Political Correctness deemed bad for children

So you think Dennis Kucinich is the right man for the White House? Or maybe Ron Paul is your choice? Do you honestly believe that Rosie O'Donnell is right about 9-11? Chances are you watched too much Sesame Street.
According to this article in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, the show that was known for spreading the message of political correctness to youngsters has been deemed "suitable for adults only."
That is the warning printed on the packaging of the new DVD release of the first two seasons of the venerated PBS children's program. The PC police have pointed out several problems with the show that they did not notice as children. Oh my God, were they actually drinking whole milk? Why was Oscar the Grouch's obvious depression untreated? These are questions that would never cross the mind of the four year old watching the show, but it was right there on the television! Never mind that the characters were imaginary, or that they were portrayed by puppets, but a gay couple like Bert and Ernie living in a decrepit apartment sends the wrong message, according to the PC police. They should know, they grew up watching the show and look at them now.
So, whether it's an oxymoron or a self-fulfilling prophecy, the message to liberals now is don't let your children grow up to be like you.
Or, as Tyler Grey of Radar Online writes:

Why, Gen-X'er, did you become a flannel-wearing faux liberal, trusting (in theory) of the good will of your Socialistically like-minded fellow citizens but actually rendered cynical by a much grimmer reality you encountered in adult life?

Sesame Street. It totally f***ed you up.

Who never saw this coming?

From Reuters:

Venezuela's Congress on Tuesday gave
preliminary approval to President Hugo Chavez's proposed
constitutional reform, which would lift term limits to help the
leftist leader cement his self-styled socialist revolution

.
Sandmonkey's comment:
And since he is a leftist leader and his revolution socialist in nature, he gets a free pass. If it was anyone else, people would call it what it really is: A dictatorship in the making. But it gets better.
(Continue Reuters)

Chavez last week presented reforms to end central bank
autonomy, increase state expropriation powers and give the
president direct control over monetary reserves in a move
critics called a "coup" to keep Chavez in power indefinitely.

The legislature, 100 percent controlled by Chavez allies,
will hold two more votes to fully ratify the changes, which
must be finally approved through a popular referendum that
legislators say they hope will take place in early December.

"We are reforming the constitution to solidify … the
socialist nation, the socialist state, the socialist
democracy," said Carlos Escarra, a legislator and
constitutional lawyer who helped draft the reforms.

He has already secured a firm grip on key state
institutions including the court system, the state oil company
and most state and local governments.

Now El Presidente is planning on taking over the private schools so that he may indoctrinate all school children to his brand of socialism. This means that there will be no teaching of any economic or political philosophy other than that of which Chavez approves:

Venezuelan officials defend the program at the Latin American Medical School — one in a handful of state-run colleges and universities that emphasize socialist ideology — as the new direction of Venezuelan higher education.

"We must train socially minded people to help the community, and that's why the revolution's socialist program is being implemented," said Zulay Campos, a member of a Bolivarian State Academic Commission that evaluates compliance with academic guidelines.

"If they attack us because we're indoctrinating, well yes, we're doing it, because those capitalist ideas that our young people have — and that have done so much damage to our people — must be eliminated," Campos said.

I believe somebody predicted this would happen.

Whose job is it to tell us to be offended?

The questions generated by the Don Imus controversy have gone far beyond what he said, and how and why he got fired. The entire controversy has grown in such a way it affects everybody, whether we are members of the Rutgers women's basketball team or not.
Granted, Imus' bad joke was uncalled for, and never should have been said, much less repeated everywhere in the media. There were likely less than 300,000 people--less than one-one hundredth of the US population--listening when he said it, and it would be safe to say, given Imus' history of racism and sexism, that none of the listeners were members of the championship basketball team. The entire matter should have been irrelevant to most of us. The entire set of circumstances was escalated, by people who have chosen to make themselves the nation's thought police, into a situation that is life threatening to freedom of speech.
It would be entirely rational if the reason for firing Don Imus from both his radio broadcast and television simulcast was loss of revenue from lack of sponsorship. In that case, the question of First Amendment rights would be irrelevant. However, the reasons given by the Viacom/CBS broadcasting consortium that Imus was canned due to complaints by employees, and the pundits and newscasters across the media have speculated that it was because of the involvement of Sen. Barak Obama and/or the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. It could be reasonably argued that the involvement of these three did have something to do with several large companies withdrawing their sponsorship of Imus' radio and television programs.
One question that comes to mind is, do we really need somebody to tell us when we should be offended? Certainly, we all possess the rationale to determine for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. Most of us believe in the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King--that there will come a day when the color of one's skin does not matter. But the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton have too much to gain from perceived racism. There are sheep who accept without question anything that is said by these two men. Without being told they are oppressed, the sheep wouldn't feel oppressed. Jackson and Sharpton do not want to see Dr. King's dream come to fruition, for, if it did, they would be out of a job.
What precedent does the firing of Imus set? Where do we draw the line? It should be up to the individual to treat others with respect, not up to the Federal government and the FCC to tell us what we can say, see, or hear. Can anybody who feels offended by anything just say so, and thereby limit the choices we make for entertainment? It certainly seems that way, and, figuratively speaking, book burning has made a comeback. From the looks of things, song lyrics are next, soon to be followed by such entertaining television programming as The Daily Show, South Park, Red Eye, The Jimmy Kimmel Show, and The Cobert Report, all of which are satire, which is the most often misunderstood form of humor. We don't have to agree with the issues made by such programming, and we can often laugh at ourselves watching these programs. We really don't have to watch or listen--because we have the rationale to make such choices. In any case, we must realize that humor and satire are not news or opinion, in order to realize the significance, or lack of such, to the nature of society and culture as a whole.
As South Park creators and writers Trey Parker and Matt Stone often point out, in their program, we can only be offended if we choose to feel offended . We can either laugh at a joke, or feel that it is wrong, but in no way should we let it be an excuse to limit freedom of speech.

Sacrificial Lamb?

Photo credit: Don Imus-WFAN Pediactric Center For Tomorrow's Children

Freedom requires responsibility and that includes freedom of speech. When one person exercises his or her individual rights in a way that trespasses on the rights of others, it is no longer an expression of freedom, but of aggression.
Don Imus' statements, in actuality, hurt nobody except himself.. What he said, and the backlash to what he said, should not be used as an excuse to limit freedom of speech or expression, but as a warning that there may be consequences in what we say and do. Imus was wrong to say what he said, but he had every right to say it. It is conceptually erroneous to point out the apparent hypocracy that some are allowed to use language that others aren't. Offense is a relative concept that must include context, meaning, and scope, or sphere of influence. We would do well to see an example in the entire incident that respect for others is the best way to protect our individual freedoms, and it all comes down to personal responsibility. However, what we do see is a sacrificial lamb that negates the conscious of others who will continue to use unfounded and hateful terms such as "Nazi," "Chickenhawk," and, in the context it is often used, "neocon."
We should remember that our First Ammendment rights also give us the freedom to choose to listen or not to listen, and that includes the choice to or not to be offended. We have, at our disposal, a high tech device called the "on-off switch." Rather than using offensive speech to limit the rights of others, it is better to just ignore it.

Censorship advocates go too far

This has been going around for a few days, and every time I read or hear about it, it arouses my ire. There is a subculture in government, and among those who influence the government, that believes that the general populace cannot control its lust. So you have people, perverts really, who have nothing better to do than spend their time finding reason to restrict what we can watch or hear on television or radio. In other words, in the name of censorship, they dig deep to find "offensive material," and find such material that no "normal" person would notice. They then complain about it to the authorities, the sponsors, the public, and the broadcasters, in hopes of creating more restrictions of what is available to the public in the form of arts and entertainment.
AP Photo
Prince presented an outstanding performance for the Super Bowl half time show, fitting more music into eight minutes than any other musician has in that venue. The aforementioned perverts made a big deal of the silhouette projected during the show, claiming that it displayed a phallic symbol. In my view, all I saw was the shadow of a guy playing guitar, but so what if it was meant to be sexual symbolism? Rock 'n' Roll is all about sexual symbolism. Does that mean that it should be banned from television?
We are human beings who claim to be the highest intelligence on Earth, and that intelligence is enough to allow us to choose what we see and hear. If we don't like it, we don't have to watch or listen to it. We can always change the channel. For instance, I choose not to watch porno movies. Does that mean I think nobody should watch porno? Of course not--it is a matter of personal choice, not public debate. We don't need anybody telling us what we should and what we should not watch, and there is no reasonable argument for censorship.
To those who think otherwise, I say censor your own damn self, and we’ll censor our own damn selves when necessary.