I Have About Had It!!

Hello again readers. I hope everyone is doing well.
Today's post concerns the ongoing debate in American society over the usage of certain words.
First it was the outright censorship and firing of Don Imus over a joke gone to far. Now comes the next salvo by the politically correct censorship bunch.
Several news services today (story here) are reporting that Hip-Hop exec Russell Simmons has joined Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson and perennial pain-in-the-ass Al Sharpton in calling for a ban on the words "ho", "bitch", and "nigger". According to Simmons the words, considered offensive by some, should be treated as "extreme curse words" and banned from use in rap songs. Presumably he would also have them banned from use in the English language. The best misdirectional quote from the Simmons (and partner Benjamin Chavis) is "Our internal discussions with industry leaders are not about censorship. Our discussions are about the corporate social responsibility of the industry to voluntarily show respect to African Americans and other people of color, African American women and to all women in lyrics and images."
Can you say "bullshit"...I knew you could. Not about censorship? Hey Simmons, any time you talk about banning words, it is censorship! Anytime you recommend that record companies bleep certain words, it is censorship! Whether the words are offensive or not is irrelevant, when you propose any restriction in their use, you have just become pro-censorship. By becoming pro-censorship you join an illustrious group of small minded, thin skinned individuals who cannot take insults and to whom free thought is too dangerous to be handled by the great unwashed masses. By becoming pro-censorship you have just cast you lot with people like those who would ban any mention of evolution from high school science classes. By promoting censorship you have joined those closed minded individuals who would have all references to miscegenation removed from, well, everything. By jumping aboard the censorship train, you have joined a movement that has managed to get terribly offensive works such as "The Grapes Of Wrath", "The Color Purple", "I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings", and "Huckleberry Finn", among others, removed from public libraries and school classrooms. Of course you probably wouldn't object to the removal of "Huckleberry Finn", after all, it does contain the word "nigger". Oh my God, I mentioned that nasty "N-word", quick censor me, quick take me out and stone me to death.
I will agree with Simmons that certain words do offend certain people. However, let's stop and think for a minute about what would happen if we removed every offensive word from the language. If we removed every offensive word (offensive to somebody, that is) from the language, the dictionary would be about 3 pages long and would contain mostly articles, prepositions, and conjunctions. My point is that nearly every word in the language can be, or is, offensive to someone. Some of those words stand out as especially offensive, others are more subtle. Everyone knows that the "n-word" is considered offensive, but how about the word "geek" or "retard"? Aren't those offensive to certain people? How about the word "mafia"? Isn't that word offensive to Italian-Americans? An offensive word can be any word which elicits a strong negative emotional response in a person. Since an offensive word need not be limited to those pertaining to race, religion, sex, or intellectual capacity, how about words that pertain to politics? Can we count those as offensive, and therefore worthy of banning? I mean the words "neo-conservative" and "Republican" elicit strong emotional responses in me, does that make them offensive? Should we ban them? Or would banning such words stifle something larger, namely the exchange of ideas? See, R.S., when you talk about censorship and the banning of certain words, you aren't just talking about not offending people, you are talking about doing things like limiting the ideas and thoughts that someone can have (by limiting how they can express themselves). You are also talking about interrupting things like the free exchange of knowledge. You are also talking about limiting freedom of speech and thought. If there is one thing that someone associated with musicians and songwriters should understand and be sympathetic to, it is the freedom to express oneself, no matter what words are used. The thing that you seem to be missing, R.S., is that songwriters, just like any other writer, use carefully chosen words to convey their ideas. Perhaps by using offensive words, the writer's intent is to offend you. Or perhaps it is his intent to make you think. If you don't think that offensive words can make you think, perhaps you need to check out people like Lenny Bruce, Jack Kerouac, Arthur Miller, or even John Steinbeck.
If you haven't figured it out by now, I am greatly against censorship in any form. Do I find certain words offensive? Yes, I do. But ask me if they should be banned, and you will get a resounding "Hell no!" in response. Perhaps it is because I have been exposed to environments where free thought and free speech was not only tolerated but encouraged, but I happen to find the most offensive word in this whole discussion to be "censorship". Censorship for me is about more than restricting the use of a few slang terms that probably wouldn't be missed if they were removed from the language. Censorship to me is about restricting my right to think as I see fit. It is about someone else, someone I don't know, telling me that I do not have the right to think for myself. I wonder how it would go if the shoe was on the other foot. What I mean is, I wonder how these folks would react if I started a campaign to ban censorship. A campaign that would allow absolutely anyone to say absolutely anything they felt like saying. Hmmm, now there's an interesting idea. Oh, crap, it's already been thought of and written down. They even have a title for it, it is called "The First Amendment". That idea is what allows this blog to exist. And you know what...If this blog offends someone, tough shit! If you don't like what i have to say, you can always read someone else's blog.
To small minded clowns like Simmons, Sharpton, and Jackson, I say grow up, suck it up, quit acting like a bunch of crybabies, grow a pair of balls, and take it like a man. People are going to offend you everyday of your pathetic lives, get a thicker skin, learn to deal with it and quit your bitching. Your actions offend me, but you don't see me on the national news trying to have you banned do you?!!? And by the way, since you guys don't have a clue, I'll give you one...Instead of trying to ban offensive words, why not try to educate people on why, exactly, they are so offensive to you. Until you idiots figure out that banning words doesn't stop people from using them but education does, you will continue to fight a losing battle. Oh, and if my invective has offended you, good that's what I was hoping for. I hope it also made you think.
In closing, I'd like to leave you with something that Lyndon Johnson once said, "Words wound. But as a veteran of twelve years in the United States Senate, I happily attest that they do not kill." Something to think about in regard to the greater scheme of things.
As always, I am Chuck and this has been my rant.

If You Don't Like It, I Don't Care!!

Hello again readers. Long time, no post. I hope everyone is doing well.
The subject of today's post concerns the heat that US gun laws have been taking after the Va Tech shootings.
It would seem that the AP is reporting that, in various countries around the world, US gun laws are taking a bashing. The AP reports that editorials in Australia, France, the UK, and even Commie China are bashing our gun laws. Well, I have one thing to say to those who view it as their right to interfere in our internal affairs...Go screw yourselves! If you want these laws changed so badly, why don't you come over and attempt to change them yourselves? Oh, that's right, you can't, you're not allowed to own a gun. I guess you're out of luck then.
The AP report is quoting various foreign officials and editors as basically stating "Gee, we're not allowed to own guns. In the US, they can own a gun. Our system is better because we have a lower incidence of gun violence." Well, duh. If no one can own a gun, I guess you would have a lower incidence of gun violence. But how about your incidence of knife crimes? Or how about blunt object crimes, hmm? The incidence of violence doesn't change because you limit their choice of tools, it changes because you change your cultural attitude toward violence in general. If your premise that gun ownership is the primary reason for gun violence is so correct, then how do explain Switzerland? Nearly every Swiss household contains an automatic weapon, yet their incidence of gun violence is virtually nil. The reason that Swiss gun violence is virtually nonexistent is because of the Swiss cultural attitude regarding the intolerance of disorder and violence! Some of these people advocating gun control need to pull their heads out of their asses and do a reality check. This country, the US, needs to change its attitude toward violence BEFORE it even considers changing its attitude toward gun control. If the current US attitude toward violence isn't changed, then you can ban every gun in the world, but people here will still find ways of killing each other. Don't believe me, then ask the UK. They banned handguns years ago, and they've been struggling with the problem of knife violence ever since.
Two of the countries that the AP cites as criticizing US gun laws shouldn't even be compared to the US. The AP cites France and Commie China as criticizing US gun control laws. France shouldn't be cited simply because the French never figured out that guns can be fired. They believe that they can only be dropped in the face of the enemy. And the ChiComs definitely shouldn't be cited. The AP reports that the Red Chinese state that the average citizen isn't allowed to own a gun. Well no shit! The average citizen isn't allowed to own a gun in China not because they want to control gun crime, but to prevent a violent overthrow of a repressive regime. Until the Chinese start to accede to our demands on things like human rights, as far as I am concerned, they don't have a right to criticize anyone.
The only country that I feel we should listen to is Australia. They have had similar experiences with gun violence there and they have a (somewhat) similar culture. Perhaps they would be the best country to model reformed gun control laws on. However, to the best of my knowledge, the Australians do not have a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the average citizen the right to own a firearm and therein lies the rub. While Australia may be a good model, we in the US simply cannot adopt their laws (verbatim) due to our Second Amendment.
So once again, to the screaming imbeciles in the foreign press, I say, "If you want these gun laws changed so badly, then come over and do it yourself." Of course when a few thousand heavily armed NRA member meet you at the airport, don't say I didn't warn you.
As always, I am Chuck and this has been my rant.


Edited @ 2257 EDT 17 APR 2007 for typos.