Note: I wrote this stuff earlier this year, but I neglected to post it. So while it is still relevant, the dates are a bit old.
Okay, I was wrong. The rat bastard wing of the Democratic Party couldn't pull off their coup.
Last week, there was posted a message to the email list used by college and university loan offices. Here is how it went:
There has been a change in Webster's Dictionary. Kweisi Mfume, President and CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), recently gave a speech at Virginia Tech. Everyone was informed that a landmark decision was made last week with the people at Merriam-Webster Dictionary. They have recognized the error of their ways. So, beginning with the next edition, the word nigger will no longer be synonymous with African-Americans. It shall be duly noted that it's a racial slur and not what African-Americans themselves are. Along with this, all racial and religious slurs will finally be indicated for what they really are-cruel and evil slurs too often used to degrade people. Please pass this information on to others. This change should serve notice to people, corporations, etc., that when individuals stick together to right a wrong, a change is gonna come. This wasn't just a victory for African-Americans, but for everyone.
Okay, three things. 1) This is the first I've heard of this and it seems like just one of those stupid messages that people email to one another to brighten their day. (And by the way, if any of you are thinking of sending me these little rays of sunshine, don't!) B) This message had absolutely no business being posted to the group. It is used for business related issues. And third, what a load of bollocks it is to begin with. It's the same kind of liberal touchy-feely symbolism over substance crap we're constantly subjected to. Rewriting definitions in the dictionary is going to change the world? It would mean absolutely nothing in reality. Racists will not stop using the word. Will Senator Robert Byrd, a former Klansman, stop using the word? Real discrimination will not cease. By real discrimination, I don't mean the kind of conjuring that the race whores (Jackson, Sharpton, et.al.) do. Like the flap about the Confederate battle flag. Whoopee, let's fight a flag instead of actually focussing on ideas to better the lives of people and give hope and direction to those without. How do people learn to use these words? I doubt little Jimmy is sitting in the library reading the dictionary and comes across "nigger" and thinks to himself. "Gee willikers, I'm going to start using that word when I talk about black people!" Webster's definition has no bearing on the poor folks stuck on the slave plantation called public housing and government assistance. It would make no inroads into changing the hearts of bigots. "But, Jeff, what's wrong with doing it? It can't hurt." No, it doesn't hurt, it just does nothing. By the way, why does the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People still call itself that? If I called someone a colored person, he'd look at me like I was crazy. Why not NAAAA, National Association for the Advancement of African-Americans? Naaaaaah.
Final note: I responded to the list sarcastically, "Thank God for that. Now all the world's problems are solved." I got a message from someone at a school in Louisiana who asked what I meant by the little comment I made, I would assume in an accusatory tone. I think she thought she found a budding racist or something and wanted to confront me. I responded with several of the above comments. I was sorry to disappoint her in her search for the next David Duke or Robert Byrd.
And another thing ...
Is there any wonder why Fox News Channel is kicking the cumulative ass of every other cable news network? Does anyone still not realize that network news organizations are becoming less influential? This morning I caught a little bit of a program on MSNBC about children and gun violence. They took a week (probably a well chosen week) and counted the instances when young people were fatal victims of gun violence. It seemed to be an old program, probably originally airing on Dateline or something. Of course after this week of school shootings, some brainiac at MSNBC thought it would be an important piece of journalism (aka propaganda) to replay. I struggled to watch it, changing channels to something else constantly, but returning frequently to get my fill of anger. Before each little story, they would segue with a close-up shot of a gun turning toward the viewers until we were looking directly down the barrel on a pistol. Obviously a tactic to scare the begeezes out of poor frightened soccer moms who cannot think with a shred of logic. One of the deaths was ridiculous. There was a white-trash woman in Texas who had taken shots at her ex-husband on two occasions. The first time she was not even charged with anything by the police. So much for enforcing the law. The second time she was charged with aggravated assault, but was pled down to a $45 fine. So much for our criminal justice system. There was later a custody dispute between the parents and the judge decreed that the father was to get custody. (In the light of the what I've told you so far, a pretty good decision.) She told her sister that the boy wouldn't see Monday. The woman's sister frantically called authorities, but not soon enough. The mother shot her son in the head. (Side note: She called the boy Rebel. I missed if that was his given name or a nickname, but how redneck can you get?) Anyway, this is a terrible tragedy. But did it need to be an instance of gun violence? She could have killed her young child in any of a number of ways. She chose to shoot him. If she didn't have a gun, does anyone think she still wouldn't have murdered the boy? But never let the facts get in the way of a good sensational story. Given the recent round of school shootings, expect this kind of "well-intentioned" hysteria to spike yet again.
You want to know the real reasons for school shootings? Apathetic self-involved parents, a culture of violence and a lack of societal morality. We've raised an entire generation of bad people. Why? Because their parents plopped them down in front of the electronic babysitter called television, dropped them off at the daycare as soon as it was possible for mom to go back to work, and generally provided no family structure and boundaries for mommy and daddy's little inconvenience.
And another thing ...