Vintage Culture

Offend A Feminist week has sent me off to find vintage ads, because searching the ‘net is way easier than writing.  Here’s the best I’ve found:

I can’t help but chuckle at the use of “B.O.” as an acronym for something other than “Barack Obama,” which is no less odious as far as I’m concerned.

I also found this beautiful shot, which I’m assuming is sexist because women aren’t allowed to be on a pedestal anymore, are they?

Me, I’d be happy to be on that pedestal, looking all pretty. What is she wearing, anyway?  Daywear, sleepwear, evening wear?  I can’t even tell, frumpy ol’ me.

Then, I found this gorgeous image of a manly man.  Check out the fedora on this one:

Fedoras, of course, make me think of Da Tech Guy, who recently enjoyed a well-earned laugh over leftist anxiety about size . . .

Size of the crowd, that is.

Hah.  I remember fussing about the size of my crowd, too.

Da Tech Guy concludes his post:  “God these guys must hate the internet.”

Um, yeah.  They must.

Want to see what it was like when the left wasn’t threatened by the internet?  Check out this vintage news footage:

“Engineers now predict, the day will come when we get all our newspapers and magazines by computer, but that’s a few years off.  For the moment at least, this fellow (a newspaper seller is depicted) isn’t worried about being out of a job.”

A local station news babe continues, “Now, it takes over two hours to receive the entire text of a newspaper by phone, and with an hourly use charge of 5 dollars, the new tele-paper won’t be much competition for the twenty-cent street addition.”

Nope.  No competition at all, my pretty.

Offending Feminists Through Music

Participating in Stacy McCain’s fourth annual Offend A Feminist Week is both an honor and a pleasure.  I know, I know:  some folks will not find this exercise “helpful,” but let me explain why they are wrong.

Actually, let me allow Mr. McCain to explain, since he’s a man and therefore much smarter than me:

“The empowering message of feminism is that all women are victims.  Victimhood is synonymous with power. To deny women their victimhood is therefore to re-victimize and disempower them.”

Thanks so much for clearing my mind on this issue, Mr. McCain.  I was starting to wonder:  why in the world is making fun of my own gender so much fun?

It’s fun because, unlike the typical feminist of today, I’m not empowered by victimhood.  I am empowered by throwing off the shackles of political correctness.  To reject political correctness is to liberate one’s mind.  Even if it’s a feeble female mind.

Snort.

I participated last year with a post still worth a click if you didn’t back then.  Dunno if I’ll be able to wax as profoundly poetic this year, what with all the homeskooling, cooking, and house cleaning I have to do.

Sometimes, it’s hard to be a woman.

Which leads me to the musical portion of my post.  There’s something here for everyone, young and old, so just scroll down ’til you find your style.

Country?

Or good old-fashioned?  How about Andy Williams, singing a Bacharach tune to warn us ladies:

“Don’t think because there’s a ring on your finger you needn’t try anymore.  For wives should always be lovers, too.  Run to his arms the moment he comes home to you, I’m warning you . . .

Day after day, there are girls at the office, and men will always be men.  Don’t send him off with your hair still in curlers.  You may not see him again . . . .”

Speaking of classic, there is always Elvis:

If 60′s were your decade, scroll no further.  Mick Jagger will offend you now:

It’s down to me
The way she talks when she’s spoken to
Down to me, the change has come,
She’s under my thumb
Ah, take it easy babe

(Ain’t the women screaming with rapture an extra kick in the feminist pants?)

And check out this more obscure 60′s song, Be A Caveman:

Were you a teen in the ’80′s, like me?  If so, you might appreciate a little B-Boys.  This one’s dedicated to MCA:

And finally, I just heard this song on the radio yesterday, and I right like it.  Language warning, however.  Apparently, it’s a bluegrass-style cover of a rap song:

Happy Offending, everyone!

P.S.  Which song was your favorite?  Do you have one that should be added?

(Hat Tip:  I found several of these songs at drownedinsound.com.)

Cross-posted at Disrupt The Narrative

Feminism and Politics

The whole “female” aspect of politics sure is running strong lately.  First, it was the Sandra Fluke thing, about which I didn’t bother to post.

Then, I got all et up with the “Top 25 Political Moms” contest, which turned into a no-holds-barred, claws-out feminist v. conservative battle-to-the-death, or something.  (Like poor old Henry Gunther, I got cut off at the very end, landing in #26.)

Next came Hilary Rosen’s new and exciting mashup of Marxist class warfare with The Mommy Wars.  Then, I get this tweet about whether the gender gap in voting might be permanent.  (I know a solution to this problem, but a lot of you won’t like it . . .)

In the midst of all this, here I am trying to prepare for Offend A Feminist week.

This is my credulous face.

And preparation I sorely need, for although I am female and therefore qualified in at least some respect to comment on All Things Feminine, my view of “feminism” as a field of sociological thought is about the same as my view of “psychiatry” as a field of medicine, which is to say I view them dimly and from as far away as possible, wearing my credulous face all the while.

My understanding of “feminism” was no better back in the day when I fancied myself a feminist-type professional.  If the “old me” were forced to pull a definition out of her nether regions, she might have said this:  feminism is the political movement which gave women their due rights, requiring men to treat them as equals instead of as second class citizens.

Thanks to anecdotal evidence and additional experience, I am now more aware of the leftist underpinnings of the feminist movement.  Beyond that, I can’t say much more.  I’ve never taken a class, nor read a book on the topic.  Blog buds like American Housewife and Missy Sandbox clearly know more.  (Perhaps you kind ladies can gin up a “feminism for dummies” post for the likes of me.  Ha.)

As much as I might wish otherwise, the feminist movement is not relegated to the history books.  This movement is alive and well today.  So, I have made an effort to educate myself about what “feminism” means in the political landscape of 2012.  I used the “Top 25 Political Moms” contest site as a starting point.  Here’s what I found.

Over at PhD in Parenting (via Mamafesto), I learned that the Mommy Wars are not about different opinions on parenting.  Rather, the problem is we don’t have the right governmental policies in place to support mothers:

“As with real wars, these mommy wars are not truly about a clash between moms, but about a system that has let people down, poured fuel on the fire, and left each family to fend for themselves.”

If Congress would just subsidize day care, pay for all employees’ maternal and paternal leave, and fast track that universal health care (freeing folks up from those healthcare-covering jobs they hate), then maybe the Mommy Wars would just go away.  Don’t worry, the government will get the funds needed from those evil rich people, Insha’ Allah.

Over at Feminste, I learned that requiring a single mom to work in order to get federal assistance is really, really mean because:

“The crux of the issue is that Mitt Romney’s definition of ‘stay-at-home mom,’ like his definition of ‘good mom,’ is limited to women in his racial group and economic class. I would wager a lot of money that when Romney made those comments in January, he wasn’t even thinking of the term ‘stay-at-home mom’ — because a low-income mother who relies on state aid is not a stay-at-home mom. She’s a welfare cheat, or lazy, or a drain on society. She’s undignified.”

Of course, this quote is not based on Mr. Romney’s own words, but from the feminist’s interpretation of conservative fiscal policy.  Funny, how not wanting to pay an endless stream of federal tax dollars for an activity the government cannot control (motherhood) gets demonized as the act of a meanie who thinks moms are lazy, cheating, and undignified.

Over at The Radical Housewife, I learned that “FREE FEMALE LABOR PROPS UP OUR ECONOMY,” which is bad, because it helps prop up capitalism.  And capitalism is bad.  Apparently, the feminists of yore screwed up Big Time, because:

“The revolution should have demanded as many stay-at-home dads as female CEOs.  But it didn’t.  The goals of the movement became allied with making money, which is one reason why feminism gets accused of being anti-family.  Family is so precious is cannot be allied with something DIRTY like MAKING MONEY!  It’s the madonna/whore binary all over again.”

Okey-dokey, then.  Does anyone see why I try to stay clear of feminism?

Over at the Monologues of Dissent, mercifully no opinion is offered as to the wisdom or lucidity of Hilary Rosen, Sandra Fluke nor anyone else as of late (save Governor Walker).  Still, I learned that the stereotyping of girls as the ones who like to attend dances, and boys as the ones who could care less about dances, is a form of gender discrimination that should be combatted.

Okey-dokey.

If we humans don’t have real problems, we’ll just make ‘em up if we need ‘em, right?

Finally, over at One Flew Over The Playpen, I learned how the government is the entity that will resolve our “Mommy War” differences, if only we let it:

“The real story is that it IS a major problem that every mother does not have the ability to stay home for more than a handful of weeks when her children are born.  And by stay home, I mean the very hard job of providing the constant, grueling care that goes into raising a child.  Our government simply does not truly value the importance of giving women this time with their family, no matter what their economic situation is.

Stay-at-home moms – you know this.  You know you WANT every woman to have the ability to stay at home with their kids during the day if that’s right for them . . . .  So if for even a second, you are feeling compassionate for picked-on Ann Romney, think about whether her husband as president would do anything to make raising children easier for women.  Does he support extended paid maternity leave?” /italics added/

Ah, there you go.  American moms don’t have value unless the federal government recognizes them with cash dollars.  So. . . if Romney started touting extended paid maternity leave, would he then become a darling of the feminists?

/cue crickets/

Clever, too, is the insistence that I, as a stay-at-home mom, “know” that I want every woman to have the ability to stay at home with her kids.

I want every woman to have the ability to stay at home with her kids?  Well, sure.  That would be great, if possible.   Unfortunately, some women sabotage their own best interests, including their ability to stay at home with the kids.  Unfortunately, some men sabotage their partner’s best interests, including their partner’s ability to stay at home with the kids.

The government cannot fix these problems.

I want every woman to get exactly what they want out of life.  I want them to be smart enough to realize that libertarian and conservative policies will maximize their liberty.

I want them to have a pony, too.

The thing is, not every woman wants a pony.  Not every woman wants to marry wisely.  Not every woman wants to be a stay at home mom.

And that’s okay.  I’m totally cool with that.

I wish the left were cool with that, too.

Cross posted at Disrupt The Narrative

I’m Confused

So it seems that a 5th grade boy got expelled for joking that a classmate’s dad looks like President Obama.

Being successfully conditioned by the modern PC culture, my first reaction is to wince.  He shouldn’t-a done that.

Noting any similarity whatsoever between individuals is obviously raaaaaacist, with exception made (of course) if the compared individuals are beige, peach, beige-y peach, or peachy beige in pigment.

But then I had another thought, and now I’m confused.

Why didn’t the classmate interpret a comparison of her dad to the President as a compliment?

More information and discussion found here, including commentary from a friend of the expelled boy’s family.

Herman Cain Accusations

I’ve expected a smear attempt on Herman Cain.  The MSM ignored him as long as they could, and then just treated him as an afterthought.  All the while his numbers kept surging.

Let’s think about this personally for a minute.  Suppose you are running for office.  Your office gets a phone call about two allegations from many years ago, but no details or even names are provided.  What do you do?

You are in a Catch-22, regardless of whether the accusations are true.  If you are innocent, do you dare being the first to mention the one baseless accusation you remember from years ago?  After all, the journalist may be following false leads from entirely different women.  The veracity of each claim won’t matter anymore, though.  You now appear to have a pattern.

This analysis comes from a political know-nothing nobody, of course (see my blog title).  UPDATE:  Professor Jacobson better explains the problem of creating a pattern:

“Now Cain isn’t fighting just the two people who complained at the time, but a diffuse group of ever expanding complainers who gain strength from numbers. The volume of complaints is what now matters, as they will tie up the candidate and slowly drag down the campaign.”

Folks who know more than me about political campaigns say the decision to wait was a serious mistake.

Who knows how this is going to play out.  The usual suspects will pounce on the appearance of a pattern, of course.  So far, the allegations haven’t damaged Cain campaign in Iowa, sayeth a journalist at Politico.  So far, the allegations appear to be helping Cain, not hurting him.

However, the story keeps evolving, even as I type.  A third anonymous woman says he “made sexually suggested remarks or gestures.”  Now that post is updated:  a radio DJ says Cain said “awkward/inappropriate things” to his female staff once, too.  On top of all this, a pollster who worked for National Restaurant Association at the time of the alleged behavior (um, behavior? comments? we still don’t know what the accusations are, do we?) has given the impression that the allegations are serious indeed.

What a pile-on.

Perhaps we need more than a minute to think about this, after all.  Here’s some points to keep in mind as this story continues to mutate.

First, getting accused of sexual harassment is extremely easy.  The comment thread at that link contains similar stories of harmless compliments being taken the wrong way.  Many years ago, a good friend of mine lost his job thanks to an accusation of harassment.

I knew him well enough to be outraged.  He was a good guy.  He didn’t even get to find out who the accuser was.  His position was low-level, and the corporation was more interested in averting lawsuit risk than getting to the bottom of the allegation.

Second, these women may not be lying.  They may just be too easily offended.  The level of political correctness that has saturated our culture is well past ridiculous.  Herman Cain is not known for being politically correct.

Third, a $35,000 severance is no biggie, and not evidence of guilt.  Back when Erick Erickson was a lawyer, he handled several sexual harassment suits.  None settled for less than the high-end of six figures.

Fourth, about that whole “settlement versus agreement” thing.  Many years separate me from my legal work, but I remember a sharp difference between those terms.  “Settlement” means the case was resolved by the parties’ attorneys while en route to trial.  The settlement is submitted to the judge so it can become an enforceable court order.  “Agreement” gives the connotation of a private arrangement entirely outside the lawsuit process.

Herman Cain is not an attorney, but wouldn’t his corporate work experience have imbued him with a thorough understanding of this legal lingo?  Does this seem like hair-splitting to any readers out there with legal experiences of their own?

Finally, the urge to criticize Cain’s response is understandable.  I wouldn’t call it bizarre . . . maybe inartful.  I don’t think the response is a reason to write him off, however.  I do believe that the Ruling Class is frightened by Herman Cain. 

They want us to write him off.  They don’t care whether it’s because we think he’s a dirty old man, or because we think his campaign didn’t handle the crisis well.

Should the ability to dexterously deflect accusations of sexual deviance really be a skill we require of our presidents, anyway?

INSTALANCHE!  I most humbly thank you, Mr. Professor of Awesomeness.

On Rockgate and Writing Candidates Off

We all know ”Rockgate” is as dumb as, well, a box of rocks.  Herman Cain’s response when asked about “Rockgate” is also not a work of genius.  Many conservatives are disappointed; some are even writing him off.

I say:  cool your jets.

We are told that Herman Cain ”slammed” Rick Perry, but what did Cain say?  He said using a lodge that bears the “N-word” in its title . . . would be a sign of insensitivity.

Whoa, thems fightin’ words?

This is Herman Cain we are talking about.  You know, the guy who is perfectly willing to cry “bullsh*t!” when interviewed about the President’s new jobs plan (or whatever they are calling a tax hike these days).

Admittedly, crying “bullsh*t!” on Ms. Amanpour for even asking the Rockgate question would have been an infinitely better response.  Yet, are we willing to write him off just because he failed to give the better answer?  “Insensitive” is a pretty milquetoast critique.  It sounds like an attempt to downplay, rather than an attempt to throw down the race card.

Anyway, have you noticed that we’ve written off candidates left and right lately?

If Herman Cain crashes and burns because he said that the N-word is insensitive, I’m gonna get a little worried.  I’m gonna wonder whether we Tea Party extremists really are just a wee bit . . . rabid.

Maybe we just need to take a deep breaths and count to ten.  Sign up for a yoga class or something.

Mitt Romney jumped in there, too, by the way.  In fact, he really upped the ante.  Mr. Romney dares proclaim the N-word to be . . . offensive!  Next thing you know, he’ll want to tell us the sky is blue.

Some Sloppy Housekeeping

I am grateful to have some out-of-town company this weekend.  They are here to help me celebrate a milestone.  Yep, the big-four-oh.

Yay me! 

Never bemoan a birthday, folks, because you probably wouldn’t fancy the alternative.

On to the housekeeping.  I’d rather give these links a more proper treatment, but if I don’t spit ‘em out right now, they’ll only get lost in the shuffle.

First, P.J. O’Rourke has the last word on the Amy Chua Tiger Mother thing, and dang it’s funny.  I cannot match his talent, but I can parrot his words:

Amy Chua, I’ve got bad news. “A” students work for “B” students. Or not even. A businessman friend of mine corrected me. “No, P. J.,” he said, “ ‘B’ students work for ‘C’ students. ‘A’ students teach.” Teaching in the Ivy League gives you a lot of time off, Amy​—​enough to write a crap book, worse than Yale prof Erich Segal’s Love Story. Maybe when you get some time off again you should come to rural New Hampshire and meet the Irish Setter Dad children.

Buster, age 7, is a master of passive resistance who can turn staying up past his bedtime into Tahrir Square. He could hire himself out as a civil disobedience coach to Mahatma -Gandhi and Martin Luther King, if they weren’t dead. Poppet, 10, is a persuasive saleswoman, not to say charming con artist, who can hand you a sheet of black construction paper with a hole in it and convince you it’s a science project on collapsed super-novas. And Muffin, 13, has her own .410 shotgun and knows how to use it.

Try your Chinese Tiger Mom stuff on my kids.

Ha!  The whole article is worth it if you have time.

Second, via Disrupt the Narrative comes yet another awesome Bill Whittle video, Eat The Rich!  This video has that extra little something which no leftist can ever refute:  math.

Third, via Mayrant & Rave and Mr. Macky comes a nifty little resource: LiberalSpeak.com.  The list isn’t long, but here are a couple of my favorites:

Health Care = Abortion rights

Unconstitutional = We don’t like it

Open-Minded = Subscribes to liberal dogma

Fourth, someone named Duane Lester rather ingeniously asks the obvious:  Isn’t Fear of a Government Shutdown Proof That Government is Too Big?  His answer contains lotsa good info.

Next up is the lovely fact that unions aren’t as powerful as they think they are.  Wisconsin Supreme Court:  A Referendum That Wasn’t:

“Union have already spent millions fighting battles across the country, depleting their war chests for the 2012 election cycle.  Many states are following Wisconsin’s lead and taking away the ability of government unions to force their members to pay dues.”

Warms the cockles of my heart, enough even to withstand the gutless maneuverings of the House GOP.

Happy Weekend, ya’ll.

Using The Right Words Will Change Reality . . . Right?

Isn’t that what Newspeak is all about?

Here’s a big example:  the President’s words in Cairo were supposed to herald a new era for relations between the United States and Islamic people worldwide. 

Joe Scarborough thinks the Egyptian revolt may be proof that the President’s speech worked, as hoped, thusly changing reality for the better in Egypt.  Hmm.  Seems a bit tenuous.  I’m wondering if people being, you know, sick of an oppressive regime that tortures opponents, had more to do with it . . . .

Now, on to the miniscule example.  The following video illustrates just how committed the left is to the concept of newspeak.  Right down to some stupid paper-and-plywood sign in the middle of nowhere.

So.  Is that Arizona rabble rouser, Governor Brewer, using your own federal sign against you?

Change the sign!  See?  No more border trouble here!

I can’t help but wonder how the sign actually got changed.  At what level in the bureaucracy did it get noticed?  How many memos, emails, and discussions resulted?  Did these folks believe this change was substantively necessary?  Or did they realize it’s just a political ploy?

I drive myself crazy with questions like this.

Second Post On Captain Honors (UPDATED)

I wrote my first post, The Start of The Purge, hours after the Virginia Pilot broke the story about Capt. Honors’ XO videos.

Many people have had important things to say since then, so I want to urge you to follow some links.

First, Da Tech Guy brilliantly juxtaposes a warrior’s perspective (Blackfive and A Soldier’s Perspective) with the typical inexperienced and politically correct perspective.   All three are well worth a read.  My favorite bit from Blackfive:  “There is no question that the XO is guilty as sin of the crime of acting like a fighter pilot in public and on the airwaves.  Anyone ever met a damn fighter pilot?”

Heh.

A new-to-me blog, Unconverage, posts about how the radical leftist-gay agenda can and will harm the military:

The San Francisco Police department is a legal “cluster-f++k”  of constant litigation and administration of gay issues.

My post on the SFPD discusses the total breakdown of law enforcement in the west coast city due to the radical gay agenda which is micro-managing personnel decisions, and deciding which crimes to prosecute and which to ignore.  Doing the job of policing San Francisco is secondary to the LGBT agenda.  Do we want our national security to be compromised by such self-absorbed distractions?“

How frustrating it must be for non-leftist homosexuals, by the way, to get lumped into the likes of this by many on the right, and simultaneously derided as traitors by those on the left.

Uncoverage blogger Jamison also links a good Navy perspective.

Finally, a clarification is in order.  My choice of title for the first Honors post, “The Start of The Purge?” was provocative.  However, I was not saying that the leak and witch hunt were the product of an organized conspiracy. 

I do not think that the President or the leftist gays as a political group were specifically ”behind” the Honors debacle.  Certainly, they’ve played their roles in promoting this toxic PC culture.

We all have, to varying degrees.  We as a culture have decided to live by the Politically Correct Code, and we are reaping what we sow.

I hope we can learn the ‘behind the scenes’ story behind this non-scandal.  Yet, I hold no opinion about what that story is, exactly.  A concerted political effort?  A disgruntled sailor?  An over-zealous PC do-gooder? 

Regardless of why, my concern is that the DADT repeal will start a purge or a wave of good leaders exiting the service.  Some will leave voluntarily, without even stating why.  Some will get forced out.

My belief is that Captain Honors is the first of many more to come.

UPDATE:  Now that the damage is already done, i.e., the guy was removed from command of the Enterprise, in trickles the news that maybe the videos weren’t so bad after all.  Case in point, Gay Former Sailors Back Captain Ousted Over Videos, via The Lonely Conservative (thanks for the heads up, Karen).

The Start Of The Purge? UPDATED

The local birdcage liner extraordinaire, The Virginia-Pilot, has an exclusive breaking story about raunchy comedy-skit videos produced on a Navy carrier.

Not this one.

Not this one either.

No, not this middy-dance-party.

Also not when they brought sexy back to the Navy.

I know what you might think:  the YouTube vids that I linked were done by the rank and file, not a high-ranking officer.  Captain Honors’ videos are different, because he was (then) the XO of the ship.  (The XO is the second in command.)  Now, he is the Commanding Officer.

My point is, those rank and file who are flirting, naughty dancing, putting boxes over their groins, and making “broke back carrier” jokes in those videos are typical of Captain Honors’ audience.

Do you really think they are offended easily?  Do you think they have never seen American Pie?  Family Guy?  South Park?  Holy bleep, most of them are probably too young to have even heard of Porky’s.

Follow the Virginia Pilot link and watch the video.  See if you are offended. 

If you’re not in the mood, I’ll summarize.  You could take offense for a whole myriad of reasons:  the men pretending to shower together, the women pretending to shower together, sailors in drag, “anti-gay” slurs, simulated masturbation, and a simulated rectal exam.  Oh and loads of F-bombs. 

Pretty shocking?  Does he seem like horrible leader who should know better than to be so demeaning, so offensive?

Don’t judge him yet.

I’ll tell what I know. 

First of all, these videos are four years old.  That’s right, four years.  Now they weren’t some big secret project.  They were created in order to inform the crew in a humorous way.  As an example, the “shower pals” were meant to comically emphasize water conservation aboard ship.  (Water shortages can be a huge problem while underway.)

So these skits were shown one at a time every week, as a preview to a movie on the ship TV.  The video clip at the Virginia Pilot seems to be a “best of” montage, which aired as the final edition.

My husband was not aboard the Enterprise four years ago, when these videos aired.  Yet, those videos are still famous among ship’s company, if vaguely so.  In the past year, a few different folks mentioned them to my husband.  These comments were positive:  the skits were hilarious, Capt. Honors has a great sense of humor, etc.

The videos were unexpected, given the source.  XOs are often a dry and humorless bunch.  Even the best personalities have little time to shine when they have to play “bad cop” all the time. 

Do you know how thankless and difficult the XO’s job is?  They are the first to dole out punishment.  They are the ones enforcing the CO’s orders.  They have to make sure everything is working.  They deal with legal issues.  The CO gets all the credit, but he is nothing without a competent XO.

This is only my opinion, and only conjecture.  But I don’t think for a minute that Captain Honors made these videos because he likes to demean sailors, women, or homosexuals.  I also think he knew good and well that the videos were risky.  Hence his disclaimer:  “The CO and the Admiral know nothing about the content of these videos.”

If he knew the videos were risky (by the way, that means risky to his career), why did he keep making them?

Because he got positive feedback!  Because it was a morale booster!  He mentions that some folks complained, but never to his face.  The key thing:  watching these skits was not mandatory.

Don’t like it?  Don’t watch it.  (Wasn’t that a liberal mantra awhile back?)

Sigh.  I can’t say for sure what is right.  I know that sailors cuss a lot, and tend to be raunchy.  I know that young enlisted folks are, well, young.  Check out the results of my “Navy bored ship” search on YouTube to see more examples of the typical young sailor, if you want.

My gut feeling is, this guy was trying to connect with his crew in a positive way.  He was trying to help sailors have fun.  He was purposefully ignoring all manner of political correctness.

For that, I salute Captain Owen P. Honors.

We all know what political correctness gets us, anyway.

It gets us children who can’t call dogs “Nazis.”

It gets us children who can’t play Cowboys and Indians.

Goodness knows, it gets us Season’s Greetings instead of Christmas.

Oh, by the way.  The USS Enterprise is scheduled to deploy soon.  Are they going to replace its CO because of these four-year-old video clips?  After the hard work that Captain Honors has successfully seen the ship through?

I hope not.  We’ll see. 

Captain Honors’ job is high-profile.  This controversy comes two weeks after the repeal of DADT.  Coincidence?  The beginning of a purge?  Or simply a disgruntled sailor, looking for revenge?

Whatever be the truth, I hope we learn it.

UPDATE:  A few other sites are picking up the story now.  The Blaze, CNN, The HuffPo, and The Daily Beast.  Only the Daily Beast tries to push the whole “anti-gay” line:  “The end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell might face some bumps along the road to implementation depending on how many officers are like Capt. Owen Honors.”

Sheesh.  The whole thing seemed kinda gay-friendly, if ya ask me. 

I’m gladdened to see that a large number of commenters are saying a collective, “meh.”  They won’t be the ones deciding what to do, though.

On a lighter note, it’s time to share the best comment by far:

“Frankly, I look at this as nothing more than a ‘boys night out’ type of thing where to some extent rank is ignored.  Remember, these people are living together as a community for months at a time and you cannot force everyone to maintain the formal attitudes of a military command at all times. . . . At the same time, once an open gay/lesbia­n policy is handed down things will have to change.  But, you never know, it might result in a significan­t improvemen­t in the drag shows that are staged.”

True, that.

UPDATE #2.  In a shameless attempt at increasing page views by linking to a major player, here is The Other McCain, saying it all in the title alone:  “Captain of USS Enterprise Relieved From Duty in Politically Correct Witch Hunt.”