Gut Rumbles
 

December 04, 2003

political correctness

I'm going to pontificate on a few things that I believe are totally ridiculious in this world, and every one of them has to do with the insane concept of "political correctness."

1) Racial Profiling. People, just stop and think for a minute. It's a policeman's JOB to profile likely criminals. Yeah, I listened to a lot of black guys at work bitch about being pulled over by the cops for DWB ("driving while black,") and I don't blame them for being pissed off about the hassle. No innocent citizen enjoys being hassled by the police. But if black men didn't commit a FAR more disporportionate amount of crime than their white counterparts in this country, that shit wouldn't happen. Got-damn! Clean up your own act, then criticize.

2) Airport Screening. I've been through that crap-factory a few times lately and I'll tell you what it amounts to as far as security goes: diddly-squat. The LAST thing we needed in this country was the government running that kind of operation. Let government become involved and you are guaranteed the efficiency of the Department of Motor Vehicles combined with the compassion of the Internal Revenue Service.

3) Brainless Bureaucracy . I was asked to remove my shoes the last time I attempted to board an airplane. I did, because I wasn't carrying a gun at the time, but damn if I didn't want to shoot somebody over that shit. Some fat bastard searched my carry-on bag and confiscated my moustache sissors from my shaving kit. Meanwhile, they allowed Abdul-Akeem and Apou-Jamal to walk right through the gate. When is the last time a got-dam Cracker hijacked an airplane using a pair of moustache sissors? Huh? TELL ME and I might see the sense in that shit.

4) Wimmen's Rights. If that idea isn't a fucking joke, I don't know what is. Go to Divorce Court. You'll get a dose of wimmen's rights there that'll knock your male dick in the dirt. How did wimmen ever become a "minority" anyway, when they outnumber men on this planet?

5) The Greatest Deliberatve Body in the World. Look around the US Senate. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! If you believe that we have a bunch of really smart guys working there, you need to play cards with me. I'll take your money honestly, unlike a politician.

6) Anti-Smokers. What the fuck happened to this country? I am deadly serious about this gripe. When did we go from "Live Free Or Die" to "You Are Offending Me And I Will Make You Stop Just Because I Can?" I've read the Constitution of the United States many times and NOWHERE IN THERE do I see a Right Not To Be Offended. In fact, most of that document was written to ensure the rights of people who ARE OFFENSIVE, at least as far as government is concerned. Freedom means putting up with some shit that you, personally, do not like.

7) Environmentalists. Bejus on a bicycle. Those Gaia-worshipping assholes make me want to puke. They are anti-civilization, anti-capitalism and determined to make us all return to life in a cave, except this time we can't have fire, because it contributes to "global warming." My aching, Cracker ass. I went outside today in a tee-shirt on DECEMBER FUCKING FOURTH. The temperature was a little bit chilly, but not so cold that I ran back inside to fetch a jacket. Is that a bad thing? I'm not shoveling six feet of snow out of my driveway today and I am delighted by that fact. Bring on the heat. I am accustomed to it.

8) Activists of any kind. I don't know about you folks, but I've a double handfull all of my life just attempting to control my own affairs. What makes some fuckwits so smart that they can't be satisfied by just keeping their own goddam lives in order? They have enough free time to tell me how to live MY LIFE, too? Fuck 'em all.

9) Animal Rights. Give me a break. Anyone who doesn't see the difference between a human being and a rat should be dragged off and shot.

10) Gun Control. I know why most people who rally for gun control laws do so. They are afraid of guns. I see nothing frightening about a gun. A gun is a very simple machine. I've shot 'em all my life and I believe that I was taught well about how to handle them. I own twelve. Not a single one has EVER jumped up on its own and shot at me. I also know that nobody will ever take all the guns away from the bad guys out there. All I ask is a level playing field. If some crack-head thug can keep his gun, then I want mine, too. He'll be less likely to fuck with me if he knows that I am armed. Besides, everywhere that strict gun control has been enforced, crime escalated immediately. Leftist, gun-grabbing idiots ignore that fact, but they ignore the truth all the time.

The truth, sometimes, is politically incorrect.

Comments

The courts haven't caught up to the change to the current culture of father/mother child-nurturing relationships within the family. The courts are still living in the dark ages of "the little woman homemaker" image of many of our parent's and their parents' generation.

Posted by: Ms Anna on December 4, 2003 02:45 PM

Eloquently stated.

Posted by: Horse with no-- on December 4, 2003 02:50 PM

WOOHOO!

I love a good rant.

Best line:

"Let government become involved and you are guaranteed the efficiency of the Department of Motor Vehicles combined with the compassion of the Internal Revenue Service."

Posted by: Key on December 4, 2003 02:53 PM

The Senate would be a much more useful body if we'd follow the Roman example and publicly castigae and expel any member who diminished the (notional, at this point, but that'd change) dignity of the office.

Preferably the offenders could be horse-whipped out of DC on foot.

Posted by: Sigivald on December 4, 2003 02:55 PM

re: Racial profiling.

You may have a point if this country were the size of Rhode Island and all cops patrolled the same beat. Alas, police forces police on a local basis and while your argument may have merrit where black do commit a disproportionate amount of crime your blanket arument doesn't apply for the whole country.

And since when is it ever ok for any police to hassle any citizen just because they fit a "profile" even if the police have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to hassle them other than the fact that they belong to a group that is perceived to commit a lot of crime and is viewed in an unsavory light by most citizens.

Respectfully, I will have to call your argument misinformed and foolish.

Posted by: glenn on December 4, 2003 03:03 PM

re: Anti-Smoking bias

Your argument is correct and I would agree that smokers should be allowed the right to slowly poison themselves if it makes them feel good in the process.

However, the real "problem" (as far as smokers are concerned) should be with the social conditioning that has occured in the past 15 or so years which has caused many people to regard smoking cigarettes right there on a level with picking your nose or farting in public. It goes far beyond any legal precedent or attempt to stymie smokers. Society's norms have changed to discriminate against smokers... and nose pickers... and farters.

Posted by: glenn on December 4, 2003 03:08 PM

Glenn fails the freedom test twice!

Posted by: Brett on December 4, 2003 03:18 PM

Glenn fails the freedom test twice!

Posted by: Brett on December 4, 2003 03:18 PM

I don't have a problem with somebody smoking in public or what have you. It's their body, it's their business. However, I must invoke the your-right-to-swing-your-fist-stops-where-my-nose-begins argument. If the majority of the people in an environment are bothered by cigarette smoke, then the smoker should abstain, or step outside or something. It's common courtesy. Besides, for asthmatics or people (like my sister) who are allergic to cigarette smoke, it's not a matter of being offended, it's a matter of life-and-death.

Posted by: Joanna L. on December 4, 2003 03:48 PM

Youre in good company on the "environmentals" stuff, Michael Chrichton ( jurassic park, andromeda strain,and so forth..) weighed in recently with very much the same thing( and funny - he sounds just like you, hmmm I dont think weve seen you both in the same place at the same time.......) :
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html

Posted by: frank mmartin on December 4, 2003 04:37 PM

Joanna--

It depends on who owns the said enviroment. If I do, people who object to smoke can always find the door.

Common courtesy works both ways; how many non-smokers even give a second thought to consideration for a smoker's comfort? Why should such inconsiderate folk expect consideration for themselves? I will accomodate only those anti-smokers who do not consider it their right to have it their way all the time.

Posted by: Joanna on December 4, 2003 04:57 PM

Joanna--

Asthma rates have risen as smoking rates have dropped. Doctors once upon a time prescribed cigarettes for asthma. You have no case here.

No one is allergic to cigarette smoke; the particles are too small. People who claim to be allergic to smoke are ignorant or liars. The best that can be said is that they find cigarette smoke unpleasant; they should seek the door if they are not on their own property. Some people are allergic to unburned tobacco. No case.

As you can see, the "scientific" arguments are frauds perpetrated by those seeking to persecute smokers with government force. Such scientists bring shame on a great profession, which is why I deny the claim that science should dictate our laws.

Posted by: Brett on December 4, 2003 05:03 PM

Could someone please explain to me what MS ANNA is talking about????????

Posted by: DavidB on December 4, 2003 05:27 PM

DavidB:
#4. Wimmens Rights - specifically in the divorce court. In Acidman's area of the country, the mother is always given custody and child support, even when the father is just as qualified to take care of the child's needs. The exception, of course, would be that the mother is in jail currently serving a life sentence for murdering the father.

In addition, unlike the age of choice in many states of 12, Quinton can't legally chose to live with his father, rather than his mother until the age of 14.

Posted by: Ms Anna on December 4, 2003 06:19 PM

RE Racial Profiling:

Glenn, I think you're getting Rob wrong. He actually stood up for people who were unfairly targeted ONLY because of their race, however as Rob also pointed out, the police are charged with protecting ALL of us and enforcing laws made not by them, but by governments.

If 10% of the population of your town, your city, your State or your entire country were composed of a certain ethnic origin, but 70% of crime was committed by THAT same ethnic body of persons, the police would be totally failing in their duty as upholders of the law if they did NOT keep a very close eye on (or "target" if you wish) that body of persons.

Analogy: If a gang of crims is hitting branches of City Bank across the state in holdups, isn't it appropriate that the police "target" City Bank branches for close watch? While the cops will watch ALL banks, they'd be wasting time closely watching First National or Wells Fargo or any other bank when all the hits are going on at City Bank banks. Plain common sense and good use of taxpayers money.

Same goes for groups of people, be they a certain color or race or whatever.

In the above analogy, if I'm a City Bank customer I'm probably going to be a bit inconvenienced by all the police presence, but in the end I'm a lot safer (so's my money).

If I belong to a certain "group" that's committing lots of crime, it's pretty sure I'll get "targeted" sooner or later. Inconvenience? Yes. But I'll also be a whole lot happier when the cops have arrested as many of my "group" as possible and put them away so the rest of us honest folk can get on with our lives in safety.

Posted by: James Riley on December 4, 2003 06:48 PM

#7 Reminded me of a short essay by James P. Hogan, in a book of short stories and essays by him. In it, a cave dude invented/discovered fire. People dismissed it as "unclear energy" that they wouldn't stand for, and ran him off.

In the spring, after a long, hard winter, the cave dude's tribe that was opposed to his introduction of unclear energy was dead, and the tribe that accepted him was thriving.

Posted by: Jay Solo on December 4, 2003 08:10 PM

This whole post is on target with a controversy at my law school. The school put up a Christmas tree in the main portion of the school over Thanksgiving break. 2 days ago, the tree was removed. Administration claims it was 'divisive' and 'controversial.' Seems a little overboard to me - has caused quite a stir.

Posted by: Kelly on December 4, 2003 08:24 PM

oops. bad link. I'm computer illiterate

Posted by: Kelly on December 4, 2003 08:41 PM

Something else to toss into the 'politically correct' pile--hate crime.

Maybe I hear more about hate crime more often because I am 1) currently in college and tend to hang out with a lot of very liberal people, and 2) currently majoring in sociology, and take a lot of criminology classes. But it's a topic that comes up a great deal around me, and it drives me crazy.

First off, a number of the people who are pushing for hate crime legislation don't even really know how to judge what a hate crime is. The best definition I've been given (there could be a much better one out there...if someone else has one, I'd love to hear it) is that a hate crime is a crime against an individual or limited number of individuals identifying themselves with a particular culture/subculture that is specifically meant to target and intimidate the entire culture/subculture to which the victims belong.

Yeah, that all sounds nice, but in most cases, you cannot prove that a crime was targeted against more than the individual victim, and further, you shouldn't punish a crime differently because of people who were not directly effected. I am especially bothered by the fact that it seems that minorities cannot be prosecuted for a hate crime. I could be wrong--I'm going on what I've heard and learned here.

As to proving whether or not a crime is a hate crime, I pointed out once a set of murders that had happened recently (at the time) in my area. A group of black men had broken out of a prison, and while in a white neighborhood, decided to kill a bunch of people. I can't remember if the motive had to do with theft or something else of the sort. When I related that story to someone arguing with me about hate crime legislation, they answered that it couldn't have been a hate crime--they were probably just in a white neighborhood. However, the same story, with the races reversed, made for a hate crime. Nevermind if the neighborhood closes to the jail happened to be predominantly black or something else along those lines.

Something else that gets me about it is that people who are vehemently against capitol punishment will scream their heads off for the death penalty in cases that they feel are hate crimes.

No, no, no. I believe that a crime is a crime, and it should be punished to the full extent of the law. Drawing artificial definitions to punish one murder more severely than another that is otherwise identical to save for the race, ethnicity, creed, or sexual orientation of the victim or victims is a ridiculous waste of time and energy.

Posted by: Veryalda Relisys on December 4, 2003 09:20 PM

MS ANNA,

Thanks for clearing that up! I thought you went psycho on me there for a minute.

Posted by: DavidB on December 4, 2003 09:22 PM

I agree wholeheartedly with you Rob.
The only thing I would change is the final statement to : the Politically Correct is seldom the Truth.

Posted by: Delftsman3 on December 4, 2003 11:06 PM

What I worry about is -Reverse- Racial Profiling.

One of these days some airport security person is going to pick some little ole lady to search instead of Mohamed Akbar, just because he doesn't want to be charged with racial profiling. And it's going to be 9-11 all over again. Because Mohamed had a gun.

But at least nobodies civil rights were abused.

Posted by: Bill Adams on December 5, 2003 04:46 PM

I know I already commented.

"9) Animal Rights. Give me a break. Anyone who doesn't see the difference between a human being and a rat should be dragged off and shot."

Maybe that's why the liberals want to take our guns away. :)

Posted by: Bill on December 5, 2003 04:49 PM

#10 Gun Control

This often brings to mind my favorite Heinlein quote "Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire"

Gun Control - its not about the GUNS...its about CONTROL.

Posted by: Bob on December 5, 2003 09:08 PM

I'd add Mother Against Drunk Driving to your list.
I'm not necessarily in favor of allowing drunk driving, but it's like with guns - enforce the law if somebody breaks it - don't make innocent, uninvolved people suffer.
And these sobriety checkpoints strike me as a violation of the fourth amendment, I don't care that the courts have sanctioned them.
They've also ruined the bar and nightclub business and with it, the regional live music scene. I'm a guitar player too. Ten, fifteen years ago, my bands could play all summer at firemen's carnivals and county fairs and all winter at bars and clubs. Some years I made nearly $10,000 playing music - extra money while working a day job. Now, that winter work is practically gone, except for occasional legions and VFWs.
I don't know that we're any better off as a country for this crackdown. They keep lowering the legal limit as if what they've already done hasn't worked. MADD would probably bring back prohibition if they could.
I'm sick of this whole slide toward a socialist, nanny state "utopia."

Posted by: mark tomeo on December 9, 2003 03:07 PM

Reality is not affected by our apprehension of it.

Posted by: Craig Barbara on January 25, 2004 04:19 PM
Post a comment