Tom Whore (
Thu, 6 Aug 1998 18:03:40 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Lisa Lippert (Dusseault) (Exchange) wrote:

> I don't understand your points at all.

Not a one of em? Yowzers, thats a record:)-

> I am not for all "PC" causes. Are you against all "PC" causes? Some are
> baby, some are bath water -- unless you are circularly defining PC causes as
> the bathwater rather than what are commonly labelled as PC causes.

I am not for things with "" around them. I am for what I tihink is fair
and just and right, not what some set guide f fashion tips, hip poltico
posturing or otherwise fabricated formulations of ""fon deem is fair just
and right.

I am pretty much against the process of not thinking for yourself. for me,
and this is totaly personal, Why your are not a racists is almost as
important as not being a racists.

Have you thought it out? Did your favorite Film Star come down in a dream
and tell you it wasnt cool any more? What are the implecations of your
thoughts? How will your life alter to suit your new ideas?

Action without thought is dangerous. The outcome may or may not wind up
being for the greater good, but given a choice wouldnt you rather things
be thought out in a manner less of POLITCAL CORRECTNESS and more from a
sense of the holostic nature of our society?

Lets cut to a a quick chase here with an example..Affrimative Action. A
great Idea with some realy LOUSY side effects and when applied in the real
world is preety much a train wreck. Did anyone think out beyind the
rehtoric and the campaing promises? Did the sommunities involved have much
a say in it either way? Where did all the power move towards?

In NYC there grew from AA plans some amazingly corupt individuals, some
disgsuting practies enacted and some blatant racism done in the name of
fighting racism.

Yes, there was and is still a need to reproportion the need and the want
of some commuities and cultures to meet the demands of a market place
begging for talented workers. But AA was more an excerise in HOW NOT to go
about it.

> You treat efforts to remove legislated or entrenched practices of
> disriminating against minorities with the same brush as adding legislation
> of discriminating for minorities. These are not the same thing. Nobody in
> this discussion is advocating the latter.

Flip sides of the same coin. And when your simpy tossing the coin in the
air and letting the air blow the outcome, you might just get the side you
least wanted. American today is more about apatheicly toosing the coin in
the air and letting other forces do the deciding.

> I don't understand the emails that seem to claim that anybody is asking for
> special status. Who is asking for special status?

Speical status? hmm

Ok heres an example..TB..terberculosis...was, and I think still is, one of
the things that can get you tunred back from entering this country. The
thought was that in order keep the country from being hit with major
infections they would be contained. Now , becuase of legisaltion and much
chest beating about all things right and correct, various other infections
and dieases are let into the country. Becuase this other dieases has a
Lobby and a Movement in its favor the laws and regulations about infection
were bypassed.

Here is an example of the Status of something being given a Special
Dispensation because of legislation.

Is it right? Is it worng?

What are the implications for letting these folks in versus not letting
them in? Do we now HAve to drop all exclusion for dieases? If not what
makes this ONE more important over another?

(my personal views on this are mixed, having had freinds offed by aids. I
would rather not see a blanket expection made, rather a case by case
decission made)

Special status, Its wahat is at least half of what empowers the poltics of
the world.