I've been busy -- probably should be in rehab

So ... do you have to go to rehab too? Have you exercised your 1st Amendment rights once too often? Forgotten to take your PC pill? Well now there is a solution, just right for each us us and guaranteed to make you feel like yourself again: Liberalism.

Yessir, folks, just join us over in the Liberal camp and we will soon have you violating other people's rights, all the while loudly proclaiming the magic talismanic words, "hate speech!"

Ann Coulter did not need to stoop to implying that Edwards was a "faggot." She is really too competent for that. But she could not resist the double whammy of pointing out that Edwards is what many Americans would call a "faggot," while taking a swipe at the lunacy of our society where someone who says something inappropriate is deemed suitable for "rehab." Let's deal with the "faggot" first, then move on to "rehab."

Currently, faggot is a nasty word used to describe homosexuals. Formerly, it was a smallish bundle of wood used for lighting fires. It is also still used in parts of England and Wales to describe a type of pork product. "Fag" is a shortened version of faggot, but commonly in use in England as a word for cigarette, or the underclassman servant of a 6th former. To "fag" is to serve said 6th former. "Fag," as we know it in the U.S. is not used as a pejorative in other English speaking countries (apart from Canada -- and who knows about them, or cares).

To be a fag has in our PC world become to enter a protected class, not dissimilar from being black, female or latino. Under the constitution of the United States, however, being homosexual is not to be part of a protected class. Being part of a protected class is a result of being born that way in the sense of your skin being indelibly colored, or having two "X" chromosomes. And not related to sexual preference. That is the key distinction: homosexuality is about choice (not matter that one might feel born that way), being black is about pigmentation and is obvious on its face. Maybe we should be more enlightened in that regard, but the law remains as it is. One thing is physical, the other mental. Thus, while the PC liberal crowd might shudder at this: fags are not protected.

From that source of often incorrect info, Wikipedia:

Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on his or her race, gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height and weight). The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.

Which brings us to free speech. The government cannot generally regulate the content of "hate speech" but it can regulate the results of it -- where it is used to incite to riot, or bring about harmful consequences to others, e.g. shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema. Lots of people would like to bring content into question, as in many socialist countries around the world (and in California where although hate speech is legal, it is easy to sue for damages or fire someone as a result of it). To deny the holocaust in Germany is a ticket to jail. To call someone a queer in Canada is to risk 2 to 7 years behind bars -- because it can be seen to be an incitement to hatred. Mercifully, in most of the US, that is not the case and political speech is absolutely protected. Good, and this is as it should be.

I like the idea of being free to hate someone and be hated in return. To call him/her what I think of her and have him/her call me what they think of me. Just so long as it does not incite to violence -- protection of the person being the talisman. But what about discrimination, I hear you say? Well, what is it, really? Discrimination can be the exercise of free choice, or being told to do and think as others would have you do it -- that is, we don't like the way that you think and you must do it our way, or else. The very reasons why we became a nation in the first place are to avoid this. Yes, the United States screwed up with the blacks for about 200 years, and continued to do so until the Civil Rights movement brought us into the light. It is exactly that blacks were deprived of the freedom of choice that makes it so offensive and shameful, and that it went to the sanctity of the person.

But in Europe, since recorded time you were told how to think and what to do -- and still are. Certain people -- people who became Americans -- didn't like that. If you like to tell people what to do and what to think, I suggest that you move back to Europe. Or Canada.

You see, the United States has a singular solution to the problem of nasty people: you do not have to deal with people who offend you. Instead deal with those that please you and see things as you do. And, unlike the situation in Europe, there is generally nobody who wants to mandate a single orthodox approach (apart from the Bible bashers and Cambridge loonies). The solution: if someone is an anti Semite, then don't deal with him or see his movies. Simple. If someone doesn't like blacks, those who find this offensive should not engage in commerce or associate with that person. The Wall Street Rule: sell that which you do not like. Fire an offensive employee. Quit a job where your boss is offensive. If a company has sexually inappropriate behavior as commonplace, then move your brilliant person, with your creativity and brains to a place where it is not tolerated -- but don't use the government as a legal weapon. The weapon of association and commerce will ultimately prove far more effective in regulating conduct that laws telling you how to think.

That brings us to Cambridge -- I mean, Orwellian risks posed by the PC liberal folks (before I sound too right wing, please note that the right wings crazies who thump the bible and proclaim all homosexuals to be deviants and sick and probably more offensive that the Cambridge crazies, but not as vocal or well organized): who is going to be the arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not? Where is the line to be drawn for legal imposition of behavior rules? Simply, there is no intellectually acceptable approach. None. What is fine by me is not fine by you. Cannot be. We are a nation of individuals and that is EXACTLY what make us great. To do other than allow free speech, is to embark down the road of totalitarian politics, thought police and control, and the loss of individual freedoms too many to list. Want "rehab?" Think that it is appropriate? Think that the Soviet Gulag was appropriate -- that venerable institution was also intended to regulate thought.

For the lefty reading this: do you smoke pot? Do you regard this as a right unfairly denied you? If it is not unfairly denied, then you must be aware that you are breaking the law, right? But that is OK, by you because you "know" that this is OK, that is, you "know" better? What about people who "know" that their hate speech is OK? They think that they "know" better too.... Or do you know better than their better? Remember the pigs in Animal Farm? The Party in the Soviet Union "knew" better too.

Let us also look at some obvious hypocrisy: Anne Coulter is a villain, and those lamenting the failure to assassinate Dick Cheney are not? Is it OK to hate all right wingers and fascists because they are exactly that? But it is not OK to hate left wingers and those that would tax the individual to the extent that it stomps out enterprise? IT is OK to hate those who believe in the word of the Bible, but not OK to hate those who would impose political beliefs -- both are as crazy as the other, at least to each other?

Ann Coulter can call or imply that John Edwards is a fag in my book. And I reserve the right to call her a screaming rightwing loony or slut. Slut. That is a sexual preference -- having many partners without too much regard for quality -- just as the homosexual orientation of someone might be. Should we all hate someone who calls Coulter a slut? She might not be, just as Edwards might not be a fag. If you want to live someplace where feelings are legislated, move to Canada.