Daily Linz 17 - Friday Miscellany

Daily Linz 17 - Friday Miscellany
by Lindsay Perigo

Anti-PC Roadmapp?

Political Correctness-loathers everywhere may be interested to learn that New Zealand’s National Party, which came within a whisker of winning power in the recent general election, has appointed the world’s first Political Correctness Eradicator (be clear that this is not a government position, so carries no legislative clout). This in a country where road works are held up for taniwha (Maori ghosts), lolly scrambles are banned as unsafe, public servants are screened for familiarity with tikanga (Maori superstition), Hate Speech legislation is being contemplated, smoking is banned in bars and restaurants, etc., etc.. National’s PCE is Dr. Wayne Mapp, who says:

"There needs to be a clear political programme to reverse it [PC]; to remove the viewpoints and language of the politically correct from the institutions of government. There needs to be a commonsense strategy that deals with the central issue: what to do about those state institutions that foster the ideas of political correctness."

In other words, "I haven’t a freakin’ clue."

Problem is, you see, Mapp is oh-so PC himself, married as he is to a PC Mordi (Maori) gravy-train lawyer. He’s already ruled out advocating the abolition of the Human Wrongs Commissariat (Human Rights Commission) that tells employers whom they must employ and harasses men who buy flowers for women. He’s already proudly pointed out that it was his party while in government that created the office of Free Speech Eradicator (Race Relations Conciliator). It was National that accelerated the dumbing-down of schools with "learning by consensus," the abandonment of phonics, the downplaying of literacy and numeracy and other PC poison. It was National’s Doug Graham who said the sooner we all got used to the fact that there was one law for Maori and one for everybody else, the better. National has long been at the forefront of PC. National, like America’s Republicans, is a pack of unprincipled pigs. Why should we imagine they’ll change now?

Hard on the heels of the PCE announcement, the National Party put out the following press release:

_______________________________________________

Paul Hutchison MP
National Party Disability Issues Spokesman
27 October 2005

Disabled face discrimination in public transport

The Clark/Peters Government must act on the recommendations of a Human Rights Commission report and improve access to public transport for the disabled, says National’s Disability Issues spokesman, Paul Hutchison.

The report, entitled ‘The Accessible Journey’, recommends mandatory levels of access for buses, taxis, footpaths, bus stops, stations and other transport infrastructure. An appendix to the report states that measured against best practice in overseas jurisdictions, ‘New Zealand compares very poorly’.

"It is an indictment that after six years of a Labour-led Government disabled people continue to have ‘acute and ongoing difficulties using public land transport services’," says Dr Hutchison.

"It is also an indictment on Labour that disabled people feel disempowered in terms of participation in public land transport planning, because their needs are not considered to be a core requirement of the current statutory process."
____________________________________________

I rest my case.

The only thing worse than National’s hypocrisy was the Labour Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen’s description of the new appointment as "chillingly fascist-sounding." This is Orwellian double-speak at its best, since Mapp’s new job description ought to catalyse the first steps away from fascism in many years. And in terms of literal fascism—state control of nominally private property—Cullen’s government has arguably been more fascistic than National, though it would be a close call.

As Others See Us

From Diana Hsieh’s Noodlefood blog
(http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2005/10/credit-where-credit-is-due.html):

"Although I'm not exactly a fan of SOLO, I do need to give some credit to Linz. A few weeks ago, he published a fairly positive review of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, despite much dismissive skepticism at first. More recently, I was happy to see him kicking ass in response to an awful article claiming that Ayn Rand was actually a fan of the Christian ideal of turning the other cheek. (It's author, Michael Stuart Kelly, is perhaps the most transparently dishonest contributor to SOLO.) Unfortunately, Linz doesn't come out smelling like roses for these articles, since it's his forum that offers a friendly platform to Michael Stuart Kelly and too many other dishonest critics of Objectivism. Still, I'm glad that someone on SOLO has bothered to read Ayn Rand."

In response to Diana’s private e-mail alerting me to the above, I asked her to elaborate on her comments about SOLO. Here is her reply, published with her permission:

"SOLO is a pretty disturbing place, I think. It's a welcome forum for TOC staff and supporters, die-hard worshippers of the Brandens, writers of articles horribly misrepresenting Objectivism, the fanatical haters of all things ARI, and those half-baked pseudo-Objectivists who wish to inject the philosophy with their own personal mysticism, altruism, nonjudgmentalism, and appeasement. That's not to say that there's not some good people contributing to SOLO. However, as with all such joint ventures between good and evil, the good elements legitimize the bad while the bad drowns out the good."

To which I responded:

"SOLO is a welcome forum for ARI staff and supporters as well, if they choose to post there. Mostly they don't. Their loss. Part of their problem is their refusal to engage anyone who disagrees with them. That's not the way to win hearts and minds. The *articles* are *supposed* to be Objectivist, but occasionally some rubbish slips through the net. … But general posting is open to all comers, Objectivist, non-Objectivists and anti-Objectivists alike. If I become convinced they're posting in bad faith, as with the ‘pusballs’ recently, I nuke 'em. Overall, TOC is better represented there by virtue of ARI default. They [ARI] choose to be a secular version of Exclusive Brethren. Not my fault. Our policy is that, since we have an intellectual battle on our hands, we may as well actually engage in it."

Diana back to Linz (again, with Diana’s permission):

"At least in my own case, it's not at all a matter of any kind of refusal to debate dissenters. If that was a worry of mine, I'd be too damn scared to blog. And ARI intellectuals wouldn't be lecturing on campuses, writing op-eds, and the like. (Frankly, the lovey-dovey folks at TOC deserve that charge more than anyone else, since they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any substantial disagreement with their intellectual opponents!)

"My choice not to post to SOLO is a matter of upholding basic standards in intellectual discussion, particularly as to what constitutes Objectivism. Never in a million years will I chime in with Bob Bidinotto, Barbara Branden, Robert Campbell, Ed Hudgins, Roger Bissell, Michael Kelly, and the like—as if we're all good, honest, and chummy friends of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, albeit with some minor differences of opinion.

"Of course, I don't expect you to share my assessment of those people. It took much interaction, reflection, and thought, often over the course of months, to reach those judgments. Often, it meant losing friends—and that was hard. However, you should know that my refusal to engage in debate on SOLO is a direct result of my judgment that far too many regular contributors to SOLO are intellectually unserious at best and dishonestly hostile to Objectivism (and particularly Ayn Rand) at worst. That those people are not just welcome but also beloved on SOLO means that it's not a forum that can offer me (or anyone from ARI) a fair intellectual fight. I hope that clarifies for you a bit."

I respect the fact that Diana didn’t mince words with me. Boy, do I respect it, after the recent oozings of marshmallow-mush on SOLO. One thing I would add, though, re "unserious": I am proud of the humour that goes down on SOLO. I never could stand the anal-retentive dourness of early Objectivist gatherings I attended, and I’m very glad SOLO is not afflicted with it. That there is, at the same time, an abundance of serious discussion is plain to anyone who cares to take an honest look; that ARIans choose to remain in their cloisters is unfortunate.

Closure

At the time I write this, I have told Michael Stuart Kelly that I won’t allow his response to my article, "This Cheek’s Not For Turning" to be posted as an article, since that would be cheek-turning on my part. He’s at liberty to post it on one of the cheek threads or on the Dissent board. I have seen it, have an opinion on it (very low), but shan’t respond to it. It’s time, not to turn the other cheek, but to walk away. For now. It should be clear enough that I will never allow SOLO to be hijacked by touchy-feely cheek-turners. And I won't.

To the petticoat prissyholics who predictably used this spat as an opportunity yet again to urge a make-over on me, I say, "Pass it up." To the saps who keep quoting the bit from the Credo about changing the world (as though it were self-evident that we must do it by stealth and saccharin), I cite another part:
____________________________________________

*"The total passion for the total height."
*Rational passion & passionate reason.
*Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
*"This above all, to thine own self be true."

… We aspire to a culture of sincerity and integrity; where mind-games, deceit and posturing—and having to read between the lines—in one's dealings with others, are a thing of the past; where Shakespeare's "This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. ..." is second nature. SOLO is for those who want reason and logic to be liberated from the Mr. Spock straitjacket and impregnated with KASS — the "kick-ass" factor. …
_______________________________________________________

And Finally

"We are reluctant to admit that we owe our liberties to men of a type that today we hate and fear—unruly men, disturbers of the peace, men who resent and denounce what Whitman called 'the insolence of elected persons'—in a word, free men."
—Gerald W. Johnson (1890-1980)

Have a KASS weekend!

Discuss this Article (48 messages)