DAN R. writes:

Matthew Richer at VDARE gets to the bottom of things in this column, with his description of the Robert Copeland incident as the “criminalization of dissent.”  Technically, of course, he’s incorrect in that Copeland will not go to jail, but what difference does that make when the objective of intimidating people into silence can be accomplished through non-violent means, i.e., the new means of “polite totalitarianism” (a coinage of writer Ronn Neff from The Last Ditch)?  As an aside, it’s not even all that interesting–and certainly not surprising–that Mitt Romney, a part-time resident of Wolfeboro, should join in the chorus, though it surely adds to the depressing overall effect.

Former conservative and friend of the Buckley family, Kathleen Parker, now a Washington Post columnist, is capable of seeing the larger picture but in the end finds the new status quo acceptable:

“First the practical: If you don’t want your words broadcast in the public square, don’t say them. The Orwellian taint to this advice is not meant to be harsh but is offered in recognition of the world in which we live. We’re not so much a global village as a small town of gossips.

“On a higher note, such potential exposure forces us to more carefully select our words and edit our thoughts. This isn’t only a matter of survival but is essential to civilization. Speaking one’s mind isn’t really all it’s cracked up to be, as any well-balanced person reading the comments section quickly concludes.”

Over at the site Personal Liberty, writer John Myers responds:

“Let me get this straight, Kathy. Nobody can speak his mind, especially your readers, and that’s a good thing? So while you get paid big bucks to speak your mind, everyone else should just shut the hell up!

“Here is what I want to know: What have you, Ms. Parker, said at your worst private moments when you were tired, drunk or just stupid? Have you never, ever once said the “N” word (isn’t it silly or is it just cowardice on my part that I am intimidated and don’t feel I can actually write that word even though it is on rap radio ad nauseam?)? Or have you never said a derogatory sentence about homosexuals, Mexicans, Republicans, Canadians or the favorite target of the media to which you belong, white, heterosexual men? To prove it, can we implant your body with a recording device. And if you ever once utter such things you consider private, we “judges of society” can have you stripped of your career and property, as is the case with Sterling.”

Yes, people like Copeland and Sterling are social embarrassments, but it’s critical to separate their uncouth and ill-mannered statements from the social and political phenomenon that is going on in our country.  And believe me — the reaction to Copeland would have been no different had he omitted the “F-word” and merely used the “N-word” (for the sake of decorum and respect I use these mealy-mouthed substitutes for words that can be found in most dictionaries).  Finally, I find it difficult to accept your respect for Obama as a president who deserves the respect of his office.  He is at bottom a subverter of the America we once knew–a knee-jerk socialist, who for obvious reasons cannot be upfront about it.  He is a contemptible individual, anti-traditionalist to the core and thoroughly undeserving of respect by way of the office he has unimaginably come to occupy, though it may well be argued that the fact that Americans have now voted for him twice is of greater significance.

— Comments —

Karl D. writes:

It’s funny that Dan R. brought this up as I was just thinking about this issue today. There seems to be a predictable shift taking place in the country right now regarding free speech in the minds of many liberals and even so called conservatives. The thought goes something like this:

‘We have free speech in this country which allows you to say whatever you like (with small exceptions) without fear of repercussions from the government. Yet private businesses being private may take action against individual employees if they don’t approve of what someone says or writes by suspending or firing them.’

This is no small thing! This is a huge sledge hammer that shuts down free speech, dissent or anything deemed not PC by the head witch finder generals. What’s worse is that you have many gutless corporations that will fire anyone who runs afoul of the witch finders. A few hundred negative emails to their offices and they fold like a cheap suit. It matters not that they will not lose a dime. As long as they appear to stand for the grievance group of the day its a win-win.Free speech in the face of government is fine. But if your reputation and livelihood has been destroyed, then how free is your speech? I mean, really? The left has a short memory. It wasn’t too long ago that private companies in Hollywood took away the livelihood of many, many people because they were blacklisted for what they said, wrote and thought.

Here is the rub though. I don’t think private entities should be forced by the government to allow any of their employees to say whatever they like, just as I don’t think they should be forced to hire women, minorities or anyone else they don’t want to hire. Nor should they be forced to service homosexuals, Communists, Nazis or anyone else. I really don’t know what the solution is? Yet the witch finder generals should’t be permitted to keep metaphorically burning people at the stake. I guess its just a case of corporate America growing a spine or for a cultural sea change to take place. I am not optimistic about either.

Terry Morris writes:

The hypocritical nature of liberals never fails to amuse me. Recall that liberals defended President Clinton’s lies and sexual exploits to the hilt on the basis that his private life was a completely separate issue from his public life. Whereas now we see that liberals actually believe, as many of us argued during the Clinton-Lewinski fiasco, that the “private” man is the selfsame man in public. Or as the Bible so simply puts it, “as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” He, therefore, who is incapable of governing himself has no business governing a community, a state, a nation.

Well, I have to say that I’m pretty sympathetic toward Mr. Copeland. I agree that his dropping the F-bomb was wrong and that he should be embarrassed by it (I would be), but on the other hand I take it that (1) he said what he said under his breath, and (2), he likely said it in a sort of a fit of rage (and why shouldn’t he be angry and disgusted by that alien infiltrator Hussein Obama?!).

Secondly, the over-the-top, hyper-sensitivity of blacks and white liberals to the term nigger is starting to wear pretty thin, at least with me. It’s not the word itself that sends them into a crazed, lunatic frenzy, it is the negative connotations the word carries with it. That, coupled with their tendency to hatred and violence, is what brings out the pure stupid in them.

Let’s face it: the term nigger identifies a certain kind of person(s) whose manners and way of life, values and so forth, are much different than (and dare I say “inferior” to?) our own. No self-respecting white would ever instill general black values and mores in his own children or grandchildren, nor tolerate them in them. Do blacks “deserve” equal treatment and equal respect with decent, God-fearing, law-abiding whites? Not as long as they continue to prove themselves unequal and incapable of holding themselves to the simplest forms of civilized behavior!

I agree with Dan R. that Obama has earned to himself nothing but contempt from decent Americans. And before we go off judging Mr. Copeland a “low-life” or whatever, we should probably learn more about the man and how he has lived his (long) life. I’m betting he’s a pretty decent fellow, the kind of man any one of us would be happy to have as a neighbor. Obama, on the other hand, IS a low-life.

Please follow and like us: