I have to admit that they almost got me. Almost. But then I woke up.

For years we've been told that we should have tolerance for people who are different from us, whoever the collective “us” happens to be. For the most part I don't have a problem with that, assuming you're talking about people who may come from a different part of the country or from an entirely different country. Their social mores may be different or they may use figures of speech or terms that are unfamiliar to us. As one of my co-workers, a nice young woman from Louisiana said to us the other day, “There are phrases that we use back there that are considered offensive here in New England.” It's all a matter of the differences.

But there are some differences, some actions that I am not willing to tolerate.

One of those “things” is foul language in public. While not the biggest thing I am no longer willing to tolerate, it has quickly become one of the more annoying. Poor language skills is right up there next to it. There is no need for every other word to be an expletive. Some folks use the worst expletives like punctuation marks and generic adjectives. And let's not get me started on this ebonics crap. All it is is a way to trap black youth into poverty. To quote Bill Cosby:

“I can't even talk the way these people talk. 'Why you ain't, where you is?'...They're standing there on the street corner and they can't speak English...I don't know who these people are. And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. It's all in the house. You used to talk a certain way on the corner and when you got in the house you switched to English. Everybody knows that at some point you switch to English, except for these knuckleheads. You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth.”

Another one of those things is the wishy-washy sentiment “It isn't black and white. There are shades of gray.” That may be true if you're talking about paint. But if you're speaking about good and evil, then you're damn wrong. An evil deed is an evil deed, regardless of the motivation. To hear some people talk about it, 9/11 can only be understood if we put it into the right context and try to understand the root causes. I can tell you what the root causes for the attacks on that day – effin' evil people committing acts of evil upon innocents because they didn't like us. There were no shades of gray, no need to understand their motivation in order to perhaps be able to start a dialog with others of their kind. Baby, the only thing I need to know about them is that they have no scruples and are willing to kill anybody they see as an infidel (that means you and me), and the only dialog I want with them is to discuss how I'm going to stop them and, if need be, kill them before they commit more evil acts.

Another one of the things I will no longer tolerate is the fascism that masquerades as political correctness. It is yet another form of evil writ small, slowly trying to take away the language that can describe bad (and good, for that matter). Any time I hear politically correct speech I will endeavor to point it out and ridicule it for the 'feel good' tripe that it is.

Next, racism. 'Everyone' buys the BS that only white men are racists. That's not true. Some of the biggest racist I've come across aren't white, but black – Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan, just to name a few. The irony is that they don't just hate white people, they hate black people, too. Otherwise why would they seek to keep blacks in America victimized rather than allowing them to pursue the American Dream - to better themselves and to wish the same for their children? Why? Because if blacks do so, they lose power. Their victim ideology would be swept aside and they would become nothing but minor footnotes in history, something they won't allow to happen.

Please spare me the celebrities who think that just because they're celebrities that they are also politically astute or even have a clue about how everybody else in the world lives or what they need. These are the last people to whom we should be listening.

Multi-culturalism should die the death it so richly deserves. All it will bring is the downfall of Western civilization, a culture that is far better than the others, despite the claims of those who despise the West, including many who were born and raised here. Western civilization does not condone suicide bombers, the murder of innocents in order to further a political or religious agenda. It does not oppress women, despite the claims of radical feminists. It does not silence dissent, despite the claims of those saying they are being censored...on national TV. Multi-culturalism does nothing but perpetuate the same hatreds and prejudices that many came to America to get away from, escaping from the so-called cultures that are supposedly superior to ours. Superior to ours? No frickin' way.

I will not be tolerant of those working to destroy us, to kill us. Nor will I be tolerant of those supporting them, either openly or by doing nothing to stop them. I will heap scorn and derision upon those who obviously haven't a friggin' clue about what they're spouting off about, particularly when it comes to politics, war, or the human condition. I don't care who they are or who they know. All I know is that I am far less tolerant of willful ignorance, as I am of those who preach tolerance but are anything but tolerant. They are only tolerant if you agree with them. But should you disagree with them, then obviously it must be you who are intolerant. Damn right. I am intolerant of blowhards like that and the vitriol they spew.

So endeth the rant...

While working to fix the Wikipedia article on the subject, I realized that no-one has really put this together. It’s an important piece of blogosphere history, so let’s begin at the beginning. Prof. Glenn Reynolds started the ball rolling when he said on Jan. 5, 2002:

“What bloggers are more than anything, I think, is anti-idiot. That makes life tough for Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, and the Revs. Falwell, Robertson, Jackson, & Sharpton, for reasons that transcend traditional partisanship and ideology.”

The term “anti-idiotarian” was coined by Charles Johnson of LGF that same day, and caught on like wildfire. Australian warblogger Tim Blair later refined the term by reading a Lyndon LaRouche interview re: 9/11 and referring in April of 2002 to:

“…the ongoing process by which the world’s multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force (suggested slogan: “United, Retarded, We’ll Never Be Defeated!”)”

This, and the original inspirations, were picked up and developed by Eric S. Raymond in his widely-linked “Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto,” which slams both left and right as its key excerpt reads:

Read the Rest…

While working to fix the Wikipedia article on the subject, I realized that no-one has really put this together. It’s an important piece of blogosphere history, so let’s begin at the beginning. Prof. Glenn Reynolds started the ball rolling when he said on Jan. 5, 2002:

“What bloggers are more than anything, I think, is anti-idiot. That makes life tough for Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, and the Revs. Falwell, Robertson, Jackson, & Sharpton, for reasons that transcend traditional partisanship and ideology.”

The term “anti-idiotarian” was coined by Charles Johnson of LGF that same day, and caught on like wildfire. Australian warblogger Tim Blair later refined the term by reading a Lyndon LaRouche interview re: 9/11 and referring in April of 2002 to:

“…the ongoing process by which the world’s multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force (suggested slogan: “United, Retarded, We’ll Never Be Defeated!”)”

This, and the original inspirations, were picked up and developed by Eric S. Raymond in his widely-linked “Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto,” which slams both left and right as its key excerpt reads:

Read the Rest…

Miners used to keep canaries in the mines for company. Not because they were lonely, but because they were early warning systems. If the local air became hazardous, the birds would pass out or die before people were seriously injured. This gave the miners enough warning to take preventative action.

Remember all the commotion when Newsweek incorrectly stated that Americans were desecrating the Koran? Wonder what the Arabian street will do when they see video of American citizens using legal firearms to blow away a Koran? Team Infidel has elected to serve as canaries for their fellow Americans. If any Islamic terrorists have managed to cross our somewhat porous borders, they will surely make a beeline for Team Infidel.

I’m very interested in comments on this. Should this behavior be legal? For my part, I say yes although I cringe at the potential impact this video will have when shown on Arabian television. And I’d like to publicly thank Team Infidel for their willingness to serve as our canaries.

Update: I cross posted this at my own site and I’ve already received a few emails about this post. Yes, Team Infidel is being crude, unpleasant, and not helpful to bringing peace to the world. Yes, my thanking them for being canaries was said tongue-in-cheek. No, I do not condone such behavior, although I support their right to be disagreeable. The first amendment does not just protect your right to your opinion. It protects the right of all individuals to express their own opinions. While disagreeing with Team Infidel’s actions, I agree and defend their right to exercise their first amendment rights. I encourage frank discussion about these rights.

Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post offers “A Deportation Tragedy” which, among other things, promotes Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)’s Dream Act. That Act is an illegal alien amnesty plan that would also let illegal aliens pay for college at the reduced, in-state rate. Meanwhile, U.S. citizens who want to attend a college in another state would continue to pay the full rate.

Leaving aside its amnesty provisions, here’s a chart summarizing the Dream Act:

some illegal aliens: discount
some U.S. citizens: full price

In other words, the Dream Act is explicitly anti-American: we should not be giving citizens of other countries a better deal than our own citizens. (Thankfully, a similar state law in Kansas is currently being challenged: “Suit challenges in-state tuition for illegal immigrants”. The Dream Act would be a national version of state laws in Kansas, California, and other states.)

What makes Meyerson’s bleeding heart screed interesting is that articles like this are hardly unique. Newspapers large and small from one end of the country to the other have published what amount to advertisements for the Act, and all of them seem to follow the same formula.

Here are just a few examples:
“Best & brightest in bind” (NY Daily News)
Dozens rally to support proposed immigration law (Lincoln Neb. JournalStar)
“Behind Top Student’s Heartbreak, Illegal Immigrants’ Nightmare” (NY Times)
Group rallies in support of Dream Act (Brownsville Tex. Herald)
(other examples in my pro-illegal immigration puff piece category)

For an example of how formulaic these tales are, here’s a quote from Meyerson:

next Tuesday Marie and her parents will move to a country she doesn’t know.

A search for country “dream act” “hardly know” reveals 53 hits, and a similar search brings up 27.

To my knowledge, no newspaper has yet looked for the story behind the story and reported on the source(s) for all these barely-concealed advertisements. If you’d like to suggest that the WaPo does some real reporting rather than just propagandizing, (or if you’d like to suggest that they might want to start a private fund to pay for illegal aliens’ college educations), please contact:
meyersonh at washpost.com
ombudsman at washpost.com

UPDATE: Shortly after I posted this, the student mentioned in Meyerson’s ad got a reprieve. However, her parents are still due to be deported: “Teen Wins 1-Year Delay in Deportation”.