sponsors or networks, our voices would be heard. Now, I am not inclined to place much trust in those methods. The advertisers, sponsors, media executives -- they all seem to be ideologues with an agenda over and above either informing or entertaining, or even selling products. They are propagandists, on a mission which only incidentally concerns selling products or entertaining people.
When you have true believers in charge, I don't think there's much hope that they will be interested in placating dissatisfied viewers or readers.
I don't think the ''just change the channel'' or ''just use the off button'' approach is sufficient. We still, unfortunately, have to live among people who are consuming the toxic waste that is purveyed by the advertisers and the media generally. We have to live with the consequences of the campaign to dumb down and indoctrinate our neighbors and families.
What is the answer, if any?

Labels: Advertising, Liberalism, Mass Media, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Propaganda

Below are several links to stories on the Mexican flu outbreak:
California expects to find more new flu cases
Officials Say 8 NYC Prep School Students Probably Have Swine Flu
More cases of swine flu reported; WHO warns of 'health emergency'
UK crew member in hospital after Mexico flight
BBC Have Your Say: Mexico flu: Your experiences
The last link above is from the BBC website, with readers in Mexico giving first-person accounts of the situation.
Over at Free Republic, there is a thread essentially denouncing all the news stories as so much media hype and propaganda. The original poster scoffs at the whole idea of a new strain of flu, and believes it's media-invented, or some kind of government-generated hype. A majority of the comments agree, with only a few on that thread believing there may be something to all the hype and hysteria.
I am keeping an open mind; I remember well how, a few years ago, there was the flurry of scare stories about SARS, the respiratory bug that seemed to be killing people in China, or people who had lately visited there. Then, starting a few years ago, there has been a constant flow of stories about possible Avian flu pandemics; that has somewhat died down now, but when it was at its height, I wondered why, exactly, the media (or the health authorities, or whoever was feeding the media) wanted to create fear around the possibility. After all, the authorities and the media seemed to say that there was little that could be done to prevent such an outbreak or even to contain it, much less to prevent it. So why generate so much anxiety and concern about something over which, apparently, we have no control?
At the time of the SARS scare, I wondered why on earth there was no effort to control our borders and to assiduously screen anybody who had recently been in the infected areas. Of course since the epidemic happened in 2003, I've concluded that our insane elites' dedication to open borders and 'globalization' override any petty concerns for public health and safety.
The worldwide influenza epidemic of 1918 was aided, so it's said, by the mass movements of peoples associated with World War I.
Considering the differences in mass transportation and the globalizing of our world, plus the huge overall increase in population, I would venture to guess that there are many, many more people on the move around the planet now than at any time in human history, and it is a wonder that we haven't yet had a devastating global pandemic thanks to this widespread nomadism that is happening today. Couple the unprecedented movements of large numbers of people with the poor hygiene and health that prevails in many parts of the world, especially the parts of the world which send immigrants to the First World, and such an epidemic seems highly likely, sooner or later.
And given the fact that we now seem to have a 'thou shalt not close the borders' commandment governing our policies, it would seem that even a deadly epidemic on the scale of the 1918 occurrence would not end our insane openness.
We might say that borders are our country's immune system, and that we now have a seriously impaired immune system, no longer defending against invaders. And what the open borders crowd vilifies as 'xenophobia' is just our psychological immune response to potential threats. Liberalism and the cult of 'diversity and inclusion' is the destruction of our immune system, the equivalent, really, of AIDS in a nation.
Open borders = tempting fate.
So what should be the proper reaction to these flu stories? I don't believe we should panic or become unnecessarily fearful, but on the other hand I can't join the scoffers' chorus and say that it's all hype and nothing to worry about. I think we have to exercise sensible precautions, such as avoiding travel to affected areas, and avoiding contact with anyone who exhibits any suspicious symptoms. It would be bad if this thing spreads, and people resort to panic buying of food, water, and other necessities. It's always sensible, however, to have enough food and water on hand in case of any kind of emergency such as a natural disaster, so many of us probably have such things on hand.
One thing I haven't read in the stories that have appeared is a definite incubation period. It's important to know how long it takes for symptoms to develop once someone has contracted the virus. If the incubation period is short, that makes it worse.
If any of you have information to share or any reports of illness where you are, share them here, please, and of course offer your opinions on this situation.
Update: Apparently, Guatemala is acting to tighten up their border with Mexico,. (H/T Elsinore at Cordelia For Lear)
And there are some informative posts on the flu story, with many good links, here and here.

Labels: Mass Media, Open Borders, Openness, Public Health