From David Limbaugh, word about a PC infraction: General Pace has uttered the unthinkable - that he has an opinion, based on his personal sense of morality, that contradicts "officially" allowed revealed truth:
Pace's hanging offense is having passed moral judgment on homosexual behavior and those engaging in it. Certain opinions are strictly forbidden in our society, whether you utter them in uniform or civvies, in public or in private.Hey, guys - face it - you can't impose correct thoughts like the re-education professionals of 1984. Like it or not, in America, we have the right to have, and express opinions, that differ from other people. We have the right to have unpopular opinions. Even if we have a governmental job, we don't lose that right. Even if we state those opinions in a public forum.
If Pace's unpardonable sin is being judgmental, aren't many of his accusers guilty of the very same thing? Are they not passing moral judgment on and demeaning him for passing moral judgment on homosexual behavior?
Many homosexual activists and others, while demanding "tolerance," want to silence and demonize those who disapprove of homosexual behavior. For them, it's not just "don't ask, don't tell." It's "don't tell, and don't even think these thoughts."
That right is the 1st Amendment. It states:
Amendment IYou know, years ago, in high school, we had to read some of the classic literature on regimentation of the mind - 1984, Brave New World, and Animal Farm. I enjoyed it, although I thought they went WAY over the top.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Surprisingly (at least to me, as I bought the liberal line hook, line, and sinker, at the time), the right-wing forces weren't able to suppress speech when they held power. Despite the Reagan Revolution, and the Bushtapo forces that followed, free speech reigned, for most of us. It took some time for me to realize an awful truth - the anti-free-speech contingent was nipping away at the constitutional right, from the LEFT. Just as Orwell predicted.
Little by little, rabidly incensed groups (women, minorities, gays) chipped away at speaking freely. By making an issue of every instance of loose speech, gradually we all began to fall into line, reluctant to face the firestorm. We began to self-censor. We followed the Orwellian practice of, at first, not allowing the speech to exit our mouths. We started cautioning others about their speech. The previously-chastised, in turn, became ferocious about others' infractions.
Eventually, we blocked even our thoughts. We learned to love Big Brother.
At least, some of us did.
For me, the line-in-the-sand moment was when the administrator was vilified for using the unspeakable word:
On January 15, 1999, David Howard, a white aide to Anthony A. Williams, the black mayor of Washington, D.C., United States, used the word in reference to a budget. This apparently upset one of his black colleagues (identified by Howard as Marshall Brown), who incorrectly interpreted it as a racial slur and lodged a complaint. As a result, on January 25 Howard tendered his resignation, and Williams accepted it.Shortly thereafter,
However, after pressure from the gay community (of which Howard was a member) and black leaders, an internal review into the matter was brought about, and the mayor offered Howard the chance to return to his position as Office of the Public Advocate on February 4. Howard refused but accepted another position with the mayor instead, insisting that he did not feel victimized by the incident. On the contrary, Howard felt that he had learned from the situation. "I used to think it would be great if we could all be colorblind. That's naive, especially for a white person, because a white person can't afford to be colorblind. They don't have to think about race every day. An African American does." 
Shortly after the Washington incident, another controversy erupted over the use of the word at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. At a February meeting of the Faculty Senate, Amelia Rideau, a junior English major and vice chairwoman of the Black Student Union, told the group how a professor teaching Chaucer had used the word niggardly. Rideau later said she was unaware of the related Washington, D.C., controversy which came to light just the week before. She said the professor continued to use the word even after she told him that she was offended. "I was in tears, shaking," she told the faculty. "It's not up to the rest of the class to decide whether my feelings are valid."
Even though the effect of the Wisconsin incident was to diminish fervor for speech codes, some disgusting dictionary-users continued to offend
In late January or early February 2002, a white fourth-grade teacher in Wilmington, North Carolina was formally reprimanded for teaching the word and told to attend sensitivity training.Who really needed the sensitivity training - as well as an updated dictionary? The person who used their minority status to embarrass and harass a person who had done no wrong.
We used to laugh at the Victorians - how they referred to "white meat" and "dark meat", rather than use the terms "breast" and "leg". How silly, we thought, to go to such exaggerated lengths to avoid offense.
Are we becoming NEO-Victorians?