When I wrote Bias Incident, there was one scene that I was a bit concerned was a little over-the-top.  It was the scene at the feminist rally called “The Guy Bash.”  In that scene, a pinata of a “white male oppressor” is beaten.

I thought it might seem a bit exaggerated, but still amusing.

Now I think it’s just amusing.

It’s clearly not exaggerated.  After all, there’s this:

Black students at the University of Memphis hanged from a tree a piñata made to look like a white woman, and took turns beating it with a stick. A photo of the incident has been making the rounds on the internet, and the university had to issue a statement about it this week.

Click here to see the photo.

Was it a racist act? No, turns out it wasn’t intended that way at all. Just some kids having fun at a party.

But imagine if the racial dynamics had been reversed — white students beating a black piñata hanging from a tree. I think we can all be grateful that wasn’t the case.

Sometimes a piñata is just a piñata.

Leftists, as Theodore Dalrymple has said, have turned satire into prophecy.

Every time a young gay person kills himself, you can practically hear the champagne corks popping in the gay rights organization’s boardrooms.  “Hooray!!  Another pretext we can use to remove people from their constitutional rights to free speech, freedom of thought and freedom of religion!  One step closer to victory!”  This is because for some of these organizations, it really seems that the issue is not about gays, it’s not about suicide.  It’s about conquering religion and freedom.

This is the theme of Bias Incident: The World’s Most Politically Incorrect Novel in a nutshell.

Don’t believe me that this stuff is being used to take away your freedom?  Well, witness this awful case from New Jersey:

This one has me really steamed, I must admit. You might want to turn down the volume on your iPod here; I can’t guarantee I won’t break into uncontrollable screaming at some point in this segment.Next Tuesday the trial of 19-year-old Dharun Ravi opens in New Brunswick, New Jersey. If found guilty, Mr Ravi could go to jail for ten years. (more…)

Well, it’s getting harder and harder to deny that gay rights fundamentalists want to deny others their religious freedom after this story:

AMSTERDAM – The Orthodox Jewish community of Amsterdam suspended its US-born chief rabbi on Tuesday for cosigning a declaration which said homosexuality was a “treatable” inclination.

[...]

Ralbag, who was made chief rabbi of Amsterdam in 2005, was temporarily relieved of his duties on Tuesday by the board of the Orthodox Jewish community (NIHS) after he signed a document describing homosexuality as an inclination which “can be modified and healed.”

The document, titled “Declaration On The Torah Approach To Homosexuality” (torahdec.org) called on “authority figures” to “guide same-sex strugglers towards a path of healing and overcoming their inclinations.”

Now, I take no position on whether sexual attraction can be changed.  I have little doubt that there is some flexibility in patterns of sexual attraction, but how much and how frequently these patterns can be changed is an open question.

But I’m an orthodox Jew.  I have no doubt that it is possible for anybody who is sufficiently motivated to observe the Torah in its entirety, including its sexual prohibitions.  These sexual prohibitions include the prohibitions against homosexual conduct.

Why do am I so sure of this?  Because, as an orthodox Jew, I believe in what the Torah says about the feasibility of keeping the Torah in its entirety:

For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away.  It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?”  Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?”  Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.

So, that’s the Torah’s position.  That it is possible to fulfill its commandments.

But if the fascists get their way it will be (yet again) illegal to preach the Torah.

Lefties are fond of saying that we live in a racist country.  This is not because that’s a true statement.  It’s mostly because sowing discord like that helps them maximize their political power.

Now, I will admit that there is a certain amount of racism in this country.  The human being is, at least to some extent, a tribal animal, and some tribal aspects of the human personality will not be eradicated.  Other aspects of the human beast that will never be ended are the out-group homogeneity bias and snobbery.  The human being is a flawed creature.

But you know what would NOT happen in a country that could be described as racist?

This.

Our country is less racist than any other country in the history of the world.  Those who tar it with that brush deserve nothing but our scorn.

The main reason I targeted gay activists for satire in Bias Incident: The World’s Most Politically Incorrect Novel is because those involved in gay activism are often the most ruthless opponents of free speech currently active on the American scene.

Columnist Debbie Schlussel takes on some GLAAD activists who recently made a stink over some tweets about kickball player David Beckman.

The content of those tweets isn’t important.  They would offend nobody who wasn’t purposely looking to be offended.  The purpose of the opposition to those tweets seems to be to strike fear into the hearts of people who would oppose GLAAD’s agenda.

Here’s Schlussel on the issue:

Please Gay Speech Gestapo, tell me which colors and celebrities are off limits.  I know I can talk about vermillion and Channing Tatum.  But I’m not exactly sure about mint green or Matt Damon. And, by the way, David Beckham is straight. But men who like men apparently think of something different than the rest of us when they hear the movie title, “Bend It Like Beckham.” So, now, I gotta figure out, not only which celebrities are gay and off limits, but which married, straight celebrities with several children are gay icons and therefore off limits. Does Jake Gyllenhaal and the remaining living cast of “Brokeback Mountain” qualify? How ’bout all past, present, and future Marlboro Men and guys in Stetson ads, like Jan Brady, er . . . Tom Brady? Anyone with a mustache? David Axelrod and Michelle Hussein Obama? All off limits in the tweet market.

Well, the gay thought police are gloating at their latest victory in censorship:

Shortly after, GLAAD responded, “Advocates of gay bashing have no place at @CNN #SuperBowl #LGBT.”

On Monday, in a blog post titled “Final Thoughts On Super Bowl-Twitter Controversy,” Martin denied that his tweets were intended to incite violence against the LGBT community. “That is furthest from the truth, and I sincerely regret any offense my words have caused.”

In response to the news of his suspension, GLAAD posted a statement on its website praising CNN for taking action. “CNN today took a strong stand against anti-LGBT violence and language that demeans any community,” said Rich Ferraro, GLAAD spokesman. “Yesterday, Martin also spoke out against anti-LGBT violence. We look forward to hearing from CNN and Roland Martin to discuss how we can work together as allies and achieve our common goal of reducing anti-LGBT violence as well as the language that contributes to it.”

Ah, it’s the Pink Jesse Jackson shakedown! You knew this was gonna happen. Roland Martin has to bend over, while CNN allows GLAAD to do a whole rectal exam of sensitivity training.

It’s amazing to me that gays–who are subject to execution, beheading-style throughout the Muslim world–are concerned with Roland Martin’s tweets about pink clothing, yet not a peep outta them about the Islamic jihad against homosexuality (just as–and I’ve noted this before on this site–they attack the Mormon Church, but not mosques all over California, for supporting California’s Prop 8 on gay marriage).  Maybe it’s because their pink and purple jihad sounds just like something outta Riyadh, Cairo, or Tehran.

But, then again, they have the same tolerance–and sense of humor–as their haters in the Muslim world.

See, everyone has something in common.

It’s not in the schools, this time.  It’s in the government.  But the policy is the same.  Criticize gay rights, lose your job.

Glenn Reynolds comments:  See, once we stopped persecuting commies, the value of dissent quickly became unappreciated.

I got some flak here at the Politically Incorrect Novelist blog for a post I did some time ago condemning a pair of women who contemplated suing a baker for refusal to bake a cake for their “wedding.”

My aggressive stance towards those who threaten to use the government to correct the thinking of their fellow citizens was (entirely predictably) interpreted by some as “homophobia.”

As for me, I stand on principle.  And my principle is to support people’s freedom of association.  So, in this case, I support freedom of association:

A restaurant in Knoxville, Tennessee refused to serve state Sen. Stacey Campfield, the man who sponsored the state’s “don’t say gay” bill, compared homosexuality to bestiality, and most recently told Michelangelo Signorile that it’s virtually impossible to spread HIV/AIDS through heterosexual sex. “I hope that Stacy Campfield now knows what if feels like to be unfairly discriminated against,” the Bistro at the Bijou wrote on its Facebook wall on Sunday. The restaurant has received an overwhelmingly positive response. (HT: Michelangelo Signorile)

Were Campfield to sue the bistro owners to get the government to correct their thinking, I would similarly consider him a cowardly and loathsome enemy of freedom and would similarly consider him as be deserving of being spat upon be lovers of freedom everywhere.

When gay activists are enemies of freedom, they make themselves my (and your) enemies.  When republicans do so, they make themselves my enemies as well.

Let’s say you choose to be in a relationship with a person of the same sex.  For heaven’s sake, don’t tell anybody that you chose to do so.  Cynthia Nixon learned this the hard way:

The New York Times Magazine published a profile in which she was quoted as saying that for her, being gay was a conscious choice. Nixon is engaged to a woman with whom she has been in a relationship for eight years. Before that, she spent 15 years and had two children with a man.

“I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me,” Nixon said while recounting some of the flak gay rights activists previously had given her for treading in similar territory. “A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it’s a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesn’t matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not.”

To say that a certain segment of the gay community “is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice” is an understatement. Gay rights activists have worked hard to combat the idea that people decide to be physically attracted to same-sex partners any more than they choose to be attracted to opposite-sex ones because the question, so far unanswered by science, is often used by religious conservatives, including GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum and former candidate Michelle Bachman, to argue that homosexuality is immoral behavior, not an inherent trait.

Nixon is aware that telling the truth about her particular case is not acceptable to certain gay activists:

“A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it’s a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesn’t matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not.”…

Predictably, Wayne Bessen, founder of the misnamed Truth Wins Out was not very happy with this:

“Cynthia did not put adequate thought into the ramifications of her words, and it is going to be used when some kid comes out and their parents force them into some ex-gay camp while she’s off drinking cocktails at fancy parties,” [said Truth Wins Out founder Wayne Besen.] “When people say it’s a choice, they are green-lighting an enormous amount of abuse because if it’s a choice, people will try to influence and guide young people to what they perceive as the right choice.”

Now, I’m not Cynthia Nixon.  Neither is Wayne Bessen.  Now there may be some scientific quibbles about the nature of free will and the nature of a person’s understanding of his own reasons for doing something.  But those quibbles aside, I can say this quite confidently:  nobody knows what’s going on in Cynthia Nixon’s head better than Cynthia Nixon.  I have no reason to think that Nixon was saying anything other than the truth.

Neither does Wayne Bessen.

It is not for idiots like Bessen to tell people to shut up because they think the truth is going to harm their political goals.

People like Bessen must not be allowed to shut down the conversation about sexual preference (or any other topic).  One important reason that we need to keep the topic of sexual preference open for complete and honest discussion is this: it will help us learn the truth about precisely what is the makeup of the human beast.

Wouldn’t that be wonderful?  To have a better understanding of who we are as human beings?  Well, we can’t have that without open discussion.  And we won’t have that if fascists like Bessen have their way.

Here’s what Ann Althouse has to say about the founder of “Truth Wins Out”:  Does he want truth to win out or something more like good policy or political pragmatism?

Althouse then reiterates a point she made previously.  One which I quoted in Bias Incident: The World’s Most Politically Incorrect Novel:

By the way, I vividly remember back around 1990, the progressive gay-rights-type people I knew were intent upon portraying sexual orientation as a choice. I won’t name the famous lefty who snapped at me for entertaining the notion that homosexuality might have a biological basis: If it exists at the biological level, it will be perceived as a disease and people will try to cure it. That was really the same point as Besen’s, oddly enough, in that it was about acceptance as opposed to treatment.

Don’t worry, Cindy, maybe in a decade or two, activists like Bessen will allow you to tell the truth as you see it.  Unfortunately, when that happens, those who think that the truth as they see it is that homosexuality is inborn will probably have to shut up (again).

Remember this if you remember anything else about this post:  Truth is not a left wing value.

I have had a lot of respect for Victor Davis Hanson since I first heard about his revolutionary theories about the origins of Western Warfare.

But lately, I’ve grown to respect him all the more.  Why?  Because he’s a sayer of things that must not be said.

Here he is on racial preferences:

Eric Holder once called us collective cowards for not wishing another conversation on race on his terms — a request echoed now about every week by the Black Caucus or some op-ed writer as the campaign heats up. Sadly, we know where these conversations lead and the parameters in which they must be conducted. If in doubt, ask a liberal like Bill Cosby or Juan Williams the wages of trying to transcend the cult of victimization and redress.

In our mixed-up, intermarried, and multiracial society, we really do not know who is quite so-called white anymore, and who is not — and increasingly don’t care, despite the race industry’s efforts to use 1/16-like rules to prove authenticity.

No one quite knows why a dark-skinned Pakistani-American does not qualify for preferences, and a light-skinned Brazilian American with a trilled last name sort of can. No one quite knows why the ancestors of those who were interned in camps, or of those blown up while working for the 19th-century railroad, often outscore the majority on math tests and therefore must have an unspoken quota placed on their numbers admitted into universities, while those who recently immigrated from the Caribbean on average perhaps do not outscore the majority, and therefore must receive federal preferences as if their ancestors were discriminated against. But one does know quite well that any discussion that touches on higher per capita rates of illegitimacy, single-parent households, drug use, state dependency, or criminality must not go beyond the parameters of either racial bias or the legacy of past prejudice. Taboo is any reference to cultural attitudes or practices. Self-, rather than government-, help is a profanity.

So we know where these state subsidized “conversations” of Mr. Holder go and we’d rather pass on the charade. Again, the government can continue its racial surveys, racial symposia, and racial obsessions, but most just opt out of all that. To paraphrase Michelle Obama, the answer is not that we are stereotypical “angry white guys,” just that we are tired of the same old communiqués and finger-pointing from the Ministry of Information faces on the big screen. You see, some may still nod, but no one believes any more.

Amen!

Feminists have been trying to teach our nation that men and women are pretty much identical except for their plumbing.

There’s a word for people who believe this kind of thing:  fools.

Here’s a bit of truth on the issue.

Picture the scene:  a high school newspaper.  The newspaper held a debate as to whether same-sex-couples should be allowed to adopt children.

Obviously, there’s only one correct answer to this.

It’s not a subject about which people can reasonably disagree.

No.  Political Correctness has spoken.  So there’s only one right answer.

To express a contrary opinion is….

Wait for it….

BULLYING!!!!

That’s right.  Expressing an opinion in writing can be bullying if the people who object to that opinion are favored by the jackbooted Political Correctness thugs.

And what are the penalties for “bullying”  “[W]arning, suspension, exclusion, pre-expulsion, expulsion, transfer, remediation, termination, or discharge. Disciplinary consequences will be sufficiently severe to try to deter violations and to appropriately discipline prohibited behavior.”

So, keep your opinions in good trim, folks.  You want to make sure that the bullies guarding our ideological purity don’t get wind of your questioning their wisdom.

Or else you just might be a bully.

Eugene Volokh expresses it well:

I’ve long been troubled by anti-bullying policies and criminal laws, partly because “bullying” is a vague and potentially very broad term, which could easily be used to refer to political advocacy and expression of religious views. This incident, it seems to me, helps illustrate that some school officials indeed view the term “bullying” this broadly.

I’d go a step further.  I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again.  Those cowards who use the law to forcibly change or attempt to change others’ opinions are the most loathsome people on the planet.  They are the reason that G-d created tar and feathers.

Professor Sarah Chinn (who looks exactly as much like a coal miner as you would expect a professor whose work “explores questions of race, sexuality, and gender in U.S. literature and culture, particularly in the 19th century” to look) Is not too happy about a new application offered by Microsoft.  The app, to quote the über-leftist Nazi Party Radio NPR “is meant to help pedestrians avoid unsafe neighborhoods, bad weather and difficult terrain by taking information from maps, weather reports, crime statistics and demographics.”

Describing the application as “appalling” and being a humanities professor, Chinn had nothing intelligent to say about this application.  In fact, she should be embarrassed to have said the following thing:

“Of course, an application like this defines crime pretty narrowly, since all crimes happen in all kinds of neighborhoods. I can’t imagine that there aren’t perpetrators of domestic violence, petty and insignificant drug possession, fraud, theft, and rape in every area.”

GPS for today comments:

What seems so interesting about these comments is that they don’t seem to take into account Microsoft having employees who employ common sense. Why would anyone with even a small amount of sense think that incidents of insider trading ought to be included right along with rapes and muggings when determining a safe or unsafe walking route?

I would be absolutely shocked with surprise if Chinn is not an ardent and passionate supporter of gun control.  Decent citizens, in Chinn’s ideal world probably would be reduced to going through city neighborhoods unprotected neither by knowledge nor by firepower.

Radio Derb has further commentary on other ridiculous aspects of Chinn’s comments linked here.

Painful as it may be to think about, there are unsafe neighborhoods in American cities.  People are best advised to avoid them.  Those who refuse that advice are indeed taking their lives in their own hands.  The risks of entering such neighborhoods may not be huge, but neither is the benefit.  Having defended criminals in law courts for eight years, I can tell you that some of the denizens of such neighborhoods are not joking around.  Having sat alone in jailhouse interview rooms with them, I clearly got the picture that I would not want to encounter such individuals in their natural habitat.  One public defender in my town got mugged by his own client on the way out of the courthouse after he won his client’s trial.  Such people tend to be low income.  Such people tend to live in certain predictable areas of town, areas that outsiders may not  be familiar with.  This does not mean that everybody in such neighborhoods in evil, criminal, or even that they have bad breath.  It means that crime statistics point to the existence of a certain number of people like that in that area.  It only takes one such person to ruin your whole afternoon.

All of the above is obvious.

Being a good person, according to the Politically Correct, means the willingness to sacrifice one’s wealth, one’s health or even one’s life rather than acknowledge uncomfortable truths no matter how obvious.