REMARKS: ROCKER DEEMED GUILT OF 'CRIMETHINK'

One weekend in the early 1990s I was watching The McLaughlin Group, when I heard the term "politically correct" for the first time. I had to chuckle in disbelief. It reminded me of a movie I had enjoyed as a teenager -- Woody Allen's Wake Me When the Revolution is Over. The movie mentions a man who had been committed to The Home for the Politically Insane. I remember finding the thought that someone's political views could be so bizarre that they required him to be institutionalized, ludicrous and hilarious as a teen. Now, suddenly, virtually the same principal was being espoused in the late 20th century! As the PC movement of the 1990s took root, however, I was laughing less and less.

Today, thanks to Atlanta reliever John Rocker, the Home for the Politically Insane may actually have its first real-life inmate. The time for laughter seems to be gone for good.

Personally, I find the term "politically correct" grossly offensive. Who in the world has the nerve to tell me what is "correct" or "incorrect" for me to believe? In his classic futuristic novel, 1984, George Orwell painted a frightening picture of a society closely monitored by Big Brother. Two-way television systems watched the movement of every citizen. Not only were disloyal actions not tolerated, neither were disloyal thoughts! "Crimethink" was the most frequent cause for arrest and brain-washing in 1984. As things boiled down, more and more crimes could be placed in the Crimethink category. (The language used in Orwell's dictatorship prided itself in being the only language in history to constantly have fewer and fewer words in its vocabulary.) History was constantly re-written, with "the Party" getting credit for more and more of history's accomplishments, while those who had espoused differing views were gradually erased from public memory.

Is it my imagination, or does Orwell suddenly sound like a contemporary conservative novelist, rather than the wildly imaginative author he was considered to be in the 1940s? Is this what the future holds for America? No one can deny that the technology is here to have two-way television monitors in every home. No one can deny that the move toward government control and suppression of unpopular (and many times very popular) ideas is increasing.

I imagine both the expense involved -- as well as a little independence remaining in this generation -- will prevent this from happening in the immediate future. In two or three generations, though, I can certainly see an Orwellian state existing. Sound far-fetched? Can't picture American citizens giving up their privacy and other rights? Could our grandparents or great grandparents have imagined a world in which we allowed ourselves to be forced by law to wear seat belts? Could they have envisioned a world in which it would be illegal for a child to ride down the sidewalk or street on a bicycle without a helmet? Would they really have been able to picture a society in which a mother cannot discipline a bratty child in a grocery check-out line without mortal fear that the 16-year-old cashier may pick up a phone and have a SWAT team awaiting the mother in the parking lot?

I don't think I'd like to room with John Rocker and I sure as heck wouldn't want to work for Marge Schott. Marge was a buffoon who made baseball look bad. Rocker -- based solely on the slanted Sports Illustrated article I read on-line -- seems to be a young redneck who has not yet gained much world savvy. Were I the boss of either, I would definitely have sat them down and had a long talk about making the organization look bad.

Major League Baseball's continuing trend toward Political Correctness at all costs, though, outweighs any negatives the aforementioned naughty children may have contributed. Schott, basically, was suspended from baseball for a full year for espousing an idea that probably 75 percent of all serious historians would agree with -- that Hitler had an overall positive impact on Germany during the early years of his reign. (There were certainly some bad omens of things to come that educated people probably should have picked up on. Nevertheless, as Schott made the mistake of pointing out a couple of times, in the mid-1930s, Hitler would have been much harder to characterize as a villain.)

Rocker, meanwhile, in an article written by a writer who appears to be well to the left of George McGovern, gave the scribe plenty of with which to be hung. Still, the most damaging of the apparent quips, calling a black teammate a "fat monkey," was the only Rocker comment not placed in context during the story. Who he was referring to, what the context of the conversation was and how he meant the comment goes totally unexplained. (Note: Rocker seemed to clear himself on this point during a later television interview.)

Also interesting is how enraged -- often threatening -- comments from New York fans on Rocker's web site were printed throughout the article. The unspoken suggestion seemed to be that anyone who could hack off New Yorkers so badly must be a really bad person. One has to wonder what would have happened, had a black Mets player said he would never play in Atlanta because of all the inbred redneck crackers or something of the sort. If so, is there any doubt that had an angry rural Internet surfer then threatened to throw batteries at the player (as one NYC fan did on Rocker's page), he would have been in handcuffs by the next sunrise?

What Rocker did do was paint a verbal picture of how probably 65 percent of Americans really feel -- they're impatient with slow drivers and toll booths, feel threatened by ever-increasing numbers of immigrants and the accompanying multiculturalism, hate big cities (especially New York), feel threatened by subways, and would just as soon keep their distance from gays, convicts and those with the HIV virus. True, Rocker could have used a tad more finesse in painting the picture. Then again, the writer seemed to approach the story with the goal of showing what a socially unacceptable redneck Rocker is.

So now Rocker must undergo psychiatric evaluation. (I haven't followed the case closely enough to know whether a "sane" verdict will be in Rocker's favor or not.) Marge was suspended. A woman in California, advertising for a straight female roommate, was given a choice of "sensitive counseling" or jail.

Crimethink. Today Big Brother and friends simply will not tolerate any deviation from what "they" deem Politically Correct." Today, of course, "they" is primary the left-wing intellectual cliche. (Of course, tomorrow it could just as easily by the Far Right calling the shots.)

Politically Incorrect. Politically Insane. Crimethink. Whatever one calls it, those of us who do not toe the political line are increasingly finding ourselves as outsiders in the country our ancestors fought to make free. I guess this column brands me as a Crimethinker. Well, maybe my phychiatric evaluation will be covered by company insurance!