CRIPPLED, UGLY AND STUPID
In an earlier book, Brain Droppings, I wrote some things about politically correct language, but left out a few areas. I neglected three important groups of people who have had this awkward, dishonest language inflicted on them by liberals: I omitted those who are crippled, ugly or stupid. And so, to address these earlier omissions, I’d like to make a brief return visit to that playground of guilty white liberals: political correctness.
Political correctness is America’s newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people’s language with strict codes and rigid rules. I’m not sure that’s the way to fight discrimination. I’m not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.
Therefore, those among you who are more politically sensitive than the rest of us may wish to take a moment here to tighten up those sphincter muscles, because I’m going to inject a little realism into the dream world of politically correct speech. Especially the words we use to describe one another.
CRIPPLED LIBERALS
Perhaps you’ve noticed that when the politically correct, liberal rule-makers decide to rename a group of humans they view as victims, they begin by imparting a sense of shame to the group’s existing name. And so, somewhere over the years, the word cripple has been discarded. No one mentions cripples anymore. That’s because, in yet another stunning attempt to stand reality on its head, cripples have been assigned a new designation, the physically challenged. The use of physically challenged is an obvious attempt to make people feel better, the idea being, “As long as we can’t cure these people, let’s give their condition a more positive name, and maybe it will distract everyone.” It’s verbal sleight of hand.
The same is true of the ungainly phrase differently abled. I believe that if a person is going to insist on using tortured language such as differently abled, then he should be forced to use it to describe everyone. We’re all differently abled. You can do things I can’t do, I can do things you can’t do. Barry Bonds can’t play the cello, Yo-Yo Ma can’t hit the curveball. They’re differently abled.
It should be explained to liberals—patiently—that crippled people don’t require some heroic designation; it’s a perfectly honorable condition. It appears in the Bible: “Jesus healed the cripples.” He didn’t engage in rehabilitative strategies to improve the conditions of the physically disadvantaged. Can’t these liberals hear how unattractive this language is? How poorly it sits on the ear? Personally, I prefer plain, descriptive language.
For instance—and this is a suggestion that will bother some, but I’m serious about it—why don’t we just call handicapped people defective? We don’t mind talking about birth defects; we don’t flinch from that. We say, “Gunther has a birth defect.” Isn’t that a concession to the fact that people can be defective? Then what would be wrong with calling those people the physically defective? At what point in life does a person with a birth defect become a person who is differently abled? And why does it happen? I’m confused.
UGLY LANGUAGE
Then there are those who don’t quite measure up to society’s accepted standards of physical attractiveness. The worst of that group are called ugly. Or at least they used to be. The P.C. lingo cops have been working on this, too.
And to demonstrate how far all this politically correct, evasive language has gone, some psychologists are actually now referring to ugly people as “those with severe appearance deficits.” Okay? Severe appearance deficits. So tell me, psychologist, how well does that sort of language qualify for “being in denial”? These allegedly well-intentioned people have strayed so far from reality that it will not be a surprise for me to someday hear a rape victim referred to as an unwilling sperm recipient.
Back to ugly. Regarding people’s appearance, the political-language police already have in place one comically distorted term: lookism. They say that when you judge a person, or rather, size them up (wouldn’t want to judge someone; that would be judgmental) if you take their looks into account, you’re guilty of lookism. You’re a lookist.
And those valiant people who fight lookism (many of them unattractive themselves) tell us that one problem is that in our society, those who get to be called beautiful and those who are called ugly are determined by standards arbitrarily set by us. Somehow, there is some fault attached to the idea that we, the people, are the ones who set the standards of beauty. Well, we’re the ones who have to look at one another, so why shouldn’t we be the ones who set the standards? I’m confused. I would say the whole thing was stupid, but that’s my next topic, and it would sound like a cheap transition.
STUPID PEOPLE
So, stupid. It’s important to face one thing about stupidity: We can’t get away from it. It’s all around us. It doesn’t take a team of professional investigators to discover that there are stupid people in the world. Their presence (and its effects) speaks for itself.
But where do these stupid people come from? Well, they come from American schools. But while they’re attending these schools, they’re never identified as stupid. That comes later, when they grow up. When they’re kids, you can’t call them stupid. Which may be contributing to the problem. Unfortunately, kids, stupid or otherwise, come under a sort of protective umbrella we’ve established that prevents them from being exposed to the real world until, at eighteen, their parents spring them on the rest of us, full grown.
There are stupid kids. And I do wish to be careful here how I negotiate the minefield of the learning disabled and the developmentally disadvantaged—in other words, “those with special needs.” (All of these being more examples of this tiresome and ridiculous language.) I just want to talk about kids who are stupid; not the ones with dings.
One of the terms now used to describe these stupid kids is minimally exceptional. Can you handle that? Minimally exceptional? Whatever happened to the old, reliable explanation, “The boy is slow”? Was that so bad? Really? “The boy is slow. Some of the other children are quick; they think quickly. Not this boy. He’s slow.” It seems humane enough to me. But no. He’s minimally exceptional.
How would you like to be told that about your child? “He’s minimally exceptional.” “Oh, thank God for that! We thought he was just kind of, I don’t know, slow. But minimally exceptional! Wow! Wait’ll I tell our friends.”
Political correctness cripples discourse, creates ugly language and is generally stupid.
I haven’t quite finished this section. (I’m sure I needn’t remind you P.C. people that “The opera isn’t concluded until the full-figured woman offers her vocal rendering.”) I know. I really had to strain to get that in. I’m thoroughly ashamed.
But before I leave this section, I wanted to make the point that, on a practical level, this language renders completely useless at least one perfectly good expression: “In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king” becomes “In the kingdom of the visually impaired, the partially-sighted person is fully empowered.” Sad, isn’t it?
LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION
I’ve noticed that when people speak these days, location seems important to them; and one location in particular: there. They say such things as don’t go there; been there, done that; and you were never there for me.
They don’t say much about here. If they do mention here, they usually say, “I’m outta here.” Which is really an indirect way of mentioning there, because, if they’re outta here, then they must be going there, even though they were specifically warned not to. It seems to me that here and there present an important problem because, when you get right down to it, those are the only two places we have. Which, of course, is really neither here nor there.
So, let’s first talk about don’t go there. As we all know—painfully, by now—when you mention something someone thinks you shouldn’t go into a
ny further, they say, “Don’t go there.” What they fail to realize, of course, is that, technically, by the time they’ve told you not to go there, it’s too late. You’re already there, because you’ve already mentioned whatever it is they’re uncomfortable with. At a time like that, what they should be saying is, “Don’t stay there.” Or, at the very least, “Please hurry back.” Sort of like “Wish you were here.”
The only time I would tell someone “Don’t go there” is if they told me they were planning a trip to Iraq. If someone said, “We’re going on our honeymoon to Fallujah,” I would immediately say, “Don’t go there.”
By the way, when one of those TV newsmen on MSNBC recently tried to get his co-anchor lady to react to some juicy celebrity rumor, she said to him, “I am so not going there.” And I thought, “Why am I allowing a person like this to bring me the news?”
BEING AND DOING
Another phrase I don’t care for is been there, done that. I, personally, am not so cocky. I prefer the modest approach. Instead of “Been there, done that,” I will usually say, “Been nearby, done something similar.” And by the way, most people don’t seem to know the complete expression. I heard Drew Barrymore say it on The Tonight Show: “Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.” It’s a little smarter and it hasn’t been overused yet.
WHERE WERE YOU?
Staying with this subject of location, when someone is ending a long-term relationship, quite often they’ll tell the other party, “You were never there for me.” Here, again, what they may be forgetting is that possibly at some time in the past they had told that very same person, “Don’t go there.” So how can they blame the person for not being there when they themselves had issued specific instructions not to go there in the first place? It seems unfair.
SO MOVE!
Additionally, many people who are ending relationships use another bothersome phrase: moving on. They’ll say, “I found Steve in bed with a carnival worker and they were doing unpleasant things to a chipmunk. So I’m moving on.” And I think to myself, “Actually, Steve sounds more like the one who’s moving on.”
Or they might say, “I’m leaving Armando. He beat me up yesterday in the frozen-food section of the supermarket. He struck me in the head repeatedly with a Stouffer’s Lean Cuisine. I believe it was the Chicken Cordon Bleu. I’m moving on.” Occasionally, I get impatient with these people. When they tell me they’re moving on, I look at my watch and say, “Well, isn’t it about time you got started? No sense standing around here, talking to me, when you could be out there . . . moving on.”
I don’t know, I guess it all works out, because when I run into the same person a few months later, they usually say, “I’m in a whole different place now.” And I don’t think they’re referring to Pittsburgh.
KNOW YOUR PLACE
And by the way, speaking of geographic locations, why is San Francisco always said to be in the Bay Area, while Saudi Arabia is in the Gulf Region? Is a region really bigger than an area? And what about a belt? How big is a belt? The Bible Belt is bigger than the Borscht Belt. Maybe that’s because there are more Christians than Jews. But that doesn’t explain the Rust Belt. In the last several decades, a good deal of the U.S. population has moved from the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt. People changed belts. By the way, part of the Sun Belt runs right through the Bible Belt. That must be confusing.
ZONING OUT
And let’s not forget zones, especially war zones. The media like that phrase. If there’s any kind of explosion at all, even a small gas heater, they’ll say, “The living room looked like a war zone.” Most of the time it’s an overstatement. Because when you get right down to it, the only thing that looks like a war zone is a combat area.
Then there’s the opposite of a war zone: a demilitarized zone. Korea has one of those, separating the North and South. A demilitarized zone sounds like a good idea, but I’ve noticed that wherever they have a demilitarized zone, there are always a lot of soldiers nearby. I guess that’s in case the demilitarized zone suddenly becomes a combat area.
Now, the Gulf Region has been both a war zone and a combat area. That’s because there were some countries who wanted to expand their spheres of influence. And also because of the big oil companies, who, of course, are in the private sector. The private sector is quite different from the public arena. Dick Cheney was in the private sector, then he moved to the public arena. Although many of his acts in the public arena have benefited his interests in the private sector.
Getting back a little closer to my own experience, on a recent visit to my hometown, New York City, I was walking through the area that we used to call the Garment District. I noticed that the local trade association now wanted people to call it the Fashion Center. Not everyone wanted that, just the ones who would like to raise the rents. Fashion Center is another example of how desperately people feel the need to upgrade themselves; they just want to feel better. They want to expand their comfort zones.
Your comfort zone is not the same as your zone of privacy. A few years ago, when the press was hounding Congressman Gary Condit about Chandra Levy’s disappearance, he asked them to please grant him a zone of privacy. But of course, they couldn’t do that. Because Gary Condit was in the public arena.
As I wind up our little journey through Location Land, I regret not getting to one other place: where. And if you wonder where I’m going with this, it’s because you don’t know where I’m coming from. Or maybe you simply don’t know where it’s at. Either way, I’m leaving now. I need my space.
POLITICIAN TALK #1: Term Limits
When people mention term limits to me, I usually tell them the only politicians’ terms I would like to limit are the ones they use when speaking. They have an annoying language of their own.
And I understand it’s necessary for them to speak this way, because I know how important it is that, as they speak, they not inadvertently say something. And according to the politicians themselves, they don’t say things, they indicate them: “As I indicated yesterday, and as I indicated to the president...”
And when they’re not indicating, they’re suggesting: “The president has suggested to me that as I indicated yesterday...” Sometimes instead of indicating or suggesting, they’re outlining or pointing things out: “The president outlined his plan to me, and, in doing so, he pointed out that he has not yet determined his position.”
Politicians don’t decide things, they determine them. Or they make judgments. That’s more serious: “When the hearings conclude, I will make a judgment. Or I may simply give you my assessment. I don’t know yet, I haven’t determined that. But when I do, I will advise the president.”
They don’t tell, they advise; they don’t answer, they respond; they don’t read, they review; they don’t form opinions, they determine positions; and they don’t give advice, they make recommendations. “I advised the president that I will not make a judgment until he has given me his assessment. Thus far, he hasn’t responded. Once he responds to my initiative, I will review his response, determine my position, and make my recommendations.”
And so it is, at long last, that after each has responded to the other’s initiatives, and after they have reviewed their responses, made their judgments, determined their positions and offered their recommendations, they begin to approach the terrifying possibility that they now may actually be required to do something.
Of course, that would be far too simple, so rather than doing something, they address the problem: “We’re addressing the problem, and we will soon proceed to take action.”
Those are big activities in Washington: proceeding and taking action. But you may have noticed that, as they proceed, they don’t always take action; sometimes they simply move forward. Moving forward is another one of their big activities.
“We’re moving forward . . . with respect to Social Security.” With respect to is lawyer talk; it makes things sound more important and complicated. So they’re not moving forward on Soci
al Security, they’re moving forward with respect to Social Security. But at least they’re moving forward. To help visualize this forward motion, you may wish to picture the blistering pace of the land tortoise.
Now, sometimes when they themselves are not moving forward, they’re moving something else forward. Namely, the process: “We’re moving the process forward so we can implement the provisions of the initiative.” Implement means put into effect, and an initiative is similar to a proposal. It’s not quite a measure yet, but there’s a possibility it may become a resolution.
Now, one may ask, “Why do we need all these initiatives, proposals, measures and resolutions?” Well, folks, it should be obvious by now: We need them in order to meet today’s challenges. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, our country no longer has problems; instead we face challenges. We’re always facing challenges. That’s why we need people who can make the tough decisions. Tough decisions like: “How much money can I raise in exchange for my integrity, so I can be reelected and continue to work in government?”
Of course, no self-respecting politician would ever admit to working in government; they prefer to think of themselves as serving the nation. This is one of the more grotesque distortions to come out of Washington. They say, “I’m serving the nation,” and they characterize their work as public service.
To help visualize this service they provide, you may wish to picture the activities that take place on a stud farm.
When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops? Page 7