Hooray for Andy Rooney

[JSMDMD]

Re: Re: This post is offensive.

With equal respect - I don't understand what you find offensive - other than the single reference to Boy/Girl scouts I see no other race, gender or sexual orientation bias - there is certainly a stronger message favoring personal freedoms, equality & tolerance over- all and aside from the boy/girl scout debate (which is more common sense than sexual bias) actually decries any form of prejudice, the way I read it.
So, unless you are a girl who wants to be in the boy scouts (which I doubt applies to any member of this forum) I fail to see the point of your disdain.
I don't care who wrote it either, I find a lot of merit in the statements.

What I and many others find offensive about this passage is that by using subtle twists of language and inuendo, the author and every person who agrees with it contend that:
1. All government assistance programs are directed toward promiscuous drug addicted females.

Most in fact help single females with children, whose fathers ( mainly white males) have abandoned them.

2. Guns don't kill anyone.

In fact, most homicides in this country are committed with guns, not baseball bats or cars. Owning a handgun is not a God given right. Like it or not, in countries with strict gun control laws, homicides are a fraction of what they are here.

3. Organizations such at the United Negro College Fund are by their nature inherently discriminatory.

In fact, organizations such as these were established because of the need to help those who are members of minority groups. That help was not forthcoming from other groups comprised mainly of white christian males.

4. You have the right to not be tolerant of others who are not like you.

That is true, but fortunately for all of the rest of us, there are now laws that protect our rights as well.

5. English only in America. Immigrants are not entitled to any aid, grants, or assistance.

Last time I checked, this country was built by immigrants. Unless your family is Native American, even your family was once an immigrant here. Would you have liked this directed towards them?

6. Hitting children is acceptable behavior.

Most experts agree that it isn't, and in fact is an example of the parent losing control rather than the child.

7. There is no such thing as an African-American, Asian-American, etc.

If people wish to identify themselves with reference to their land of origin, what should it matter to you? Perhaps we have gotten tired of being called all sorts of other expletives with regards to our heritage.

8. If you don't like this point of view, tough.

In fact I don't. But thank goodness that we live in the good old USA, where even opinions like yours can be voiced.


I thought it ironic that for the past few nights The Rise of Hitler was aired on CBS. If anything it illustrated why racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, and sexist comments and ideas must be challenged before it is too late.

 

[Jonathan]

Just because I enjoy a good debate/discussion

It is all how you interpret it...

Originally posted by JSMDMD
1. All government assistance programs are directed toward promiscuous drug addicted females.

==> It does not say all, but uses an extreme example of one. Tell me that drug addicts that continue to have children and somehow fund their habits are not receiving any government aid at any time in this country, and you have a point.

2. Guns don't kill anyone.

==> They don't, hate and ignorance do. If I were to hand you a gun, would you go kill someone with it? Guns may make it easier to kill people, but those people who are looking to kill someone will not give up because they have no gun. Just like not everyone with a gun is out killing people right now. The majority of the most prolific killers in our history did not use guns to do so.

3. Organizations such at the United Negro College Fund are by their nature inherently discriminatory.

==> These organizations were certainly created to provide assistance where there wasn't any, but the real resolution is to try to open the eyes and arms of the foundations to be more accepting, not create another discriminatory program. You cannot argue that these organizations are not discriminatory, things are either equal, or they aren't. If having your own discriminatory organization makes the other one's ok, then perhaps you have a point.

4. You have the right to not be tolerant of others who are not like you.

==> I agree, yes you do have the right, within the limits of the law. There are a lot of things I do not tolerate, none of them result in any harm to any specific group or groups of people, in fact, when my lack of tolerance does apply to people, it is certainly possible that they are like me

5. English only in America. Immigrants are not entitled to any aid, grants, or assistance.

==> The point is well made here, nearly everyone is a descendant of some form of immigration in this country, we are fortunate that so many of us do speak English so we can learn something from everyone, even if it means a new language.

6. Hitting children is acceptable behavior.

==> The article talks about a pat on the behind, and telling a child "no". I see too many parents counting to 100 for their children to put down the powersaw not to agree with a cry for more attentive and active parenting, even if it means a stern scolding, it does not have to be a beating.

7. There is no such thing as an African-American, Asian-American, etc.

==> Agreed, if any group feels better identifying with their place of origin, who does this hurt? Nobody. If I wanted to be a German-American, or a Norweigen American, good for me, however I wouldn't expect other people to care a great deal about my decision.

8. If you don't like this point of view, tough.

==> I suppose that could be said about everyone's point of view.

 

[D'Ecosse]

Re: Re: Re: This post is offensive.

What I and many others find offensive about this passage is that by using subtle twists of language and inuendo, the author and every person who agrees with it contend that:
1. All government assistance programs are directed toward promiscuous drug addicted females.

Most in fact help single females with children, whose fathers ( mainly white males) have abandoned them.

It nowhere states that All gov. assist programs are "directed toward promiscuous drug addicted females" - this is not a reflection on government aid in general, more that the author feels strongly against supporting that particular cause, or actually, more specifically to the quote, to bleeding-heart-liberals who support such "causes"

2. Guns don't kill anyone.

In fact, most homicides in this country are committed with guns, not baseball bats or cars. Owning a handgun is not a God given right. Like it or not, in countries with strict gun control laws, homicides are a fraction of what they are here.

This is a blatant mis-quote - it does not state "guns don't kill anyone" - it states that "guns do not make you a a killer" - that is hardly the same thing now, is it? Also, whether or not it is a "God-given" right may depend on who your God is? However it IS a constitutional right. (I am by no means a gun advocate - I don't personally agree with gun-toting advocates, however that has nothing to do with the author's statement, which plain & simply states that owning a gun does not make you a killer)

3. Organizations such at the United Negro College Fund are by their nature inherently discriminatory.

In fact, organizations such as these were established because of the need to help those who are members of minority groups. That help was not forthcoming from other groups comprised mainly of white christian males.

You got this one quite correct - yes, they are discriminatory & the counter-point that white/caucasian similarly designated charities or funds would be instantly decried sums it up completely for me. A minority cause makes it no less discriminatory in my book. It does not mean those charities are not deserving entities - I like to use the judgement rule of "do unto others ......" The examples quoted don't really pass the test do they? That I believe is the author's point.
Similarly I abhor the concept of affirmative action & quotas in colleges - I believe you should get there on merit, regardless of race, gender or sexual preference or being the right shape or color. I think it is an affront to any "minority" to be included "to make up the numbers". Now, if those quotas are the only means of removing bent caused by prejudice, then surely that only encourages it, being prejudicial in itself? Surely we must strive to remove the heart of the prejudice, rather than work around it this way?

4. You have the right to not be tolerant of others who are not like you.

That is true, but fortunately for all of the rest of us, there are now laws that protect our rights as well.

This one certainly open for debate - it depends on the author's definition of "tolerant" - Merriam-Webster defines tolerance as "capacity to endure pain or hardship" - that may not be possible for some people. The delineating factor is whether lack of tolerance provokes some affirmative counter-action or simply means, "I don't have to listen to this if I don't want to" Popularly, lack of tolerance infers that intolerance leads to such assertive rather than passive rejection, however that is not necessarily the case here.

5. English only in America. Immigrants are not entitled to any aid, grants, or assistance.

Last time I checked, this country was built by immigrants. Unless your family is Native American, even your family was once an immigrant here. Would you have liked this directed towards them?

Again, blatant misquote - author does not state that Immmigrants are not entitled to any aid, grants or assistance - author actually states that "just because you were not born in this country, you are qualified for any special loan programs, government sponsored bank loans or tax breaks, etc."

6. Hitting children is acceptable behavior.

Most experts agree that it isn't, and in fact is an example of the parent losing control rather than the child.

The way you phrase this makes it sound like people go around smacking their kids around for fun - Losing control is an extreme - I don't think the author is advocating child abuse.
I personally don't think a controlled spank on the butt is a major sin: There are clearly better ways to discipline however.

7. There is no such thing as an African-American, Asian-American, etc.

If people wish to identify themselves with reference to their land of origin, what should it matter to you? Perhaps we have gotten tired of being called all sorts of other expletives with regards to our heritage.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with retaining one's heritage - I am proud to be Scottish.

8. If you don't like this point of view, tough.

In fact I don't. But thank goodness that we live in the good old USA, where even opinions like yours can be voiced.

Amen to that, brother! One thing that makes this country great - a glimpse into "how the other half lives" makes us truly appreciate our freedoms

I thought it ironic that for the past few nights The Rise of Hitler was aired on CBS. If anything it illustrated why racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, and sexist comments and ideas must be challenged before it is too late.

That is beyond question - if you are suggesting that the ideals professed in that article are similar to those professed by Hitler, that is an extremist view in itself I'm afraid.

 

[JSMDMD]

Re: Re: Re: Re: This post is offensive.

Originally posted by D'Ecosse:
That is beyond question - if you are suggesting that the ideals professed in that article are similar to those professed by Hitler, that is an extremist view in itself I'm afraid.

The racist, homophobic, xenophobic ideals professed in this article would be happily endorsed by any number of hate groups, including Nazis. I would hardly call that an extremist opinion. Read websites such as the one provided by the ADL for many examples of this.

You can dress it up all you want. Prejudice is prejudice and discrimination is discrimination, no matter who professes it, for whatever reason.

You can rationalize it all you want. You can try to disguise it with semantics, or clever catch phrases intended to inflame the passions of prejudice that unfortunately lie just below the surface in many peoples hearts.

At the end of the day, hopefully, acceptance and inclusion will win over hate and exclusion.

One can only hope.

 

[len3.8]

. It's already been said with better terminology. so I take mine off.
Sorry Lud

 

[len3.8]

Awh the heck with it. Though the article itself is what some would term as offensive. It is also eye opening. Ken, Nick and others have realized that and tried to explain it. It is amazing that people can read this and not see the true intent. I have seen this on at least 3 car boards and I already know what the outcome may be, the only twist is that this board is different from the other boards, due to a larger Asian participation. A smaller African American, A few European , and some of the Northern Freinds. Sorry if I left anyone out. Dialouge is good, luckily this board has a few people on it that can actually carry on a healthy dialouge without getting real ignorant. This could have been written by anyone, including a person described as a minority to illicit reaction. I have come to realize that a majority of people don't think like this, just enough to keep it alive and pass it on. Growing up being told that people think like this does not help either. So the situation is supported by both sides. Some people want this cycle to go on, and it very well may for a long time to come. All I know is that the world would be much easier to deal with/in , if people would try to listen to others interpretation of them. Then simply explain what they really mean. The issues of this long statement goes back to racism, it is lightly masked with rights, freedom of speech and thought, ect. ect. The true content is about racism. What I want to know is what did any one race do that would make it so hated by another? I have asked that question since I was a kid and noone can answer it. Is it that scary to look at someone that looks differently than yourself? Eats differently? chooses to look at life differently? Or is it really I want it all and I am too stupid to realize that there is more than enough to go around? Education, people please go to a school in a economically challenged city, then go to one in a affluent city. Look at the curriculums, the quality of education, the lack of books, then you talk to me about quotas and merit. Yes you can dismiss the years and years of this conditioning to sway your argument. You can call people lazy, some have given up, you can do what so many others have done and look away. The old I got mine so I don't give a damn. The problem is so complex to those that are willing to view it with blinders. I have been invited to lynching parties at the young ages of 10 and 16, I was the guest of honor. It is good to see that some people are seeing through the BS and speaking up. Keep it coming, it just makes people all the wiser, inadequacies come to light and those that were in the grace fall. That is what they are afraid of. I can honestly say that after a couple of posts last year, I was scared to go to any NSX event. After meeting the guys in my area, I will roll with them anytime. There are a couple of you on here that have surprised me and there are a few that haven't. The truth is this is reality. I am not going to blatantly attack anyone, I will just do it on merit.
sorry for the rant and bouncing all over the place. I hope at least a few of my points came out. I will come back to this after I can truly focus. Thanks for the wake up and focus this morning. I am going to go out and take more business from someone that absolutely hates me because I am different.
Sorry about the grammar, my 6th grade teacher told me I was going to be a Janitor.
Len

 

[NSX Prime]

Re: Re: Re: This post is offensive.

2. Guns don't kill anyone.

In fact, most homicides in this country are committed with guns, not baseball bats or cars. Owning a handgun is not a God given right. Like it or not, in countries with strict gun control laws, homicides are a fraction of what they are here.

Vermont for example? The only state with no regulation on concealment and carrying of weapons. How high is their homicide rate per capita compared to somewhere with VERY strict laws on who can carry....such as DC? When the criminals know the "good" guy won't have a gun, they are more apt to commit crimes. If I was the "bad" guy, Vermont is the LAST place I would think of going, because everyone and their grandmother likely is carrying a gun.

Homicides are committed by guns here because they're easy to obtain, and easy to use. If they weren't? People would still kill, but it would be with other weapons.

SR

 

[JSMDMD]

Vermont...

So now any nitwit or half brain who can sign a form and pay the fee can carry a concealed weapon in Vermont.
Now, that really makes me feel much safer.
Remind me to stay on this side of the country.

 

[Autophile]

Re: Re: Re: Re: This post is offensive.

Vermont for example? The only state with no regulation on concealment and carrying of weapons. How high is their homicide rate per capita compared to somewhere with VERY strict laws on who can carry....such as DC? When the criminals know the "good" guy won't have a gun, they are more apt to commit crimes. If I was the "bad" guy, Vermont is the LAST place I would think of going, because everyone and their grandmother likely is carrying a gun.

SR

Good point.

I respect guns, I own guns, and I have never had an inclination to use my guns against anyone else (but I would certainly use them in self defense). I appreciate guns in the same fashion that I do my NSX, i.e., well crafted pieces of engineering, not tools of destruction.

I have a question. Whatever happened to the notion of self-accountability? Is the new-world Utopia a world where I have no rights to think for myself? Living in a rubber bubble where I could not think or move under my own direction, in the hopes that I do not harm myself or anyone else? Blech!

For the record, I did not find the article offensive. I thought it was a refreshing view point actually. I am not a racist, just a believer in equality and self respect.

Btw, the primary people we need to be worried about are the people who DON'T register for concealment in Vermont. The people who don't register don't want to be on the record books (i.e., criminals). Any respectable person understands and follows the law.

 

[JSMDMD]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This post is offensive.

I have a question. Whatever happened to the notion of self-accountability? Is the new-world Utopia a world where I have no rights to think for myself? Living in a rubber bubble where I could not think or move under my own direction, in the hopes that I do not harm myself or anyone else? Blech!

Some might consider what you are espousing anarchy. History has shown that that doesn't work very well.

For the record, I did not find the article offensive. I thought it was a refreshing view point actually. I am not a racist, just a believer in equality and self respect.

I too am a believer in equality and self respect. The article speaks to neither. Rather, it is racist, homophobic, and mysogynistic.

Perhaps the meaning is clearer to people who are members of a minority group.

 

[Tom Larkins]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This post is offensive.

Some might consider what you are espousing anarchy. History has shown that that doesn't work very well.

Can you explain what you mean with this statement in the context of accountability by ones self.

Thanks in advance.

 

[JSMDMD]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This post is offensive.

Can you explain what you mean with this statement in the context of accountability by ones self.

Thanks in advance.

Every person does not have the same perception of accoutability for a given event. In the absence of a system of laws systematically outlining right vs. wrong, anarchy will result.

For example, a thief does not feel accountable for the act of stealing. If he did, he would not steal in the first place. He feels somehow entitled to the money, and he therefore takes it. If he gets caught he will be held accountable, by other people, based on their perception of what is right and what is wrong.

In the same light, when ideals such as the ones espoused by the original article are not challenged, many individuals who subscribe to them feel that they will not be held accountable for their actions. They feel free to "take matters into their own hands". Taken to the extreme, entire nations can be consumed by this mentality.

History is replete with examples of this, from the genocide of the Armenians before WWI, to the genocide of the Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, and many Christians by the Nazis, to the attrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, to the lynchings in the South...... and the list goes on and on.

You and everyone else has the right to think what they want.
It is not their right to then take those thoughts and act on them at the expense of a particular minority group.

 

[Jonathan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This post is offensive.

Every person does not have the same perception of accoutability for a given event. In the absence of a system of laws systematically outlining right vs. wrong, anarchy will result.

For example, a thief does not feel accountable for the act of stealing. If he did, he would not steal in the first place. He feels somehow entitled to the money, and the therefore takes it. If he gets caught he will be held accountable, by other people, based on their perception of what is right and what is wrong.

In the same light, when ideals such as the ones espoused by the original article are not challenged, many individuals who subscribe to them feel that they will not be held accountable for their actions. They feel free to "take matters into their own hands". Taken to the extreme, entire nations can be consumed by this mentality.

History is replete with examples of this, from the genocide of the Armenians before WWI, to the genocide of the Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, and many Christians by the Nazis, to the attrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, to the lynchings in the South...... and the list goes on and on.

You and everyone else has the right to think what they want.
It is not their right to then take those thoughts and act on them at the expense of a particular minority group.

Wow. That is a remarkable leap.

 

[JSMDMD]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This post is offensive.

Wow. That is a remarkable leap.

How so? As I said... history is replete with examples...

 

[Jonathan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This post is offensive.

How so? As I said... history is replete with examples...

Of how you can go from "Whatever happened to the notion of self-accountability?" to multiple examples of genocide

 

[Russ]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This post is offensive.

For example, a thief does not feel accountable for the act of stealing. If he did, he would not steal in the first place. He feels somehow entitled to the money, and he therefore takes it

How does that square against the thief who does feel accountable, knows he is not entitled to the money, but decides the risk is worth the reward and steals anyway? Is there such a thing as noble or well-intentioned theft? What about Robin Hood, the classic metaphor for entitlements? Is that sort of stealing okay?

 

[nsxtasy]

This urban legend is apparently still making the rounds. The following article is from today's (August 22) Washington Post:

The Untruth Hurts, Even Online

By Keith R. Taylor
Friday, August 22, 2003; Page A21

"Hey, take it easy, Dipsey. It can't hurt." The admonition addressed to my screen name came back over the Internet. It was tweaking me for objecting to an urban legend. As usual my friend didn't originate the tale. Those things aren't originated. They just appear and they go on forever. It's like the proverbial snake that won't die until the sun goes down, except that an urban legend goes round and round the world, always ahead of the sunset.

This one was forwarded to me by an old Navy shipmate, a staunch conservative and a friend of 45 years. He is spending his golden years by forwarding me every right-wing e-mail that comes across his computer, and I'm spending mine by throwing a fit whenever he gets my goat.

I check the authenticity of his notes and, using the haughty smugness inherent in my liberalism (I call it enlightenment), refute those that are false. Just to make sure that justice prevails in this ideological war I even hit "reply to all." Thus they go to all those on his mail list, most of whom have the same ideological bent as my pal. I know many of them.

I stir up quite a hornet's nest with my fuzzy diatribes. Oh, well, I'm sure if one or the other of us get miffed we'll be able to patch things up at the annual Navy reunion most of us attend -- pretty sure anyhow.

This e-mail was attributed to Andy Rooney. The style was vaguely reminiscent of the curmudgeon, but the sentiments were closer to those of Rush Limbaugh. I sent a copy to Rooney at CBS and checked with an Internet site devoted to investigating urban legends. The Internet site tore the legend apart and Rooney threw a fit. I had enough proof to throw my own fit.

Back went a rebuttal telling "all" that they'd been had once again. From my high horse, I pointed out that the story was pure nonsense and that someone had done a true disservice to a couple of American institutions -- Rooney and the love of the truth. Well, Rooney anyhow. I suspect if we really loved the truth, urban legends wouldn't get very far.

The hornets started buzzing. You'd have thought I'd challenged their right to fly a huge American flag from the back of a pickup truck, or suggested that retired sailors avoid the military exchange system and pay sales taxes in order to support their state. Several sent a note to me insisting that my rejoinder (but apparently not the lie itself) was crap and I shouldn't send it. Almost every letter insisted that such e-mails can't hurt.

Ah, how much mischief has been done under the guise of "It can't hurt!" That makes me as nervous as a dentist's saying, "You might feel something." It can hurt. Not long before the last election I got an e-mail about Bill Clinton's impending trip to Vietnam and China. It claimed the "draft dodger" was going to steam into Vietnam on a Navy cruiser and require the captain to fly the Vietnamese flag over our own. Boy, that one hit my computer several times, each forwarded many times. Nobody along the line denied it, or even questioned it.

I went right to the top, the White House itself. An official spokesman was practically waiting for a request for information. He had a prepared statement ready. In harsh terms it branded the legend as a hoax. Clearly the White House felt a message trashing the president could hurt.

As usual I passed the information back to "all." Again, the responses came back, "Who cares? It won't hurt." One guy told me: "If it ain't true it should be." Those folks, most of whom were still steaming over Clinton's lie about sex, were willing to embrace a whopper as long as it reflected their viewpoint.

The case of Rooney's e-mail wouldn't influence an election of course; it merely reflected the originator's feelings. So, what did it hurt indeed? It hurt Rooney -- it was an attack on his credibility. and credibility is his most important asset.

Why don't we just stop spreading lies? Or, am I starting to sound like Andy Rooney?

The writer is a retired Navy officer. His e-mail address is [email protected]

© 2003 The Washington Post Company