Political Correctness, The Witch Hunt

Unfortunately, in this country, we’ve developed the concept of something called “political correctness”.  Now, this is the biggest bunch of bull I think I’ve ever seen in my life.   First off, if you calls someone a beaner, a gook, or any other offensive racial term, they will reject both the term and it’s attached  stereotypes.  If you call someone a Hispanic, Latino, or Asian-American, they suck that right up even though it still has the same attached stereotypes.

All that’s been done is that instead of getting people to reject offensive labels (race-based and otherwise), they now accept them and are usually happy to have them.  They actually start labeling themselves, which is far more divisive than the original offensive labels. Since the negativity has been glossed over, they just suck right up to the stereotypes.  The only true political correctness lies in *not* describing or cubby-holing people by race unless it’s necessary for a physical description.  Our race should be *human* and our nationality should be *American*.  Nothing should be hyphenated on to that and the color of skin, sexual orientation, religion, etc. shouldn’t automatically generate a label.

We’re also a country that’s founded on the concept that all men are created equal and that we have freedom of speech.  Hold on to that last sentence while I lead you through my logic on this. Why are black folks the only ones allowed to use the N-word?  Why are gays the only ones allowed to call each other fag?  Why are Hispanics the only ones allowed to call each other “beaner”?   Why is everyone allowed to call white people names with impunity?  I’ve yet to see a big protest about the words “Cracker”, “Honky”, “Wedo,” or “Howli” or any of the other racist terms for white people. 

If we’re all really and truly equal, either everyone should be able to
use those terms or no one can use them.  Equal means that the same rules apply to everyone.  Either way, the rules need to
be same for *all* people.  No special rules for special groups.  Anything else isn’t fair because then it’s not equal.  My personal vote goes to no one using them but that’s me. 

Furthermore, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of inoffensive speech.  It means that we are *all* free to say what we think which pretty much guarantees that we’re going to offend each other at some point.  I’m not saying that we should all run out and join the Aryan Nation or anything else stupid.  But, the same laws that protect them (offensive as they are) also protect me when I want to drag out my little soap box and gripe about all manner of things.  H. L. Mencken said it best, “The
trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of
one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that
oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the
beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

Worst still, we have developed a “witch hunt” mentality for anyone who says anything that might be even remotely racist – but only as long as they’re white.  Carlos Mencia can say anything he likes about anyone but he’s not a white a guy.  Don’t get me wrong, I love Carlos Mencia.  Think about this though. If it was a white guy dressed up as an Arab, doing a skit where he runs a convience store that makes fun of his customers based on racial stereotypes, he wouldn’t have a show.  Which is kinda sad because the only way that stereotypes die is for them be laughed out of existence.  They have to be poked fun of until they finally drop out of our collective concious. 

The things that offend people often leave me confused and scratching my head.  Don Imus fell victim to this when he called some girls on a basketball team “nappy headed hos”.  Instead of being offended for being called a “ho” which implies loose morals and possible disease transmission, they were offended by the term “nappy headed” which genreally refers to having messy, tangled hair.  While I agree that the comment is somehwhat offensive, I’d be far more upset over being called a “ho” than being told I have messy hair. 

Dog the Bounty hunter is the latest victim of this.  He’s in a rough profession where he deals with all sorts of people who refer to themselves using the N-word.  It is his job to go fetch people who have jumped bail and I’m sure that some of them are career criminals, gang members, and others who would be prone to referring to themselves in this manner.   I’ve seen people that have the N-word tattooed on them.  I can easily see where these things might come up in discussion of identifying and arresting such a person.

In order to avoid the witch hunt of political correctness, he says on
tape that he’s worked too hard to loose everything because someone
catches him or one of his employees in a bad time or out of context. 
Sadly, this appears to be exactly what has happened.  Worse still is
that it was done by his own son.  The media has played this up as
“racist diatribe” but the only statement that could be remotely
construed as racist is the fact that he admits that they use the N-word
but there is no mention in what context it is used.  If that part of
the conversation was taped, National Equirer certainly hasn’t released
it because it would pretty much deflate the senseational value of the
part that they have released.

He admits in the tape that they use the N-word, but does not say in
what context that it is done in.  Given the rough nature of his clientele, I’m
sure that these statements could easily be taken totally out of the correct
context.  It would be hard to tape someone, anyone – even you, at home 24x7x365 and not
find some statements that could be taken out of context to make the
person appear in the worst possible light.

The supposedly racist tape begins in the middle of a conversation that consists mostly of him complaining to his own son, who has been dating a black girl for several months.  He told the son that he couldn’t work with him anymore because this girl had been threatening his wife, the boy’s mother, with phyiscal violence.   He specifically says that it has nothing to do with her being black.  That’s a situation that is simply unacceptable in any family.

He goes on to say that he knows that people, including the son’s girlfriend,
have been trying to bug his office or trap him into saying something on
tape that can be taken out of context and misused.  He says in the tape that he’s afraid of having what should be private conversations taped and sold to the National Enquirer (who incidentally published the tape).

Frankly, I’m surpised at the trial by media.  There’s another American cornerstone here – it’s called Innocent until Proven Guilty in a court of law.  Since there is no real law involved here, it’s simply mob justice, just like the Salem witch trials.  There’s been no court and he’s certainly not being considered innocent or given chance to defend himself. 


Hypocrites – Then And Now

In order to highlight how hypocritical most religion is, we’re going to start picking at them – one by one.  I’ve had my go at Islam lately so I’ll take on the other religious juggernaut – the Catholic church. 

The Catholic church doesn’t particulary mind the so-called fraternal orders like the Masons (Freemasons) since they have their own.  It’s called the Knights of Columbus.  However, it’s perfectly fine even as late as 1851 could see you arrested and tortured nearly to death by those kind, loving Christian monks. 

What’s the Catholic beef with brotherhoods?  Well, it boils down to this.  First off, they accept non-Catholics for members.  You got, if you’re not Catholic yourself, you’re not good enough to be hanging out with anyone who is.   It  minimizes the importance of Catholic religion and dogma.

Secondly, they don’t like the fact that the Freemasons express a deist view of God.  What that means is that “God, to you, is what you think it is.”  This sort of philosophy keeps religion at bay and out of the Freemasons.  The Catholic Church has a theist view of God which means “God is what we tell you it is because you’re not smart enough to figure it out for yourself.” 

Thirdly, most Freemasons advocate the separation of church and state.  Our own Constitution mentions this – only it actually says “freedom FROM religion”.  The Catholic Church seems to be dreaming of the theocracy in days gone by.  How can anyone think this is a bad idea? 

Fourth, Freemasonry is a secret society.  And the Knights of Columbus aren’t?