Author: R J Adams

The previous post, “Too Politically Correct For Our Own Good”, detailed absurd situations that form part of what is ludicrously termed by society today, ‘political correctness’.

The term was, no doubt, originally coined for the well-meaning purpose of curtailing the verbal persecution of certain minority groups, but like most societal trends the pendulum has now swung so far in the other direction that literary and artistic work is being attacked, modified, or persecuted, if it fails to conform to the self-imposed restrictions of the nameless, faceless, individuals responsible for determining this type of censure.

Often, a decision on political correctness is left to the not-so-tender mercy of some obscure committee. Nowhere is the puffed-up ego more at home than among its fellows at the committee room table. Here, it can preen and admire it’s self-importance, while supported and inflated by those around it.

We hardly need reminding of the education committee that banned a school nativity play at the last moment because one Muslim (Jewish, Hindu?) parent complained; or, the manhole covers renamed ‘Personnel Access Units’ by certain British local authority committees because it ‘might be deemed sexist’.

Such nonsense is rife among education departments; remember when classrooms had blackboards? That was before they were renamed ‘chalk’-boards. Schools now have their students decorate the ‘holiday tree’, just in case the word ‘Christmas’ might offend a non-Christian, or an atheist like me. Needless to say, it doesn’t. I love Christmas. What is offensive to me are these idiotic puffed up egos who believe they have the right to determine how I should think and speak.

When I was growing up, one of my musical heroes was Mark Knopfler, of the rock band, Dire Straits. He’s 61 now, but still making and writing music. His musical scores include Metroland, Local Hero, Cal, Last Exit to Brooklyn, Wag the Dog, and The Princess Bride, as well as numerous songs and discs, including the legendary CD, “Brothers-in-Arms”, which sold thirty million copies.

One of the tracks from that disc was, “Money For Nothing”. It details the opinions of a delivery man watching pop stars perform on the MTV channel of TVs in a store window. In the fourth verse of the song, our delivery man sings:

The little faggot with the earring and the makeup
Yeah buddy, that’s his own hair
That little faggot got his own jet airplane
That little faggot he’s a millionaire

The song was written in the early 1980s and, as previously stated, sold over thirty million copies. Rolling Stone magazine rated it as the 94th greatest guitar song of all time. Yet, only last month, after one lone caller from Newfoundland contacted the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (read ‘committee’) and complained the word ‘faggot’ was a slur on gay people, the CBSC banned the song from all private radio stations in Canada.^[1]

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (read ‘committee’) has nothing to do with the Canadian government. It’s a private organization, against which there is no redress, and no doubt staffed by puffed-up little egos all desperate to out-inflate the other.

Such manipulation of artwork should be made illegal. In this instance, Knopfler took a level-headed view of the situation and has substituted another word in place of ‘faggot’ when performing the song of late.

If he were around today, I wonder if Mark Twain would be so accepting of the abuse imposed on one of his greatest works by the academic ego of Alan Gribben?

Gribben has taken it upon himself to erase 219 references to the word, ‘nigger’, from the book, Huckleberry Finn, and replace them with, ‘slave’. The ‘new’ version is due to be published this month.

I can only agree heartily with Jamelle Bouie, a black writer for Atlantic magazine, who recently wrote of this abomination:

…..erasing “nigger” from Huckleberry Finn—or ignoring our failures—doesn’t change anything. It doesn’t provide racial enlightenment, or justice, and it won’t shield anyone from the legacy of slavery and racial discrimination. All it does is feed the American aversion to history and reflection. Which is a shame. If there’s anything great about this country, it’s in our ability to account for and overcome our mistakes. Peddling whitewashed ignorance diminishes America as much as it does our intellect.^[2]

While the ego can make us believe we know better than anyone else, it doesn’t force us to do so. We can control our ego, but only if we ensure it remains deflated and in its place. The mind is a vastly superior machine to the ego. It has the ability to think things through, overcome prejudice, and realize that ‘political correctness’ is nothing more than the application of wallpaper to a defective building, in the vain hope it won’t fall down.

^{[1] “CANADIAN BROADCAST STANDARDS COUNCIL re the song “Money for Nothing” by Dire Straits CBSC, October 14th 2010}

^{[2] “Taking the History Out of ‘Huck Finn'” The Atlantic, January 4th 2011}

Filed under: Hyperinflation

There seems little doubt the ego of the human race will eventually over-inflate, like a toy balloon attached to a runaway air compressor line at the local gas station, until it bursts with a loud popping noise and we all disappear up our own anuses.

Why do we take ourselves so seriously? We’ve turned into a load of po-faced miseries. We’ve totally forgotten how to laugh at ourselves. Humans everywhere have become so inflated with our own importance we have to pussy-foot around each other for fear of upsetting the overly-sensitive natures of our fellow beings.

Those who refuse to capitulate to the extremes of ‘political correctness’ imposed by the exponentially increasing abundance of ‘do-gooders’ in our society, risk castigation on par with the Puritan witch-hunts of medieval times.

Take the case of 34 year old Laura Bowater, a senior staff nurse at London’s Central Middlesex Hospital – at least, she was until July 2006 when she was fired for a remark made while helping control an unconscious patient in the midst of an epileptic fit.

According to the Daily Mail newspaper:

Laura Bowater, 34, quipped: ‘It’s been a few months since I have been in this position with a man underneath me’ as she straddled his naked body while doctors tried to give him an injection.

The trousers of the ‘extremely strong’ 31-year-old patient had been removed so doctors could inject his buttock and Ms Bowater sat on his ankles to control his flailing legs.

But the patient span on to his back, exposing himself and kicking her forward so that she ended up astride him.

The senior staff nurse’s remark would have been considered ‘merely humorous’ by many people and did not warrant losing her job, the judges found.

Ms Bowater was on her way home from a 12-hour shift in the accident and emergency department at London’s Central Middlesex Hospital in July 2006 when she stopped to help staff.

A complaint was made six weeks later even though no-one suggested the unconscious patient could have heard what Ms Bowater said.

She was fired from her £25,000-a-year post for gross misconduct over the quip despite four years’ unblemished service.^[1]

Though an industrial tribunal found in the nurse’s favor, North West London Hospitals NHS Trust appealed the decision and their ruling was reversed by the overly-inflated ego of an appeals court judge, thus leaving the country with one less experienced and capable nurse to help run an ailing health service.

Then, there’s Stephen Fry, the well known entertainer and intellectual, who appears to have upset the whole Japanese nation following a segment on his quiz show, QI, which featured a discussion about Tsutomu Yamaguchi, the only man to survive both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions.

From the BBC:

Mr Yamaguchi was the only person to have been officially recognised by the government of Japan as surviving both explosions.

Mr Yamaguchi was burnt in the Hiroshima explosion – only to travel by train to Nagasaki to be caught in the second attack three days later.

During the programme Stephen Fry and two fellow comedians discussed Mr Yamaguchi’s survival.

Alan Davies suggested an A-bomb had landed on Mr Yamaguchi and “bounced off”.

And Stephen Fry expressed amazement that the Japanese trains were still running after the blast.

The episode prompted a complaint to the BBC from the Japanese Embassy who accused the broadcaster of making light of the attacks.

The BBC responded by apologising, acknowledging the sensitivity of the subject for Japanese viewers.^[2][2]

As a result of this nonsense, the BBC shelved plans to film part of a documentary, starring Stephen Fry, in Japan due to the ‘strength of feeling’ in that country.

Having watched the offending episode of ‘QI’ I can say with all honesty I found nothing offensive whatever in that particular segment of the program.

The atrocities committed by the Americans should neither be forgiven nor forgotten, but nevertheless, in the light of significant atrocities committed by the Japanese against allied forces during WW2, perhaps its time the people of Japan lightened up a little and were less sensitive to events imposed on them over sixty years ago.

So, too, the Mexicans. Just a click way from the Fry fiasco, one finds the team that brings us the top-rated TV show, ‘Top Gear’, in trouble for slagging off the Mexicans. Apparently, they described them as ‘lazy and feckless’. The Mexican ambassador wasn’t amused. He demanded an apology, calling the remarks “offensive, xenophobic and humiliating”.

Hundreds of Mexicans contacted the BBC Spanish-language website BBC Mundo to protest about the remarks made by presenters Richard Hammond, Jeremy Clarkson and James May.

Many more expressed outrage in e-mails to Mexican newspapers and websites, where the Top Gear jibes have received huge coverage.

The matter was also raised in the Mexican senate, where lawmakers were considering a motion of censure.

On Thursday an all-party group of British MPs also urged the BBC to apologise, calling the remarks “ignorant, derogatory and racist”.

In a statement, the BBC said the comments may have been “rude” and “mischievous,” but there was no “vindictiveness” behind them.

“Our own comedians make jokes about the British being terrible cooks and terrible romantics, and we in turn make jokes about the Italians being disorganised and over dramatic, the French being arrogant and the Germans being over-organised,” the BBC said.

It added that stereotype-based comedy was allowed within BBC guidelines in programmes where the audience knew they could expect it, as was the case with Top Gear.

“Whilst it may appear offensive to those who have not watched the programme or who are unfamiliar with its humour, the executive producer has made it clear to the ambassador that that was absolutely not the show’s intention,” the BBC added.^[3]

A motion of censure in the Mexican senate! British politicians urging the BBC to apologize? All because Jeremy Clarkson, who’s built his career on bluntly humorous, controversial comments, calls Mexicans lazy?

Have British and Mexican politicians nothing better to do with their time? Mexico’s fighting a drug’s war on its streets, and the British parliament is supposed to be concentrating on dragging the nation out of recession. If the Mexican ambassador doesn’t like Top Gear he shouldn’t watch it. Don’t Mexican TV’s have an ‘OFF’ button? Or, had he just imbibed one too many tequilas and failed to see the joke?

Meanwhile, if you’re planning a vacation in Malawi this year, be sure to take an abundance of corks with you. Due to the over-inflated ego of Malawi’s justice minister who doesn’t believe he should suffer the need of others to occasionally break wind, an unexpected bout of public flatulence could see you in jail.

Justice Minister George Chaponda is determined to criminalize farting.

The BBC again:

Justice Minister George Chaponda says the new bill would criminalise flatulence to promote “public decency”.

“Just go to the toilet when you feel like farting,” he told local radio……

……The Local Courts Bill, to be introduced next week reads: “Any person who vitiates the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious to the public to the health of persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing along a public way shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.”

Mr Chaponda, a trained lawyer, insists that this includes farting.

“Would you be happy to see people farting anyhow?” he asked on the popular “Straight Talk” programme on Malawi’s Capital Radio.

He said that local chiefs would deal with any offenders.

When asked whether it could be enforced, he said it would be similar to laws banning urinating in public.^[4]

Only a lot more difficult to enforce.

One is reminded of the stoning sketch in Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’:

“Alright, who threw that stone farted, then? Who was it? Come on, own up. Was it you? Go to the back!”

These days we no longer need to visit the cinema in order to see human beings acting silly. Just turn on the news, or open a newspaper.

No-one wants a return to the bad old days when vitriol against minorities abounded, but there’s a world of difference between a humorous comment and one that’s deliberately intended to vilify.

It seems our ego’s puffed-up self-importance sometimes fails to comprehend the variance.

^{[1] “Carry on nursing: Health worker sacked for making cheeky joke as she straddled naked patient was unfairly dismissed” Daily Mail, February 4th 2011}

^{[2] “Stephen Fry Japan trip scrapped after A-bomb joke” BBC, February 3rd 2011}

^{[3] “BBC offers apology for Top Gear comments on Mexico” BBC, February 3rd 2011}

^{[4] “Malawi row over whether new law bans farting” BBC, February 4th 2011}

Filed under: Hyperinflation

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has told Mexicans she backs President Felipe Calderon’s battle with the drug cartels. Apparently, according to Clinton, there’s ‘no alternative’ to the 15,273 Mexican citizens gunned down in drug-related incidents on Mexico’s streets last year; slaughtered by American guns purchased with American dollars.

And it’s all so El Presidente Calderon can continue to be funded by his US ally to the tune of around $1.7bn.

According to the BBC, Clinton told reporters:

It is messy. It causes lots of terrible things to be on the news. The drug traffickers are not going to give up without a fight”.^[1]

The drug traffickers are not going to give up at all. They cannot be beaten by force of arms. America’s been trying for over forty years. Already, Calderon’s intensified actions are sending the cartels deeper into Central America where small nations like Guatemala or El Salvador could easily become narco-states. Indeed, it’s likely that, by intensifying the drug war in Mexico, Calderon is deliberately attempting to drive the cartels further south.

Mrs Clinton says ‘it is messy’. She’s absolutely right. It’s messy because of the hardline, blinkered, policies of successive US administrations, ever since Woodrow Wilson’s approved the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act in 1914. The Obama administration has continued prohibition policies that in 1920 allowed Mafia activities to explode, giving Al Capone’s syndicate total rule over Chicago throughout the 1920’s.

Alcohol prohibition ended on December 17th 1933, and with it the illegal cartel’s control of its manufacture and marketing.

The demand for what is known as ‘street, or recreational, drugs’ is huge. Figures are not easy to come by, for obvious reasons. The Rand Corporation issues statistics but they’re ludicrously low. Most people, when asked if they use illicit drugs, will simply answer, ‘No’.

Drugs are marketed on a class basis. Cocaine has always been the choice of the wealthy and powerful. The poor tend to ‘make-do’ with low grade heroine, requiring intravenous injection to be effective. High grade heroine can be smoked or snorted, but its street value is much higher, making it inaccessible to many. Smoking or snorting is also much less addictive than injection. Estimates of the numbers of American servicemen in Vietnam who regularly smoked heroin were as high as 85%. Less than 5% continued to use the drug when they returned home.

The impression of drug use, as portrayed by political establishments in America and the western world, portrays sad individuals hanging around street corners, girls pressed into prostitution to bankroll their habit, seedy pushers, and shoot-outs between rival street gangs over territory. This is the scenario projected by the political establishments to justify their “War on Drugs”.

It’s an accurate picture, but only for one portion of society.

The other side of the coin can be viewed on our television screens daily: well-to-do stars of film and TV, wealthy politicians and their entourages, successful business people, lawyers, doctors, lobbyists. Of course, not all of them use recreational drugs, but those that don’t are probably in the minority.

Only recently, footage was viewed on British television of the late Dodi Fayed (he of Princess Diana infamy) hosting a private party in a nightclub where around a hundred people danced wildly as cocaine powder showered over them from above. (Fayed is reputed to have spent $15,000 a week on cocaine for himself and his friends).

The unfortunate young prostitute, heroine-fueled by her pimp in return for renting her body to strangers, is a world away from the jet-setting rich and powerful of which Fayed was a member. Yet, both worlds obtain their supplies from the same illegal cartels the US is paying $1.7bn to have Phelipe Calderon push further south, away from America’s borders.

The only way to clean up Hillary Clinton’s self-confessed ‘mess’ is to legalize (not just de-criminalize) all recreational drugs and make them available in a similar manner to alcohol. Production would then become a legitimate business; taxes could be levied on the product (sufficient, it’s been calculated, to clear national deficits in a relatively short period of time), regulation would keep them out of childrens’ hands, the illegal cartels would find themselves out of business, and thousands of people will live to become old rather than die prematurely from a bullet through the brain.

The saddest part of the whole issue is that it’ll never happen.

Whenever the subject is raised we’re told there ‘isn’t the political will to legalize street drugs’. But, that lack of enthusiasm doesn’t emanate from ordinary Americans. It’s those at the top of society who don’t want it to happen. In fact, they’d much prefer it didn’t happen. Cost is not a factor in their lives, and quality of product is assured. Dodi Fayed was bankrolled by his father to the tune of $400,000 a month. If he spent $60,000 on cocaine, it still left $340,000 for the odd Ferrari, or whatever took his fancy.

And what did he, or any of his ilk, ever care about the skinny young kid shooting a $20 hit into her groin before meeting the next street client; or the Mexican mother shot through the back of the head as she hangs out her washing?

^{[1] “Hillary Clinton backs Mexico drug war” BBC, January 24th 2011}

Filed under: Why politicians snort a lot