The rebirth of "progressive" Poitical Correctness
As a non-PC liberal Democrat, I miss the defunct Bay Guardian because, as the primary source of "progressive" political opinion in the city, it gave me a lot of material about delusional politics and opinion in San Francisco. Now I have to mostly rely on the SF Weekly for that, which is not as good a source, since it doesn't regularly do issues like the Guardian did (Beyond Chron is also a steady source of "progressive" foolishness, like this on free speech).
But when the Weekly does an issue, it's so good/bad that it makes up for the lack of quantity with sheer, qualitative stupidity. I'm referring to its utterly clueless blog post Thursday (We Talked to the People Defacing Those Islamophobic Muni Ads).
Recall that a few years ago the Weekly showed that it was incapable of reading a simple sentence when the first anti-jihad ad appeared on Muni buses: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel, defeat Jihad." The hed on the Weekly's blog post: "Muni Runs Pro-Israel Ad on Buses, Calling Palestinians "Savages."
This was dumb on several levels: the two sentences of course didn't mention Palestinians, and whoever wrote the hed apparently didn't understand that Israel has many jihadist enemies other than Palestinians. The author of the post was baffled that Muni allowed the ad on city buses, while conceding that there might have been some kind of legal technicality involved in the issue:
In fact, the day San Francisco started rolling with this ad, is the same day a judge ruled in New York City that its Metropolitan Transit Agency couldn't legally refuse to run it on buses in the Big Apple.
Under what arcane city ordinance did the New York judge rule against that city? Dang, it turned out to be the First Amendment to our Constitution!
SF Weekly naturally approves of the PC vandals who are now defacing the latest ads on Muni buses:
You may have seen them on buses around town, the odious Muni ads that equate Muslims with Nazis and claim that the U.S. government supports anti-Semitism with foreign aid. The ghastly Pamela Geller, she of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, has sponsored several of these provocative ad buys, and Muni claims they have no power to tell a paying customer "no" based on the content of her speech.
This post is by a different writer, but it's based on the same ignorance and parochialism. Is Muni's "claim" about the First Amendment---not mentioned by the writer---true or not?
The latest ad actually doesn't "equate Muslims and Nazis." Instead it pictures an international Muslim leader with Adolf Hitler that I blogged about last month. This particular leader and Islam itself have a long history of anti-semitism before, during, and after World War 2. And it is in the Koran.
From the Weekly:
So a group of street artists has taken to waging a campaign of joyful, upbeat defacement, replacing Geller’s stark admonitions against loving thy neighbor with images of Muslim superheroes (like Marvel Comics' Kamala Khan) and people of different cultures getting along.
Oh yes, the vandals are joyfully going about stifling free speech because Geller is supposed to love people who have made it clear over the years they want to kill her and other Jews!
The only cost: Geller is saying something that these thugs don't like. But it's nice to know that they aren't calling for Geller's arrest for saying things they don't agree with. They aren't censoring anyone, you understand, because they just want to, well, prevent Geller from saying things that they don't like. Look at the vandals' self-congratulatory Facebook page and you find the same stupidity the Weekly demonstrated two years ago. Criticism of Muslim anti-semitism and violent jihad is equated with racism, as if Islam is a race, not a religion: