Distracted, yet again.

[pecunium]

I made the mistake, as I was thinking of writing some food porn (Nero Wolfe novels will do that to you) of doing some sidebar reading.

CBS has refused to air an ad by a church (the United Church of Christ). It was an ad about inclusion. It wasn't shrill, it wasn't accusatory, if anything it was too subtle
.
The debut 30-second commercial features two muscle-bound "bouncers" standing guard outside a symbolic, picturesque church and selecting which persons are permitted to attend Sunday services. Written text interrupts the scene, announcing, "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we." A narrator then proclaims the United Church of Christ's commitment to Jesus' extravagant welcome: "No matter who you are, or where you are on life's journey, you are welcome here."

Still Speaking

So why did CBS refuse to air the ad?

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations," reads an explanation from CBS, "and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks."


UCC Press release

The exuctive branch is against gay marriage, so a church which is for inclusion, and makes a very quiet ad about it (if you blink the reference to gays will slip right past you) is told it's too controversial.

I am becoming more nervous every day.

Comments

Re: This is what "political correctness" looks like

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Only the existence of a truly independent media - the Digital Pamphleteer - allows for this to be disseminated around the block of the official gatekeepers. (Who have, indeed, gotten in trouble for releasing things and speaking out against the government this year; before anyone starts hating on CBS remember what they first told that no one wanted to hear, in April.)

I don't hate them. I am dissapointed in them.

But the PTB still have the guns, as ever.

Here, less than in some places (and before one starts to argue tanks and planes versus rifles, look at Iraq; where the adjusted numbers are more in line with Vietnam than most want to admit [ratio of troops to casualties; and factoring changes in injury/fatality ratios] and that with a far inferior level of outside support and weaponry... 60mm mortars and RPGs are far less than the VC and the NVA were fielding).

What the PTB also need to impose their will on an unwilling, and armed, populace is the active support of the troops, and (as yet) we don't have that kind of Army. In fact, the way the Guard is being used, about 1/3rd of the forces we have, are more likely to be disaffected, and make Lee's decision, than will stick with the Union.

If that, God forbid, should come to pass, the experiment is over.

TK

Re: This is what "political correctness" looks like

[bellatrys.livejournal.com]

I mean more in terms of general police state enforcement. This is a worrying problem, more so for me as a student of history, because I see several common patterns repeating themselves.

Police/enforcers/muscle are usually drawn from local, labor class, and enforce against their "own" kind - except that within the working class there is other stratification, ethno-religious, and thus you have the stereotypical "corrupt Irish cop" turning a blind eye to some sins and overpunishing others and making the most of having clawed up to the curb from the gutter. (One of my relatives two generations back was a corrupt Irish cop in Baltimore, so I know something whereof I speak here.

This has always - almost always - been able to be exploited against rebels. Though there is always the risk that they might self-identify more with the people on the other side of the barricades, particularly if it is their own families and not the people in the ghetto next door. But generally there has never been a problem in finding people willing to break their poorer neighbor's heads in return for the [generally-illusory] chance of making it to the big leagues.

Only when this is not enough, does the question of bringing in Auxiliaries from other parts of the Empire - as was done at Tiannamen Square, btw, and as they could not do in Manila - become an issue. And there is a strong element of Janissaries in the post-WWII military: an alienated, culturally-isolated elite that does not self-identify with the populace at all, regardless of ethnic extraction or mixed religious heritage. (Using religious here in an extremely broad sense, including everything from Capitalism to Hockey.)

The SWAT teams in NYC brought this home very powerfully to me, reminding me of scenes from 19th century Parisian etchings and early 20th century newspapers of laborers rioting in London (when you see a double-decker bus flipped sideways to block a train line, you do a double-take) as did the information - which I had not come across in my eclectic survey of the 60s - that tanks were sent into rioting or flashpoint slums, our equivalent of The Shades, during some of the worst times.

Tanks, in US cities, to keep down the sorts of "aux barricades" stuff that used to happen regularly in Europe, and for which they would send out the cavalry. It's come that close to an Amritsar here already.