Tuesday, August 07, 2007

The New York City city council, as many of you know, has banned the "n-word", and now they are apparently seeking to ban both "bitch" and "ho".

With this latest example of political correctness run horribly amock, I am left wondering exactly what the city council is trying to accomplish. Okay, I understand the fact that they're making a statement, that this is more symbolic than anything else and that there is no way they can possibly enforce such an ordinance, but I can't help wondering if their time is better spent elsewhere.

Not to make light of the issue. Pop culture has become quite demeaning, and there is way too much nastiness out there. I'm all for taking a stand against those who belittle, but I think the city council could have been a little more creative with this. Banning certain words? You've got to be kidding.

How about banning the sale of explicit music? Or, me being a capitalist, levee a tax on the sale of such music and use the revenue to help fund social programs. Banning a few pathetic little words?

I would think that it is common sense that the use of these words in everyday language implies a certain lack of sophistication, intelligence and civilization. The fact that a city council has to pass an ordinance to tell us that is scary. The fact that they would even consider devoting their time to this issue is even scarier. But I do wonder how the Left will respond. I'm sure there will be many who will praise this effort, forcing me to remember that these are the same people who defend an LA child predator's right to post ideal locations throughout the city for viewing "LG's" (his term for little girls). So, to some, it is okay for this guy to stare at little girls and write about it, as long as he doesn't call them "ho's" or "bitches".

In my mind, we have enough problems without having to create more. If you want to address the destructive nature of Hip-Hop culture and Gangsta Rap, by all means you will have my support. But things like this are pretty pointless. I guess for now, dog breeders in New York are going to have to adjust their vocabulary. And Santa Claus had better watch his mouth as well.



Perhaps it's best to leave the criticism of HipHop & Rap-Crap "Musical" Gutter-Speak... within the more politically correct domain of the articulate Rev Al Sharpton & Bill Cosby.

It's a cultural thing, and the Black Community is better equipped to deal with it effectively without political interference! reb


The Loop Garoo Kid said...

"Amok" or "Amuck" adv. 1. In a fenzy to do viloence or kill. 2. In a blind heedless manner. Used in the phrase "run amuck.-- adj. crazed with murderous frenzy. [Malay "amok' a furious attack]

Some might consider this comment amock.



I clicked on your Blog-Roll; a fellow that espouses Libertarian
thinking. Whew! He's a unique guy...

For those that Hate Scenery. Perhaps a challenge for Loop Garoo!

Tap: "Counter-Friction Libertarian".
Maybe he's a Space Cadet, or even a
Visitor from a Saturn Moon. reb


John Washburn said...

I find it interesting that Loopy will fiercely defend freedom of speech when we're talking about pedophiles, but when a city council wants to ban a few slang words he feels it is more important to "mock" someone's spelling errors. He likes to belittle others, and he really put some thought and effort into his latest nit-pick. I won't bother pointing out his numerous mis-spellings. The comments are posted, you can see for yourself.

As a physician, I have some experience with the human psyche, and basic psychiatry teaches us that those who mock, belittle and demean do so mainly as a defense mechanism to compensate for their own shortcomings. It's their way of elevating themselves above others so they can feel good about themselves despite their own self-esteem issues. Loopy reminds me of the guy who calls touch fouls in a pick-up game of basketball. Usually that guy is the one who sucks at basketball.

It's okay Loopy. I'll keep making mistakes, and maybe I'll throw in an occasional purposeful mis-spelling so you can feel good about yourself. And you're always welcome here. We love you just the way you are.

John Washburn said...


Actually the Counter Friction Libertarian (aka Robert M) visits this site on occasion. He's a good lad, I think you'd like him. We usually see eye to eye on most issues, but will disagree on occasion. Overall, he seems to have a firm grip on reality and a good head on his shoulders. We can give him a reprieve for being a yankee (just kidding, Robert). He's with the good guys.

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

Dear Dr. Washburn,

When you demonstrate that you are able to respond substantively to an argument, perhaps I will cut you some slack.

You publish a blog; you have published a book, with the aid of an editor I hope.

Accordingly, you hold yourself out as a writer and therefore are held to the standard of being a writer. You cannot confuse words like "eminent" and "imminent" which have no senses in common and expect to be taken seriously.

You know something of the human psyche? Perhaps you should look in the mirror and ask yourself, "Why do I write?"

It would not seem that you do so out of any desire to exchange ideas. It appears that the only gratification you feel is when someone agrees w/ you. You are completely intolerant of anyone who does not share your views.

So let me ask you how you got from Point A to Point B.

Point A. You mispell "amok," as I so kindly informed you.

Point B. If I on the one hand I defend free speech, how can you assume that I suppport the resolution of the New York City Council?

I believe you have stated that you are against labeling yet you trade in the same tired shibboleths: "the left"; "the liberals"; and my personal favorites"Activist judges."

When someone dares to step on your tootsies, you resort to call them names. Who is pathetic here, Doctor. Who is crying foul at every touch?

I have a few questions regarding your latest post. See above.



When a man with a medical degree meets another trained in the legal
sciences, it's possible to have differing perspectives. Rather than
looking for hurtful comments, should we not seek a commonality that would distribute Light, rather
than heat?

Spelling? Hah, I never make mistrakes!

Leave The 'Smart-Alec' Insinuations to this old Critter-getter; I don't have much of a reputation to tarnish anyway. I wish to learn from you both! Let There Be Peace In This Valley of Inquiry. reb



As to Friction-Libertarian, I'd tip a Merlot or a Beck's with him,
but if we met on the Inter-state, I would hope he has a flashy, bizarre paint-job on this vehicle! He has some strange notions about Speed Limits, and safely sharing the road! reb


John Washburn said...

Reb, I agree with your hurtful comments approach. I have nothing personal with Loopy. I simply ask that people on this site discuss the issue at hand. He consistently chooses to make this a grammar lesson with the intent of what, I don't know. But I want to discuss issues here, and I can't allow the topic to be diverted.

Loopy, I did not assume anything about your position on the NY city council issue. I simply pointed out that you stated no position at all and chose instead to attack me. Or maybe it was a harmless little joke. It's hard to tell with this medium. I can certainly take a joke. In fact, as I've said before, your grammar corrections do make me laugh as did your comment. But you should expect me to respond with an equal degree of "humor". And, still, you left no comment on the issue. There was no assumption, only fact. I want people to stick to the issue at hand. If you veer, I will call you on it.

To be clear, the only time I criticize you personally (or anyone else on this site) is when you choose to skirt the issue and go after me or someone else...personally. There are some who would not respond in kind, I'm not one of them. There are standing rules on this site: 1) No hate speech, 2) No personal attacks. If you break them, I will respond (except for rule #1, which will get your comments removed).

What you call intolerance, I call disagreement...albeit sometimes heated. Funny how you slam me for being intolerant while mocking me for watching Fox News...the only news channel that provides BOTH points of view on the issues. If I were intolerant, sir, you would not be allowed to post on this site. I get a bit perturbed when you completely misrepresent what I say (as you did with my NY city council comment) but I do not show intolerance. Be careful how you throw strong words like that around. I welcome any and all to this site, so long as they follow the rules. There are many political bloggers who enable comment moderation, and I take pride in the fact that I do not.

I don't need you to cut me some slack. You can edit everything on this site for grammar. I don't care. But you can't get your feelings hurt when I rib you about it. If this site was dedicated to proper grammar and spelling or if I held myself to be a master of the English language then I would be wrong in ribbing you and you would be right to point out my careless errors. As it is, this is an informal site of political commentary. Let's try not to be so petty.

As for labels, I've said before that "left", "right" and "liberal" are words used to describe one's sociopolitical views. "activist judges" is one I use to describe people who step outside the lines and legislate from the bench. If you want to use similar terms, be my guest. I have, however, taken issue with words like "stupid", which is nothing more than name-calling. I can certainly play that game too, I just don't like it very much. I'd much rather engage in healthy debate without things eroding into such antics. If you are disappointed in the substance of this site, you are not obligated to stick around.

So, in the spirit of Reb's moderation, I'm willing to start afresh and tip a cold one with you. Let's stick to the issues with healthy disagreement, and maybe an occasional common ground; and try to stay out of the mud.

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

I am willing to keep the discourse civil. Thank you reb for your intervention.

But language is important in at least two ways. The first is the language of discourse. By way of example, thanks to what we may call the conservative political stance, beginning w/ Ronald Reagan, "liberal" is now a dirty word. Ask for a definition from the man of the street and you will get a gamut.

"Activist judge" is a dirty word although if compelled to do so, I could cite case upon case of activist conservative judicial decisions.

reb. I didn't respond to your last post but in fact I do not watch TV news exceept for local news.

Dr., if you have bought into Fox's propanganda that it is "fair and balanced" there is little hope for you. By the way never use the term "mainstreanm media" or the acronym MSM if you wish to be taken seriously.

Televison news exists for one reason: to sell products. Once you accept this basic premise then you learn to distrust all TV news except on subjects that require no verification: the weather; sports; the dike broke; etc.

reb loves Bill O'Reilly and has incorrectly stated that I hate him.
In fact, I admire him. You can't argue w/ success. He has raised pushing peoples' hot buttons to an art form. All in the name of commerce rather than "truth."
That's not the party line, merely the reality. News as entertainment.

Please remember who owns Fox News and what his agenda is. Alas poor WSJ.

So, you don't hold yourself out to be a master of the English language. I admonish you. You don't need to try and be Shakespeare. If you are, so much the better. You do need to get it riaght, however, otherwise you are part of the problem.

More anon.

John Washburn said...

Fair enough. Just one question. How can you say that Fox News' "fair and balanced" is propaganda when you don't even watch cable news?