Do we have an “Assault” on Unionized Civil Servants or are they just Parasites?

If I go to any conferences, it's as a lecturer, not as a student. I've done this a good deal upon request.

You say that you are a machinest. I come from a family of foundry workers. You and I are of the same roots. When I went to school, there were no computer science teachers, even in college (I earned my degree while working for a living and going at night.) What I learned I did on my own and by the good graces of private sector people already in ther field. They worked me hard for little money, but I learned.

Please understand that I believe competent, motivated teachers are essential. I'm just saying that they are a COMPONENT for creating a productive person, not an end in themselves.

I enjoy technology because it's a mix of physical as well as intellectual. Your job is too although you may not think that it is. You are in a skilled profession. I'm quite well known in certain circles. I've lectured to some very well known, highly educated groups. When they ask me to explain my work, I simply tell them than from my own perspective, I'm the equivalent of a good auto mechanic. When they ask me what title I like to use, I tell them to just call me a techie.

I've had books publshed by some very well known publishers. I hold the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in a military reserve command. I've designed and implemented military computer systems. I've been hired by attorneys to serve as expert witness in federal cases. But to me, I'm still like a good mechanic and say that with pride.

I'll tell you this though. My son went to a very good public school with excellent teachers where they tought children about computers. I've met with several of them. They all lauded their advanced college degress. They bragged about how much they knew. But as an acknowledged "expert in the field," I can tell you that they didn't know crap.

Hello Spizzo. I missed you. But in point of fact, I've NEVER worked as a civil servant. I may have served decades as a reserve military officer, but only when my country needed me. But that's not civil service and is something unique unto itself. My life's work has been solidly and proudly, private sector.

The fact is that civil servants, primarily in the urban states are quite overpaid for the work that they do and the difference is clear when you compare it to their private sector equivalent. In the private sector, you negotiate for salary/benefits based on experience, ability, motivation and value to the company. It's based on supply and demand. If the company pays employees more than it can afford, it would go out of business.

Government employment is very different, particularly in its unionized component. Compensation is not based on productivity and worth. It's based on longevity on the job. And it is incredibly difficult to fire one of them if they are bad employees. In the private sector, excellence is rewarded. In the public sector, you are rewarded for breathing. Nothing is expected other than mediocrity. It's like working in the old Soviet Union only in America, they are rewarded much better.

This is the private sector: I've worked hard lugging, heavy computers around, alongside a staff much younger than myself. I've crawled around with them on dirty floors, teaching them how to do cabling. When necessary, I've broken into old ceilings to string network cable, with filth, asbestos and once even a dead rat falling on my head. I've earned respect and did it without any guarantees. I've become rather well known in the field. In my vested suit, I've lectured to some very well known groups.

I get no retirement pension. I put some money in a 401K plan that goes up and down based on the market. I have no guarantee. Retirement is rather iffy. In NYC, teachers not only receive a taxpayer paid pension of $85,000 with taxpayer funded golden medical care, but are allowed to put as much as 20% into a 401K with a taxpayer subsidized MINIMUM return of 8.5%. And that's the rub. All of this comes from the pockets of people like myself, whether we like it or not. They are taking food from the mouth of my disabled wife and don't care one wit. To me, they are overpaid, indolent, parasites.

I might add that in my opinion, more money does not give you a higher level of civil servant. It just increases their sloth and avarice. In my field of computer technology, I've interviewed several government employees but never hired one. Invariably, their skill levels fall below their equivalent in the privates sector, they lack motivation and are paid more in civil service than market forces.

I am glad you are not the hypocrite I implied, then. Of course, I think you are WAY too harsh on civil servants, though. Surprise, surprise. As I've said before, the things that are properly in the government's purview to do (and I include public education in that) I do not expect to be operated at the cutthroat efficiency level required for private enterprise, though such can be a goal. For me, the goal is to provide a necessary service as cheaply and efficiently as possible, but understanding that the incentives for performance in a government environment are not (typically) sufficient or oriented properly to incentivize (a word that blew my mind when I first heard it in 1997 in the Internet-boom Internet startup place I was) private-market performance. You'd know better than I, but the military is a likely exception, especially in these all-volunteer, competitively compensated days--with strict and rigid rules for performance upon threat of pain of and separation. In fact, prior to the last 3 Mideast and the Balkan wars I was starting to worry that the military had become so financially rewarding with many lifetime benefits with little concern for personal safety necessary due to peace that it might have started attracting too many folks who saw it as a good career move as opposed to a worthy, patriotic, and sacrificial move. In fact, I had the military pitched to me as an exceptionally good move if I got my graduate degree done in time to not "age out". I failed, so the point was moot.

So, as in the military, I do think proper incentives can be put into a governmental system, and if employees perform poorly and can't be dealt with, I don't blame the employees nearly as much as I do the system. I just don't expect (as you imply you do) that at the employee level there would EVER be a point you'd expect an employee or their union to say, "No thanks, we don't want any more money--we have enough." You wouldn't expect that in the private sector either.

As to unions, especially in the government sector, I'm old enough to have grown up in the immediate "post-union" (private sector) and "pre-union" (public sector) era. That is, I've never been a big fan of unions, but tempered my attitude with the knowledge that they were vital at one time--but maybe now they were bloated and drunk with power--and dubious about them being involved with government workers, especially vital-service ones. I've never lived in a much unionized state, private OR public--and I HATE the idea of being forced to join a union. I've always lived in right to work states. Nevertheless, IMHO, Gov. Walker has found one of the few ways that sympathy for unions could be promoted in modern America. For me, it's another one of those (Churchillian, I think), "The only thing worse than < blank > is not having < blank >" deals.

I propose significantly better pay for teachers (AND a higher minimum education level to enter the field--like a Masters, say--and an actual degree in a real field, not just education) because I'd hope it would professionalize the field, give it far more respect, and attract far better people to it. Hopefully incorruptible people--but, yes, that part could be tough. Far too many of the teachers my kids had just frankly couldn't have cut it, no matter the pay or penalties for failure.

We are in substantial agreement on many levels. Being private sector, I'm a big believer that the threat of termination for doing a bad job is the best motivator for doing a good job. When you remove this possibility, most people will not perform at their best. It's just the nature of higher forms of life.

Until recently, I've been a proponent of public education. It says something about public education or at least my percentions, that for the first time in my long life, my opinion is changing. My current view is that the educational system should be managed by private sector corporations. Government can retain ownership of the physical structures if they wish. But teachers should be privatized, paid, evaluated, hired and terminated based on private sector concepts of compensation based on performance. I believe it would elevate teacher performance and eliminate many problems. I'm not a believer in the assembly line concept (and liberal mantra) of "equal pay for equal work." People may hold the same job title, but they do not perform the same. We are not machines.

As to the military, soldiers earn a very good income when you add on the financial incentives and cash allotments that are never mentioned. I do not believe in a very highly paid military. It transforms a volunteer force into Hession Mercinaries. I do believe in a strong support structure for any that are injured and personally give extra hiring points for vets. I've found them to be more disciplined, well mannered and better at carrying out instructions.

As to educational level for teachers, that would be fine relative to compensation for a starting salary. But it shouldn't be used as the primary criteria. I know Phds who are very poor teachers when it comes to motivating students and explaining a subject. I myself only have a BA in Psychology/Economics in a rather technical "cerebral" field. I never went further educationally because 9 1/2 years in night school was enough for me. But I'm very well read, have rather significant accomplishments and have the rare ability to explain complex concepts in a very easy to understand fashion. Teaching isn't my primary job, but I've done a good deal of it along with lecturing to some well known groups. Education without the ability to impart this knowledge in an easily understood, motivating manner is not teaching.

Hello. When I use the term liberal "orthodoxy," I mean that they adhere to a specific dogma of life and political philosophy. Conservatives are the same way. I just happen to adhere to the latter on most issues. On others (such as "choice"), I'm more liberal, but not what I would consider to be extreme. I wish Roe vs. Wade never existed, simply because medical decisions are state issues according to the Constitution. I feel the same way about the alleged "war on drugs."

As to your claim that liberals are "tolerant," that may have been true decades ago (although people generally aren't), which is why I draw a line between the classic old fashioned liberal and what I call the modern liberal/progressive. Both (in my opinion) place far too much emphasis on the roll of government, but the old fashioned liberal and conservative could work with each other.

For example, I just got through lambasting some liberal/progressives on one of their posts. It's one of my playful pleasures. I forgot the question, but the liberal/progressive responses were typical. You had the vile photos of Sara Palin pointing a gun at her head. You had phony Tea Party graphics making them look like Nazis. And of course, you had the five word liberal/progressive quips like "Palin is an idiot," or "Tea Party Equals Nazi Moron." That's liberal/progressive dogma to me. They don't discuss. Few can. They indict and actually think it makes them look intelligent or witty.

We all have hotbutton issues. With you, it seems to be Gay Marriage. To me, you're insane in this issue, not because of what you believe, but because of the emotionalism you throw into it. I'm against Gay Marriage because it goes against the multi-millineum definition of the word. I don't like pressure groups redefining the language that I love. To me, it's semantics. But I've seen you rave at me and shut off discussion, acting as it's the most important touchstone for liberty in contemporary America.

With me, I become enraged over attempts at what I perceive as expanding government micromanagement over the individual. To me, it's another step towards virtual slavery. I don't exist to serve the will of government. Government exists to serve me.

We are human and driven by emotion. There is a liberal orthodoxy and there is a conservative orthodoxy. The problem comes about when people stop listening to each other. We don't have to agree, but when you shut off conversation, you lose touch with understanding other perspectives.

I still suspect you are seeing atypical Liberals--but maybe it's just that I'm one of your "old line" Liberals and not whatever a "modern liberal/progressive", as you call it, may be (which, I assure you and despite what Beck says, has NOTHING to do with the Progressive Party of Teddy Roosevelt's time)--but I still also have no problem stating unequivocally that intolerance as you describe it on the part of ANYONE calling themselves liberal is disgusting. Now, your claiming that there are liberal SHs making disgusting imagery (as opposed to merely using extreme existing imagery--though that is bad as well) is EXACTLY the sort of from the Left hatred mimicking the from the Right hatred I've asked, BEGGED for for all of my time here, whenever someone says it's just as bad from either side. So far, no one has responded, so please point me to what you replied to so I can see what you meant. I consider lame, sophomoric photoshop insults on public figures to be lame and sophomoric--and in my experience, TOTALLY coming from the Right.

As to the overall issues--I'm in a bit of a box, as though I'm scientifically psychologically trained and am also completely trained to oppose Freud as being completely unscientific, even though he played a big role in the development of my field, sorta--nevertheless, he had a good, intuitive feel for psychology, and I tend to "buy" some of his ideas. In particular, I "buy" projection, which I find helps me to understand the otherwise unreasonable attitudes of many Conservatives, including you in a lot of ways. Basically, the aspects of projection I see is the tendency to project on others what motivates oneself, and the tendency to not understand the motivation of others except as an extension or example of one's own. For me, that's why your descriptions of Liberals (and those of MANY Conservatives) sound like mirror images of Conservatives and not of actual Liberals. In other words, I think you folks are fooling yourselves, though through no fault of your own. Still, I reiterate, if you DO have examples of intolerant Liberals--then those Liberals deserve castigation just as much as intolerant Conservatives are.

It is interesting that you perceive Gay Marriage as my major thrust. I don't see it that way. I see that issue as a part of my overall Liberal/Libertarian orientation, and that happens to be a hot topic this year and last--as was DADT. I just see it as a MAJOR restriction on human rights--and that DOES enrage me as much as anything does.

If I stated that Sodahead liberals "create" disgusting immagry, I was incorrect. They don't have that artistic (broadly speaking) capacity. They simply copy and paste from the internet. Try doing a search on Glen Beck Nazi or Sarah Palin Idiot. You'll find many although substituting the name George Bush is far more popular. That you claim never to see things like this on Sodahead posts amazes me. Maybe you just don't go to the liberal posts or choose to look the other way. Both sides use this ploy equally and I doubt if anyone could say which side began the trend.

I happen to agree with you relative to both Teddy Roosevelt and Freud. I watch Glenn Beck from time to time and am in complete disagreement with his interpretation of old Teddy or even Freud. I fear you lump all conservatives into one group with similar attitudes, as I am prone to do with liberals. It's easier and more fun when debating on the Sodahead streetcorner of alleged ideas.

You and I seem to differ in that I choose battles and priorities based on level of threat to individual liberty or national security, not on the flavor of the day. Let me give you an example:

In November of 2010, Major Hassan murdered and butchered dozens of innocent, unarmed people in Ft. Hood Texas. He was viewed as a Jihadi Muslim extremist on the emotional edge for years. His previous position in Walter Reed Medical Center was rife with incoherant tirades favoring the dominance of Islam when he was supposed to lecture on medical topics.

But nobody got rid of him or formally complained. Due to pressure from liberals in civilian government, Muslims (and others) are given preferencial treatment. In the case of Muslims in the military, criticizism of one brings immediate counter charges of "Islamophobia." People didn't want to do that, so they simply transferred their problem to Ft. Hood. You saw the results.

Under liberal White House Pressure, the official report of the incident completely omitted anything about Islam and the fact that Hassan was an out and out Jihadi who killed in the name of furthering Islam. I know a lot about this incident, far more than what the liberal press presents to the public.

To me, issues like this are fare more important than the debate over DADT. What to do relative to DADT involved two logical and opposing opinions (although you might disagree). One side held it up as a defining banner for "equal rights."

To people like myself, it is a secondary or even tertiary subject relative to functioning of the military. The military separates people who might want to have sex with each other while in the barracks or showers. It's why men and women are in separate barracks. DADT put a break on the temptation that gays might act upon in an all male barracks without restrictions on such activity. It was no different than keeping men and women apart.

Was it a solution? Of course not. But it worked for a very secondary problem. The military was not designed to be a social network for the individual. It's a different world with different missions. To me, doing away with DADT just created another distriction from mission, creating more issues, more complaints and more paperwork.

Already, plans are in the works for subjecting heterosexual troops to lectures on "Homosexual sensitivity," which is de facto branding them as bigots. For the first time, people who cared not about someone's sexual preferences will have it thrust on them. My opinion.

I think you are wrong on what's been presented in the media about the Hassan case and what's in the report--though it does sound like you'de emphasize things differently. Here's a report much like ones I've seen in liberal media (MSNBC), which seems to me to cover what you mention:

http://www.military.com/news/...

Particularly this summary section, which DOES mention Islamic extremism (is that not close enough to "Jihadist" for you?):

"But the report, which was being released Thursday, said the Defense Department did not inform or train commanders about how to recognize someone radicalized to Islamic extremism or how to distinguish that from the peaceful practice of Islam. The report was requested by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and its ranking Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.

The enemy - Islamist extremists - must be labeled correctly and explicitly, the report said, in order for the military to counter the extremism. Lieberman made a similar argument last year in a letter to the White House about the need to accurately identify Islamic extremists as the enemy."


It is true that the language out of the White House expert softens this some, but I would not say it is suppressing or ignoring the problem you point to:

"President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism official, John Brennan, responded that while it is important to accurately define the enemy, using "Islamic extremist" and other similar phrases can lump a diverse set of organizations into a single group in a way that may be counterproductive."

I don't deny that I may be lumping conservatives too much, but I think it's accurate to say that the range of conservative opinion is narrower than the range of liberal opinion.

I believe I've seen the imagery you speak of, but that's not really what I was getting at--but it is also true that I don't just read through many threads--I mostly deal with my own replies, and it might be I don't see "Liberal" threads much--however there are far fewer of them around here and most of them turn into essentially "Conservative" ones anyway, as the Conservatives pounce and must be countered. What I'm talking about are the photoshopped grotesqueries that Conservatives use a LOT, often with no text--in the lame belief that an insulting image amounts to a clever remark. I'm talking about the Pelosi's with fat lips, the Obama's with a monkey face and ears, the Obama as Joker. I can't think of things like that from the Left. The Right goes in for deliberate misspellings for insults a LOT, too; but you do see a bit of that on the Left--a fraction, though. I'm into psychology here again, but I strongly suspect this is one of those differences in styles of thinking between the groups. What looks lame and sophomoric to me apparently looks like the height of cleverness to many of them/you.

I'm afraid I'll have to "go all pedantic on you", which I knows drives you crazy, in order to fully reply:

Bottom lines:

1.Your reply indicates you are reacting to what I think is a secondary point of mine.
2. My major point is not dealt with.
3. "PC" is so loosey-goosey a term as to never be useful in discussion--even amongst those you basically agree with (like my wife and I).

My main point was that the MSM/Liberal media (yes, I count MSNBC punditry as GENUINE Liberal Media--but I do NOT count the Palinian "MSM" as Liberal Media) DID cover the report and basically said the same things military.com said. Yes, secondarily, I figured military.com would be a pro-military site you'd find acceptable, but you don't. Still, I think that right or wrong, the fact that they tell the same story as MSNBC proves you wrong in blaming the "Liberal Media".

But I'm NOT disputing your expertise or sources on this--other than as per point 3, blaming something on being "PC" never gets one anywhere, as one person's "PC" is another's "appropriate respect". I DO try to call a spade a spade (note--in some circles that, itself is non-PC and to be avoided), but I try to give due respect.

I also know we'll NEVER get far in agreeing on how to handle Muslims of ANY sort--I think you'd like them expelled from the military, if not the whole country--hunted down much like the Communists of old. I will NEVER go down that road.


So, you reacted as if I was denying the basic reality of what you said (that the report, Army command, and the Administration flat-out dodged the issue of Hassan's Jihadism--and this is indicated in a report that does not use the term "jihadist" or "Islamic extremist" at all). I see by searching that you are basically right--"Jihad" does not appear, nor does "Islamic Extremist", though "Extremist" does appear in combo with religion, so I think the point is clear enough--and that your issue is more with places like military.com for being mealy-mouthed than with me for not following the situation.

"Pedantic." I love the word although the act is like an intellectual narcotic. The English language is like poetry to me. We Jews tend to be pedantic and overly theoretical. It's allowed us to excel in fields such as theoretical nuclear physics. But it makes us very impractical when it comes to realities of the world, survival skills and how we choose our allies.

I've spent decades fighting this cultural tendancy. The more realistic, practical, conservative gentiles I've come to associate with, many with a military background, are my touchstone to reality. As you know, my lovely wife comes from a rural, ultra conservative, non Jewish background. I frequently turn to her for a sense of reality. I tend to go on and on (sort of like you). But Caryl can clarify things in few words.

As to Muslims or anyone else in the military, I treat all the same. What I object to is giving people a slide based on race, religion or ethnicity. Everyone lives up to the same standard and conduct. And while I have no objections to people having an attachment to their cultural heritage or individual procilvities, there's no place for it to be publicized in the military. If someone can't make this break, they should be kicked out.

To me, "PC" is the tendency to make excuses for certain groups. It is rife with censorship, defining opposing opinions and people holding these views as idiotic or stupid. My primary objection to the modern liberal/progressive is what I perceive as PC based intolerance although you would probably disagree. The ones I detest are those who blame America for all the worlds ills, although this seems to have become a cornerstone of PC.

my epiphany for holding liberals and their self righteous Political Correctness in such scorn is what happend when Caryl and I were involved with the US Department of Justice feds. Our liberal friends melted away. They literally shunned us out of fear.

Our conservative friends, mostly with military background, stood with us. I've discovered over the years that liberals are big on mouth. But when push comes to shove, they will do a disappearing act when faced with a violent reaction. Unfortunately, most Jews haven't realized that yet. Maybe it's why I hold liberal Jews in such scorn.

Unfortunately, I have absolutely no way to evaluate and digest your and Caryl's experience with the DoJ. I'd very much like to think that both you two AND the DoJ acted basically honorably (as I'd mentioned, my sister--and a deeply, deeply honored one, as the one of three most like me, frankly--was once a DoJ attorney--she left, but not so much because she disagreed with it: Civil Rights Division). Anyhow, with the info I have, I've got an irreconcilable problem--so I just refuse to face it.

All I can say is that any Liberals who prove to be dictatorially orthodox or intolerant are NOT Liberals in my book.

I think I've had a minor epiphany on "PC" today: of those that oppose it from either side, I (and Liberals I like) tend to oppose it for being too restrictive of allowable attitudes, while you (and Conservatives you like) oppose it for not being restrictive enough of allowable attitudes. That is, we would use it to try to castigate as trivial someone's conservative attitude that is too conservative for us ("Her attitude was obnoxious, but it's just what's PC for Conservatives who don't tolerate social differences."); while your folks would use it to try to castigate as trivial someone's liberal attitude that is just too liberal for you ("His attitude was obnoxious, but that's what's PC for Progressives with no values"). I don't count this as a big insight, but it's one I'll need to think over a bit.

I don't claim much affinity and knowledge for Judaism, despite my wife and my daughter--but I suppose I could easily say a pedantic/rabbinic approach to most everything would be fine with me. The issue would be what authoritative source(s) I'd want to be pedantic about. As a liberal Christian (as differentiated from a Christian Liberal, which I also am), I've already rejected the Bible (both Testaments) as something worth much pedantic-ary about (I'm fully OK with loose interpretations of holy texts). That leaves me out of Orthodox Judaism, too, I know--but if we move out to the physical world, I'm happy to be pedantic, in the realm of what science and engineering works with. Folks who make claims within the religious realm I leave alone--unless they make claims that their religious beliefs determine objective reality. Then I ask for objective reality proofs--which they cannot provide. Stuff like that the universe is under 6000 years old because their interpretation of scripture says so, and the like.

Our battle with Department of Justice corruption and incompetence http://justice-denied.net involved a recorded death threat from them and threat of arrest and prosecution if we didn't make our website more amenable to them. Physically brutalizing Caryl because she was whistleblower to their selling Green cards and issuing visas without proper background checks is hardly honorable behavior.

Enabling the terrorism of 911 by giving terrorists free reign in America through pure incompetence is not honorable behavior. 911 was a Muslim hit job, but it couldn't have occurred if the Department of Justice Bureaucracy wasn't more interested in "agency loyalty" than correcting their problems. Liberal avoidance of this out of denial and fear doesn't alter things.

To me, the contemporary liberal/progressive is the new manifestation of American fascism. Political Correctness censorship is a direct manifestation of their political and social theology.

You claim that conservatives are against PC because it doesn't go far enough. Wrong. I'm VERY conservative. I believe in government ruled by Constitutional law. I do not believe in curtailing freedom of speech or displaying favoritism to someone based on race, religion, or ethnicity. I do not give bad behavior a slide.

Just recently at Columbia University, one of it's students was shouted off the podium by Politically Correct liberals for coming out in favor of ROTC on campus. His name Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. He was hissed, booed and caled a "racist." That's your Politically Correct Liberal Progressive fascist.

As to faith, our entire concept of civility and conduct is based on the Judeo/Christian scripture. To brush it away as somehow antiquated or trivial is to elevate brutality, cruelty and despotism.

Oh, I am COMPLETELY free to reject as non-Liberals those who hold unliberal views; just as you are free to reject any Conservatives who exceed your own standards of reasonable Conservativeness. Plenty of folks on either side claim labels they are not worthy of, and plenty of opponents use these extreme dopes as examples of what's typical for ALL on the other side--it's all just lame, fallacious nonsense.

I see this attitude as especially valid for me (and probably for you, considering what you say--but I do not try to follow everything you say on SH); since I DO carry through and admonish Liberals who go too far, though that happens very rarely--even though I continue to ask, BEG, Right-wingers to point me to bad examples to match the NUMEROUS bad examples that are blatantly obvious here from the Right. Hey, I'm the one who's willing to make allowances for Right-wingers culturally having harsher language that I try to allow for--but there's still no excuse in my book for deliberate factual errors.

As to justice-denied.net: I am quite willing to say that what happened to your wife (and you) is horrible to the nth degree inexcusable--but it also implies that basically all of government is a mafia-like thuggery purposefully violating basic laws and constitutional rights every single hour of every single day--basically saying our government is no better than Hitler's on Kristallnachte, and I could see how you'd feel that way--but my sister is VERY nice, and NO thug of any sort--so I don't have anywhere to go.

As to Muslims in the military--I'm not sure how you can claim a tolerant attitude now, when before you went to a lot of effort to show that NO Muslim is to be trusted, EVER! Period. Much less trust them in a national security situation. Your attitude amounted to the most extreme McCarthyite position in the worst of the Red Scare, with Muslims as the Commies. Of course I disagree with you, but IF I had your attitude as described, *I* would not want any Muslims in the military OR government. So, I'm surprised you now speak as if it can be OK.

I'm not sure what sort of PC you are saying I mistakenly support--I basically argued against PC and in favor of frankness, so much so that I argued that the very concept of "PC" is fatally flawed.

**typos fixed**