POLITICAL CORRECTNESS - THE ANTITHESIS OF TRUTH AND HONESTY
by Lee Steese
| We have
spent quite some time over the past several years being
told that we must observe and practice "political
correctness" in order not to "offend"
myriad individuals, groups, and lifestyles. That we must
"understand" the circumstances surrounding an
act or statement and thereby allow it to stand. This is
supposedly our "duty". Having previously
written on the subject of honesty, I have no choice but
to raise my voice to vehemently and perhaps vociferously
object in the strongest of terms. Let us look at what is
expected of us in a statement such as this and some of
the situations which many insist that we must accept,
along with the obvious results. We have thousands of persons who are non-citizens entering our country by land, sea, and air every week on visas. Even more just flat out, plain old trespassing across our sovereign borders. Those on visas overstay their permissions. The ones who are just plain trespassing are to referrred to as being "undocumented" which connotes that it is not their fault that they are here illegally. As those who so insist explain it this was, in fact, an oversight on the part of those who provide such documentation that these persons are not yet in possession of the proper papers. It is my guess that those who refer to such as being "undocumented are suggesting that we should have such "documentation" ready for them so that they will not be "inconvenienced" in their efforts to break the law. The truth is that they have trespassed in direct violation of the laws of this country and should be returned to their country of origin even though it would "inconvenience" them. I am beginning to think that there are those who believe that the United States, being a nation of immigrants, should be stripped of its sovereignity. Just allow whatever and whoever to wander on in. Not many of even our own citizens are aware that the Constitution of our Country gives the Federal government only two duties. The first is the defense of our borders. The second is the security of the citizens residing therein. All else is left to the individual states. I believe that it is something called "States' Rights". Whatever, as I see it, this fact is totally ignored. Something to consider. Next is the case in Texas of a very young boy who killed two other boys. When the case was brought to court, the attorney for the defense postulated that because of the "culture" in which this child was forced to live (and I do not think that I must tell you just who it is that these selfsame apologists consider to be at fault that the kid is in such conditions), he suffered from "Urban Stress Syndrome" which was explained as follows: "Because of the culture in which the kid lives, he was totally stressed thereby and when he saw these other two children, he perceived that they were about to kill him so he killed them first." According to the apologists, we are supposed to understand this and let the kid off in a finding of "not guilty by reason of self defense". We consider the drug users whose arguments include "I'm not hurting anyone". "It's my body, I can do with it what I wish". And then my personal favorite, "It's bad law so I needn't obey it". So let me set the scene for ultimate sublimation of the law in the name of political correctness. We have an enclave of persons from some country. Doesn't matter which one. In their tradition in the country from which they emigrated, they practiced cannibalism. So does that mean that we should "understand" their "tradition" and allow it? Are we going to term the practice "anthropophagic syndrome" and in the name of "political correctness" ignore the fact that it flies in the face of every tenet and law of our own society? I shall leave that answer to the reader. I participated in a case many years ago. It was a case which was eventually heard in U.S. Federal Court in Los Angeles. The original charge was ninety three counts (93) of fraud, bribery of public officials, interstate flight to commit fraud and bribery, interstate flight to commit bribery and interstate flight to avoid prosecution The defendants were employees of an international export/import house along with the company itself. At one point the defendants' attorneys argued before the Court in pretrial motions that since the company was not a U.S. company, it was not, therefore, subject to U.S. law. And they were serious. They were of course set straight in short order by the judge, but to me the very fact that they would come up with such an argument and that their U.S. attorneys would set forth such an argument was and is ludicrous. Yet still, hopefully the reader is beginning to see the scope of the problem. If I have heard it once I have heard that aforementioned phrase a dozen, a hundred times. "That is a bad law". This while the person so saying is violating that law or, having violated it, is excusing their conduct. It is my contention that if one does not like a certain law, or considers it to be a bad law, then one should work to change the law. But suppose that everyone, instead of working to change the laws, merely avoided obeying it. Do we then say, "Well, yes, you think it is a bad law so we will excuse you from having to obey it. After all, we would never wish to inconvenience you in the living of your life." I contend that then we would have anarchy. But then I am considered by many to be "an old stick in the mud". As I see it, we have a choice, at least for the moment. Maintain the law we have or follow the path of "Pan et cerci" (Bread and circuses) which heralded the end of the Roman empire. The choice is still ours. At least momentarily. Opinion
Piece # 8 |