The Politically Correct Alphabet

It’s not going to be long now before we face a threat more threatening to civilization than global warming. We’re going to run out of alphabet due to political correctness. In the beginning, there was the “N-word” – OK. As we have “progressed” through the PC evolution, we have unspeakable words for most of our letters. We have a few particularly naughty letters for which we have multiple words, the most notorious of which is “C.” When someone refers to the “C” word, I sometimes think about it for a minute or two just for kicks and then guess which “C-word” they were referring to rather than waste even more of my life continuing a counterproductive mini-quest.

In the past few weeks we have, thanks to Don Imus and Al Sharpton, added a new wrinkle to the politically correct alphabet - another “N” word – “nappy”, another “H” word – “Ho”, and 2 “N” phrases “nappy-headed” and “nappy-headed ho.” I assume a word or phrase has been added whenever someone loses a job over the word or phrase.

So let’s see how much of the alphabet we have left for use. A, B, C, D, F, G, H, J, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, and T are taken. So far as I know we still have E, I, K, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z available. I can actually think of a word or two for some of those remaining letters, but they haven’t been mainstreamed by actual news stories, documented offenses, or firings yet, but they will – never fear.

Although, PC-ness has always been a pain in the A--, at its beginning, it had a noble purpose – to keep from unnecessarily and unfairly offending people. It has, of course, like all noble endeavors, been turned over to the lunatic fringe to take too far. How can you possibly take a noble endeavor too far?

For one thing, you can decide that you don’t want to offend the lunatic fringe, who will take over given the slightest opportunity. Let’s get one thing straight – the lunatic fringe deserves to be offended. Why? - Because they are lunatics. I really shouldn’t have needed to explain that. However, if that’s not enough of a reason, the nature of the lunatic fringe is to make absolutely certain that their interests are served – fully and to the exclusion of all others’ interests – much like radical Islamic terrorists. That will, by definition offend all moderates at some point and “PC” will become a “PITA”, and it has. It has also become a tool for hiding truth and logic as well as delaying or blocking the addressing of real issues – like a doctor who prescribes cough medicine for lung cancer.

For example, it is unacceptable to say the actual “N” word, but it is acceptable to say “the ‘N’ word.” It means the same thing, except that saying “the ‘N’ word” conveys the message that you yourself are offended by the actual “N” word, which is usually BS. So PC-ness has, in a very real sense, created a lie and forced you to tell it. You have not really addressed the issue, which should have been to accept and value people for their uniqueness, including those differences that are not under their control and don’t matter in anything other than a Darwinian evolutionary context. In many instances it has exacerbated the problem by delaying a real solution; problems not addressed, get worse.

For another, PC-ness assumes that people are less tolerant than they otherwise would be. When you lower expectations of tolerance, some people in every offend-able group will live down to your expectations as well as demanding that you lower your expectations even more. If you do, you will offend moderates who you will never, ever lower you expectation of tolerance for. If you don’t, you will offend those demanding that you do. Either way, “PC” will (and has) become a “PITA.”

So in closing, let me say that I JCHFS with my OL and HAB, and if you spend more than a microsecond trying to figure that one out you’re an F’ing Idiot, or should I say FI. Oops, there went another letter. We certainly don’t want to offend idiots.

Translation: I just came home from shopping with my old lady and had a blast. I’m pretty certain that will offend somebody, somewhere.

Virginia Tech Tragedy - Ready for Profiling Yet?

The first thing to do is to acknowledge the tragedy at Virginia Tech and to extend my best wishes and condolences to the families of the Virginia Tech students whose lives were senselessly cut short as they approached their prime and to those who, although they survive, may be physically scarred for life.

To those who survived, you often hear that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. This is where it really applies, and this didn’t kill you. Indications from the convocation on Tuesday are that it won’t kill Virginia Tech either. You have, unfortunately and through no fault of your own, been burdened with a glimpse of the experience of many in our military – the violent and sudden loss of friends, colleagues, and family. You didn’t deserve that burden, but from what I have seen, I am confident you will survive it and draw strength from it in the future.

Fully realizing that I might (unjustifiably in my mind) be accused of advancing a political agenda, I offer the following logic in the interest of lowering the odds of this type of tragedy, not only on an American campus, but anywhere else. I think that all reasonable people recognize that the killing of 33 innocents is a tragedy no matter where it happens.

The 24/7 news coverage at the time of this writing is concentrating on this very task, specifically a detailed profiling of the killer after the fact. The logical question to ask would be, “Wouldn’t it have been better to profile the killer-to-be prior to the mass murder?” This must not be merely an academic exercise, but, unfortunately, it is likely to be just that, ultimately.

The questions of why more couldn’t be done to prevent this will inevitably lead to calls for action. This will, in turn lead to procedures that will infringe on someone’s “rights.” The question will be whose, and by how much. The ACLU will, predictably, attempt to block any action just because of this. The net result, in the absence of elected officials standing up for a change, is likely to be a lot of air time wasted on a lesson not learned and, sadly, a further expansion of the trend of escalating violence we have seen over the decades.

It isn’t as though we have to look very hard to find these people. The flags were all up, just like the flags were up on the 9/11 hijackers. We just need to interpret the flags and act on them – like we didn’t with the 9/11 hijackers and like we didn’t with Cho.

Isn’t the profile of the sad loser, who closes his/her eyes to society’s benefits, blames society for it, and embraces hopelessness, the same profile that would constitute the ideal recruit for a terrorist suicide attack, and wouldn’t the result be the same. If you profile one, you are, by default, profiling the other.

Are we ready yet in America to deal with the practicalities of life and death in 2007? If not, how many more dead innocents will it take until we are ready? I’m ready now.

Profiling is the right thing to do. The first people on the list should be the copycat bomb scare idiots appearing in the wake of Virginia Tech right after they spend 10 years in a high-security federal prison. If they are capable of the threat, they are capable of the deed. Track and treat the disturbed personalities of potential mass killing just as we should be doing with the convicted sex offender.

The buzz among military strategists today is that Cho has done the research for al-Qaida. It doesn’t help to blame the crazy guy and let it go at that. We need to stop the crazy guys from killing us and from helping the enemy, however unwittingly they are doing it.

White Men Can't Jump - or Apologize Correctly

Don Imus, for all his obnoxious, caustic, bad jokes, finally after decades on the air, has done us all a favor – four actually. First, he has exposed the racism and sexism running rampant among some of those purporting to be black leaders in this country. Not all, but some, those who have been around the longest and those who are the most vocal and, unfortunately, most likely to show up on TV and radio most often. Second, he has enabled the more reasonable leaders in the black community to emerge as we see them take issue with and attempt to repeal the Jackson-Sharpton Act. Third, he has forced a discussion of the hip-hop garbage culture. Fourth, he has caused a discussion of the culture of apology; ultimately, we will decide which U.S.A. we are – the United States of America or the Unending Stream of Apologies.

If you are a white male in America, there are a lot of people lined up, waiting for an excuse to jump all over you. Ultimately, you will screw up (and by screw up, I mean offend some member of the politically correct police somewhere), and will be punished under the Jackson-Sharpton Act. Am I going to defend Imus? Not a chance. Even by my standards, he made a stupid mistake. Especially since he knew that there are those out there just waiting to pounce on him. He apologized to the people he wronged. The Rutgers Women’s Basketball Team had the discussion they needed to convince themselves that it was a sincere apology, and then graciously accepted. They also got a little publicity in the process (good for them) and a couple appeared to have been coached to whine a little (scarred for life? Yeah, right). The black leadership in America, unaffected by the remark, refused to forgive, with or without punishment. Imus’ punishment is currently roughly equivalent to that of a child molester in Vermont. We could really use some serious priority setting here.

I am also not going to go through the litany of missteps that reveal the hypocrisy of Jackson and Sharpton – missteps for which they are neither expected nor required to apologize. However, if you are a white male in this country, you are required to be perfectly politically correct.

But I am going to express my disgust for the actions on Fox News of one Malik Shabazz of the “New Black Panther Party” who called Michelle Malkin a political whore, basically, because she has not allowed him to brainwash or bully her. I hope that, by his standard, there are a lot of us whores. Jackson and Sharpton are absent in their non-condemnation of Shabazz. Malkin, although one of the toughest individuals I have seen on the tube and perfectly capable of holding her own, is, after all, a woman of color and therefore should qualify for protection under the Jackson-Sharpton Act. The act has, conspicuously, not been invoked.

Shabazz also refused to apologize for pre-lynching the Duke Lacrosse players, but instead asserted that Mike Nifong botched the case. The implication is that Mike Nifong owes an apology to the stripper who falsely accused the Duke players. Hmmmmm – lynching without a trial – isn’t that one of the wrongs that slave owners and the Klan were accused of.

On the same show, Opio Sakoni blamed the founding fathers - George Washington, et al, for today’s murderous, degrading rap lyrics while failing to thank them for the their contribution to the 2005 academy award winner - “It’s Hard Out There for a Pimp.”

So here are the rules as I understand them from America’s longest-tenured, most vocal black “leadership.” This is what I refer to as the Jackson-Sharpton Act.

• If you are black, you can never do anything wrong unless you agree with a white person, and therefore are neither expected nor required to apologize for anything else - ever. Additionally, any non-black who claims that you have done something wrong is wrong and must apologize.
• If you are not black, you must always apologize for something, even if it was George Washington’s fault (This is the Sakoni Amendment to the Jackson-Sharpton Act).
• Your apology may be accepted by the black people you offend, if they are not leaders, because they are regular people like you and me, capable of forgiveness.
• Your apology will never be accepted by black leaders, but you need to do it anyway and then jump through hoops for them personally, so you can express your disgust with slavery, which you are not qualified to speak about anyway.
• If you are not black and do something wrong to a white person, you must search for a black person to apologize to. If you can’t find one, you must apologize for that.

During the course of my career, I have been told that although I was qualified for promotional opportunities, I would never get them because I was the wrong color and/or the wrong gender. Not that big of a deal to me in the long run, but it did happen and continues to happen to people every day. So who are the slaves now?

I’m pretty sick of being told that I should be at the back of the bus; I’ve never sent anyone there, I’m not going there, and you shouldn’t go there either, whoever you are.

And that’s the view today from here at the bottom.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Pelosi?

You should be – whoever you are. If you’re not you should be seriously questioning what is wrong with you. If you can’t do that by yourself, then get help. Once you have completed this first step, you have a duty to ask yourself what is wrong with those who do not yet fear this woman as you do. So in the interest of providing you that help, assuming you need it, and of getting this country back to having a reasonable line of succession and having a reasonable Congress, let me help you with a few observations.

Nancy Pelosi is two heartbeats away from the Presidency of the United States. And one of those heartbeats, despite its strength of mind and character, grows increasingly fragile as time passes. You should now have a sense of constitutional urgency about the situation.

Nancy Pelosi recently visited Syria – a terrorist state and enemy of the U.S. – for what? She says she was bringing the Presidents message. Well, the President is a big boy and is capable of delivering his own message. Better yet, he has Condoleezza Rice, whose job it is to deliver the Presidents message and does it better than anyone else. Here is the message “We don’t talk to terrorists.” By going at all, she acted to rescind the message – not deliver it. We, here at the bottom, understand this message. Some at the top – like the Speaker of the House – apparently don’t. If she does, she is lying about it. Either way, she doesn’t belong in a position of power in our government. You should now have a picture of a confused, back-stabbing liar. Convinced yet?

OK, I’ll continue. She is now talking about visiting the terrorist government of Iran. Does she have a list of terrorists that she needs to contact? It would have helped if she had published that list during the campaign – more honest too. I am a little surprised that she hasn’t visited Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro yet, but we have time and Fidel hasn’t been all that well lately. You should now have a picture of a dishonest politician who did not reveal her real agenda during her campaign. Convinced yet?

No? OK. All this exists against the backdrop of refusing to pass a war-funding bill capable of being signed into law before her Middle-Eastern vacation to aid and comfort America’s enemies, which, of course could not be postponed for the purpose of passing decent legislation. Passing legislation? Yes, her job - the one that she doesn’t much care to be bothered with. You should now have a picture of a woman unable and/or unwilling to do her own job, but who is hell-bent on making sure she keeps others from doing theirs, thinking that will make her look good.

So why am I not as critical of Harry Reed in the Senate? I am; he is her partner in incompetence and publicly has supported her undermining of foreign policy at the expense of our troops and their mission. He has also pushed a similarly nonsensical bill through the Senate. But he’s not the one who is two heartbeats away from the Presidency.

Anyone who does not condemn her vacation activities is complacent in aiding and comforting the enemy, and is not worthy of any position of authority in the U.S. government. This especially applies to anyone of any party running for President of the U.S. Even if you don’t condemn her activities on ideological grounds, you should condemn them on constitutional grounds. This is not her job, and those Presidential candidates who refuse to speak up are saying that it’s OK for the Congress to have its own separate, contradictory foreign policy when they become President (Apparently, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are all OK with that.). Even if you don’t condemn her actions on a constitutional basis, you should at least be suspicious of someone who justifies her anti-American activities with a vacant, robotic stare except when she declares that “…there’s a new congress in town…” Who is the cowboy now?

You should now have a sense of constitutional urgency that a lying politician, unable and/or unwilling to do her own job, interfering with those who want to do theirs, acting like the cowboy Al Gore once accused President Bush of being, and providing aid and comfort to our enemies, is just two heartbeats away from becoming the leader of the free world. Suddenly, the freedom of the good guys appears in greater jeopardy while the freedom of the bad guys looks pretty solid.

Remove Nancy Pelosi!

Responsible politicians will work for Nancy Pelosi’s removal from her position. Republicans should work to convince their counterparts on the other side of the isle. Democrats should realize that she doesn’t represent mainstream Democrats – just the crackpots who voted to remove the U.S. military from contact with schools in San Francisco. If Nancy Pelosi became President, where would the U.S. military be removed from next? Would there be a U.S. military at all? Probably not. The U.S. military was weakened substantially under Clinton, and he wasn’t nearly as radical as Pelosi.

This is dangerous for the top, the bottom, and everyone in-between.

Illegal Alien Sneak-in Reform – Could We Be Any Dumber?

First of all, they are illegal ALIENS – not immigrants. Immigrants are legal, so stop reinventing the language for cheap political purposes, and stop allowing other to do it.

Second: Bill and Geraldo, nice show. You’re both right; you’re both wrong. Nonetheless, you (or for that matter, Don King) could not have done more of a service to the people of the U.S., and ultimately the world, in publicizing the issue.

Of course the death of Alison Kunhardt, 17 and Tessa Tranchant, 17, in Virginia Beach at the hands of an illegal alien is an immigration issue. Of course it is also a drunk-driving issue.

The difference is that we actually DO something to address drunk driving, while we bury our heads in the sand when it comes to illegal aliens. I am doing my best to respect the request of Tessa’s father Ray, who requested that this tragedy not become a political football.

It should be irrelevant to the issue of immigration that lives have been taken. People who are here illegally have no right to be here. PERIOD! They should be deported NOW! The argument made by nearly everyone that it is impossible to deport nearly 12 million illegal aliens is a defeatist, self-fulfilling prophecy – like pulling out of Iraq. Call it what you will. It is blanket amnesty, a reward for bad behavior and for breaking the law. So what if you can’t get them all?! You’ll never get any if you don’t try. Get as many as you can out. 1 million, 4 million 10 million – fine! 10 million is 83% of the problem. How much have we solved by wringing our politically correct hands over the fact that we may not get the other 2 million. We have solved 0%, with 100% of the problem remaining and growing every day.

We are so concerned that an illegal alien, law breaker might die trying to cross the border. Fine! Better them that the 2 innocent, law abiding teenagers from Virginia Beach or any other innocent – including the millions who could die in a terrorist attack on a large American city.

If the border patrol, or even the minutemen, had orders to shoot to kill those who did not stop when ordered to stop, that would be fine with me. This is an invasion; it has been an invasion for a long time. The only thing lacking are uniforms on those crossing the border.

So what’s the solution? It’s easy. Let’s see if it would have the support of a huge majority of the American people – not the loudest, whiniest ones of course, but the rest of us.

• At the border. Shoot to kill anyone crossing the border who does not stop when ordered in both English and the language of the country they are attempting to cross from – in the case of Mexico, English and Spanish; in the case of Canada – English and French. We live in a post 9/11 world, where these are invaders who do not respect our laws, or they wouldn’t be breaking our immigration laws to begin with. We should assume they would be willing to break our other laws as well.
• Since there is ample evidence that the Mexican government is supportive in this invasion, the Mexican government is responsible for the cost of gathering the bodies at the border and transportation home for burial. If the Mexican government would like to come to the U.S. to do the work themselves, we should grant temporary worker permits for that purpose.
• Within the U.S. Sanctuary cities are illegal cities, refusing to uphold the laws of the land. As such, they should lose Federal funding for law enforcement, education, welfare, and health care, since we may safely assume that these funds are going to illegal aliens. I don’t want to support them. Let Virginia Beach, Los Angeles and all the others who would squander my money, squander their own for a change.
• Within the U.S. When an illegal alien is discovered they should be deported. Period! They should be fingerprinted and an FBI record kept for future reference. Of course the Mexican government should be responsible for all deportation costs.
• Within the U.S. When an illegal alien is discovered a second time – after being deported, it should mean an automatic 5 years in jail after conviction. Conviction=jail time; acquittal=deportation+time served (no bail). Each subsequent conviction of re-entering the U.S. illegally carries an additional 5 years. This means that someone convicted 3 times of re-entering the U.S. illegally after being deported would serve 3 terms totaling 30 years (5+10+15).
• Within the U.S. Anyone employing an illegal alien is subject to a fine consisting of their estimated savings + the court costs and deportation costs for that person.
• Within the U.S. Implement a strictly regulated guest worker program, similar to that proposed by President Bush.

It’s all or nothing as for as I’m concerned. When that first dirty bomb goes off in Chicago (or wherever) after having been smuggled across the border, it’s not going to half-detonate. It’s going to go of with all the force that those who hate us can muster. Then you can try to tell the survivors in Chicago (or wherever) about compassion. Do it in person if you dare, and while you’re at it, tell them how you forgot about 9/11.

If you hide your head in the sand, you are going to get your ass kicked. We have and we are. Apparently, you like it. I don’t.

The Road to Damascus

First the bad news - Nancy Pelosi has arrogantly followed though on her plan to undermine U.S. foreign policy by lessening the isolation of one of America’s enemies. It has been plausibly argued that this act has provided aid and comfort to all of America’s enemies by virtue of providing aid and comfort to Syria. After all, if she is willing to talk to Syria over the objections of the officials we have elected to actually carry out foreign policy (and, by extension in our democracy, against the wishes of the American people), why would any of our enemies assume she would not talk with them as well? The answer is that they wouldn’t; in fact, they would assume exactly the opposite. When done consciously, aiding and comforting the enemy is the definition of treason. Since I have always doubted the speaker’s consciousness, this is where I must halt my logic. Unfortunately, the damage is the same, conscious or not.

Now the worse news - Statistically, someone in the Democratic Party has to be smart enough to know that these actions aid and comfort the enemy. Whoever that is and however many of them there may be, since they are conscious, they must call for her replacement as Speaker, since her continuing as Speaker would continue to aid and comfort the enemy. I don’t know who they are – but they do, and they have a responsibility to act. If none act, what am I to conclude? Should I conclude that Democrats place partisan politics above the welfare of the country or that none of them are both smart enough and ballsy enough to hold responsible office? I am uncomfortable either way.

Here is the Speakers latest report to the American people. "The road to Damascus is a road to peace."

Well, I guess that depends on who is on the road and what they are driving. If it’s an American-made fleet of tanks driven by anyone on its way to eliminate the current leadership of that once-proud country, then it’s the road to peace. Too often it has been state-supported Hezbollah terrorists driving bomb-delivery trucks toward Israel. That is not the road to peace.

The road to Damascus – Where are Bob Hope and Bing Crosby when you really need them? If Damascus is such a wonderful, peace-loving place, why not take the Speakers activism to the next level? If the Speaker is such a successful ambassador, why not just offer to be the ambassador to Syria, since she seems so anxious to do that job?

Oh yeah, I forgot for a moment – lack of consciousness.

Now the good news – The U.S. Congress, as a body, did no damage today, as its members were either on an undeserved 2-week Easter vacation or overseas meeting with our enemies.

At least, that’s the way it looks down here at the bottom.

Mystery of the Great U.S. Economy

One of the growing number of things that President Bush gets little or no credit for is the fantastic U.S. economy over the course of his administration. This appears to run in (or against) the family and is the fault of the liberal mainstream media in the U.S. encouraged and fueled by liberal Democrats, hungry for ever-more power, both of whom appear to just make stuff up as they go along.

The attacks of 9/11 struck a blow to the U.S. economy that many thought would take years to recover from. According to a September 28, 2001 report from the Fiscal Policy Institute in New York, the economic cost to New York alone was $16.8 billion. The stock market reflected these fears. So I think the fact is pretty well-established that when a skyscraper is destroyed in New York, it tends to depress the economy.

It is now generally agreed among reputable economists that the Bush tax cuts were instrumental in sparing the nation and our trading partners much worse economic performance than what actually came to pass.

Enter the Iraq war, one of the most brilliantly executed and strategic wars in history, the crowning touch to a uniquely patriotic and successful career for which Donald Rumsfeld will never be justly recognized in his lifetime. We won, incidentally, back in 2003. What you currently see in Iraq is the Iraqi revolution – the attempt of the Iraqi people to free themselves from the tyranny of Islamic terrorists (Islamic terrorists are terrorists who have hijacked Islam, incidentally.).

Iraq became a magnet for terrorists because a free and democratic Iraq would mean the expansion of American influence and the loss to terrorists of a safe haven and ally. The fact that terrorists are focused on retaking Iraq means that they are not knocking down skyscrapers in New York or Chicago. That is a good thing. It is a good thing for the people (Americans and legitimate non-citizens) living and working in those buildings. It is a good thing for the U.S. and global economies.

It is the current Iraqi revolution that is enabling the great U.S. economy. It is the current Iraqi revolution and our participation in it (which we should be proud of, just as France was proud of participating in ours) that the anti-war crowd screams about because they have to scream about something, apparently. The anti-war crowd is, by extension, protesting the fact that the U.S. economy is too good, too many skyscrapers are being allowed to remain standing, too many people are being allowed to remain alive in those buildings, and too many families are not being destroyed by the loss of loved ones living and working in those buildings.

For more information on how many lives are at stake in the short run, please see my article of 3/26/2007 – “Dead Heroes=9/11/Victims – The Ignored Upside.”

Thank you again President Bush.
Thank you again Secretary Rumsfeld.