| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Britain | |
| Prudes, prigs and the menace of a PC code | |
| 2009-01-17 | |
| Prince Harry may be third in line to the throne. But it is hard to see why anyone in his right mind would want to be the monarch of a country bursting with such pious, pompous, prudish, sanctimonious, semi-hysterical, self-righteous, mealymouthed, whining prigs. The phrase 'our little Paki friend' - or at least the Paki part of it - has brought them out in force this week, displaying modern Britain at its silliest.
Then there was Fleet Street. If one cause unites newspapers up and down the land it is the declared belief that political correctness has reached absurd proportion. Yet here they were, either solemnly or hysterically - according to the paper you bought - denouncing the Prince for his breach of that new and insidious code. Another example of PC fashion was on a recent Radio 3 programme, where one individual suggested it was now wrong to use the term 'foreigner'. No less alarming is the remorseless decline of the once famous British sense of humour. In the late Sixties, Spike Milligan starred in a TV series playing 'Paki-Paddy', a Pakistan-Irishman. It was a comedy. Today, showing the series might well lead to a prosecution. And, of course, denunciation by politicians. David Cameron was immediate in declaring the dreaded phrase 'completely unacceptable' - pompous twit. Imagine you were involved in an accident or even a terrorist incident. Who would you expect to dash fastest to your aid - the Prince or one of those race relations correspondents? The question answers itself. And do you imagine the Prince would show any sort of discrimination about which fellow soldier he tried to save in a battle? That question also answers itself. There is a deadly serious political aspect to this whole business of allowable words, which George Orwell would have understood. Once you lay siege to a language, you lay siege to people's minds. You seek to control not just what people say, but what they think. The distortion of history that this can lead to was exemplified for me when I talked to a young man about the World War II invasion of Russia. By the Nazis, he parroted. By the Germans, in millions, I stressed. He vaguely thought only Nazis had been on this mission. Those who press the PC cause are always a public menace. My message to them is that if you are so hyper-sensitive about the implications of every word, you should go and live in a monastery. Or better still, emigrate. There is a better way of putting it. But this is, after all, a family newspaper. | |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #5 KBK, that's pretty much Hugh Hewitt's thought. Hugh thinks that Bambi deserves to have on his team pretty much whoever he wants, and that Geithner's troubles are small compared to what he's capable of doing to 'help'. It's precisely that sort of thinking that has gotten this country into so much trouble. There are two types of citizens: the elites and the schnooks. The elites are forgiven their transgressions as long as they don't get un-PC (e.g., Prince Harry) whereas the schnooks (e.g., Joe the Plumber) can't ever be allowed to catch a break. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-01-17 10:55 |
| #4 the nominated Treasury Secretary owes $10000 And signed documents stating he recognized he owed it, and then when caught only paid back the most recent debts, skipping the ones beyond the statute of limitations since the IRS couldn't compel him. Then when Obama's team vetted him and raised the issue, he coughed up the rest. The man is guilty of tax evasion. But let's make him Treas Sec anyway, he's a good guy and really smart. |
| Posted by: KBK 2009-01-17 09:47 |
| #3 Its the basic group type that was livid when it was discovered, at the same time Joe found out, that from private government records he owed $1000 when the same wonks think its nothing that the nominated Treasury Secretary owes $10000. Selective outrage as a demonstration of primate territorial behavior. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-01-17 09:14 |
| #2 Thoughtcrime doubleplus ungood. Orwell understood. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2009-01-17 08:26 |
| #1 I saw nothing in the video that could be remotely considered to be "offensive." What I saw was an exuberant British army officer showing off elements of his unit on film. |
| Posted by: badanov 2009-01-17 00:15 |
