Merriam Webster Definition of Political Correctness: agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people.
Reading through the Friday, July 17, 2015 edition of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette this morning, I finally got the tag line for a story I have been formulating in my mind for months now. On Page B6 of the paper, in the "What's Happening" section of upcoming stories to be found in the paper, Patricia Sheridan's Breakfast With..." column promises "Breakfast with Jane Fonda: Enjoy a special, one-on-one interview with actress and social activist Jane Fonda in the Magazine section on Monday." That's it. That's what I've been looking for to gain entry to this extremely relevant and touchy subject - political correctness and how it has taken over our society, step by step, inch by inch. Calling Jane Fonda a special person is ludicrous considering that Jane Fonda is NOT a social activist.
She is a pretender, and she stirs up trouble when she feels she needs to be heard. Forget about the exercise videos she promoted and her movies, this is a woman who technically put the lives of hundreds of thousands of US soldiers in jeopardy with her actions in Vietnam. Additionally, this is the same "activist" who sat regularly next to her Atlanta Braves owning husband Ted Turner and did the "tomahawk chop" to inspire her husband's team. That, along with an "Indian Chant" to push the team on to success. At this very moment, there are groups of people (including Native Americans) who are fighting the Washington Redskins to change their name. But, it is "ok" for the celebrated Ms. Fonda to do "the chop." She is being "celebrated" in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, for Pete's Sake.
When I say losing the battle to political correctness, we are living in a society where we can no longer express our opinions, EXCEPT, if those opinions are THE OPINIONS of a certain group of "free thinkers" who are offended by just about anything one can say that might "hurt" another's feelings. Say something that is on your mind today, and it had better be the "right" thing. Never mind having your own opinion, and definitely never mind the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Now, I agree that it is bad practice to go around offending people simply to offend them - much like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. But our society has reached a pivotal point in defining "what is the right thing to say" and "what is the wrong thing to say. And, more importantly, who judges the things we say - the real issue."
Let me explain something that happened to me last year. I was attending a celebratory anniversary event when I ended up in a relatives living room talking, above all, politics. I should have known better, but this gets to the point. During our discussion, an elderly woman joined in the conversation, and I happened to refer to President Obama as simply Obama, as I would have done if I were talking about Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc..... In mid-conversation, the elderly woman looked at me in disgust and explained in her best school marm voice that I should be calling him "President" Obama and should respect him, and that my lack of respect for the man (simply by calling him Obama) was "highly insulting ."
Not being one to back down to a chance to "instigate" an argument with someone who obviously was extremely perturbed with me, I began to ask her how she felt about "President Bush." Of course, this "kindly elderly woman" began a rant on "Bush" (her words, not mine), using the last name "Bush" over and over again, leaving out the "President" part. I asked her why she was able to use President Bush's last name without the president attached to it, and she proudly claimed to me that he was a horrible president and she had no respect for him and then left the room.
And by the way, why can't it be allowable to say something negative about the President if you disagree with him? We have that right. Plus, he's a man. He knew going into that job that he was going to get grief from half the people all of the time. That's the nature of the Presidency. Presidents get blamed for things that happen. Presidents MUST have thick skins, or they don't last very long. That's kind of how I felt when George H.W. Bush ran for a second term against Bill Clinton. I felt strongly that President Bush didn't "want" to be president anymore. I just got that feeling from him and his speeches. I was angry with that also, and I spoke out - "if you don't want to be president anymore, then don't run." That's all. Heck, it's a difficult job. Look at how quickly presidents' hair color changes to grey when in office.
That is our society now. Getting back to touch upon my introductory mention of "Enjoy a Special One-On-One Conversation and Breakfast with Jane Fonda, Actress and Social Activist." Here is a very small bit of a rather lengthy tome of what was written about Jane Fonda during one of the most harrowing times in our nation, the Vietnam war, when soldiers who returned home from this politically charged conflict only to be ridiculed, spat upon, castigated, and more.
This is an accurate depiction of what Jane Fonda was and still is, many believe. During the Vietnam war, Jane Fonda made special trips behind Viet Cong, North Vietnamese, communist enemy lines to engage in propaganda against the United States and the war being fought at the time, NEVER recognizing that her anger against the United States was, in actuality, being played out as anger against our soldiers who fought bravely, were maimed, suffered severe psychological and physical irreparable harm, and killed. She, in essence, was a traitor to the United States.
In a report issued on June 10, 2005, Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer in FrontPageMagazine.com made the following claim
For three decades Jane Fonda obfuscated, distorted and lied about virtually everything connected with her wartime trip to North Vietnam: her motive, her acts, her intent, and her contribution to the Communists’ war effort. With the aid of clever handlers, she so successfully suppressed and spun her conduct in Hanoi that many Americans didn’t know what she had done there, and, more important, the legal significance.
Three years ago, our book, “Aid and Comfort”: Jane Fonda in North Vietnam (McFarland & Co.), laid bare the incontrovertible facts, applied the American law of treason to them —and proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jane Fonda should have been indicted for (and would have been convicted of) treason.
Fortunately, we are a forgiving nation. And Ms. Fonda has apologized for her asinine behavior. However, at that time, if you happened to be against the Vietnam war, for whatever reason, and you heard someone denigrating Fonda and her actions, you would get an earful from someone who felt she should not be criticized and was permitted to express her opinion.
Fast forward to today, 2015. Things are much worse. We have come to a juncture in our common dialogue that we are NOT permitted to express our own opinions if those opinions do not "match" or meet the "high and pure" standards of a populace who truly attempting to shape our social and political dialogue.
Some Topics off the Table for Discussion Totally at This Time
- Heroic police actions
- Gun Control
- Bruce, er, Caitlyn Jenner
- Hillary Clinton
- Late Term Abortion
- Race Relations
- Bill Cosby
- Global Warming
- Gay Marriage
- Hobby Lobby
- Recent Supreme Court rulings
Just to name a few. There are several more, but you get the point. And the point I am trying to make in this piece is that one cannot say anything negative about anything "sensitive" without being on the short end of a scourge and anger of the masses. Mention any of the above topics in a group conversation and you may indeed find yourself in the middle of a firestorm.
Case in point. Last week, on my Facebook page, I made a joke about a silly picture of Bill and Hillary Clinton (er, President Clinton and his wife Hillary). I made a snarky comment, designed to tease a bit, about Mr. Clinton barely making it out of office in one piece (remember impeachment, affairs - several - fake land deals, Monica Lewinsky, Vincent Foster and assorted other "dead" confidantes) and that I wouldn't want to be "within 100 miles when Hillary Clinton loses the presidency." Very true to my expectations, I received angry comments about my comments pertaining to Mrs. Clinton and how wonderful a president she would make. The person who was angry with me was vitriolic about my "making light" of Hillary Clinton.
I remember my University teaching days that extended through the Bush administration and into the Obama administration. When George W. Bush was president, I would walk the hallways of the University professor's offices and see doors and walls adorned with extremely offensive and ignorant depictions regarding "President" Bush.
Just some examples of posters I had to "tolerate" due to political correctness as a University professor. However, in 2004, when John Kerry was running for president, I was asked by my department chairman if I was going to the Kerry rally at the University of Pittsburgh, I said merely "no" - when asked why not, I honestly said "I didn't feel he would make a good president and didn't support his ideology." Well, that ended my relationship with my department chair. After that incident, things were never the same between us. Prior to this, we were friends. After this, I barely received a "hello" from him - meaning that if I was anti-John Kerry, then I had to be pro-George Bush. Which was true, but I strongly felt that my stock at the University of Pittsburgh changed, had gone down. I was "not permitted" to say anything negative about Mr. Kerry. But whose business is it anyway who I voted for? Isn't that part of our right to vote - voting using a secret ballot?
Al Sharpton has become the biggest politically correct race-baiter we have had since Jesse Jackson roamed the countryside looking to incite. The problems with Sharpton are his several roles. First, he is employed by NBC. He is a commentator on MSNBC; yet, he is permitted to travel the nation stirring up "messes" where messes need cleaned up, not exacerbated. Recently, during the riots in Baltimore, Sharpton was walking to a meeting with Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. A reporter asked Ms. Rawlings Blake if she herself issued the "stand down" order to police to not stop the rioters from attacking people, burning property, and destroying businesses. Sharpton jumped in between the reporter and the mayor and had his own personal security, not Baltimore police or security, push the reporter out of their way. Sharpton had no right inserting himself into this situation, into this dialogue (well, again, this is America; so, I do guess he does have that right). But this kind of action just clouds the issue. It fuels the fire in many people's minds, and it fuels the fire in other people's minds for the opposite reason.
The same can be said for the Confederate Flag. Yes, take the thing down. It truly is offensive if you are of the ilk that it is a racist piece of history. But don't take it down because of the wrong reasons. Don't take it down because you are doing something politically correct and will get votes for doing it. That's what is so wrong. The inconsistencies and the impression that most politicians, and in some cases, regular, good people, are getting carried away with this new sense of entitlement.
However, at least this is what I see on television: try to argue against Sharpton, who is a recalcitrant and a charlatan, and you probably will be called a racist. Even though you may not have a racist bone in your body.
Herein lies the problem. Good people who really want to change are being cast aside for loudmouths who do nothing but want a microphone and a crowd and who jump on every word anyone says against him or her and transforms everything into a political argument, particularly when it has to do with race. No, I do not like people like Al Sharpton, but I would imagine that he probably does not like people like me. But, if I were to make it an industry of mine to follow Sharpton around the country and criticize him, I know it wouldn't end up well for me. You see, I am not an angry person, and Al Sharpton is a very angry person.
HOWEVER, I wholeheartedly support Al Sharpton's right to say what he wants to say, as caustic as it might be. He has a right to have his own television show. He has a right to say what is on his mind. I don't have to watch his show. That's why I am entertained by those who criticize programs such as Fox News. If you don't like it, don't watch it. However, Fox News has the exact same rights to be a television station as does MSNBC, CNN, and others.(Sometimes I do just to see what things look like in his world), But again, we live in the United States of America and Al Sharpton can say what he darn well pleases, as long as he DOESN'T start a riot. But so can Bill O'Reilly. So can Chris Matthews. The point is, and I am NOT defending Fox News. My point is that WHY do the Al Sharpton's, Chris Matthews, The Ed Show's, Bill Maher's, Stephen Colbert's, Rachel Maddow's, Anderson Cooper's and their ilk get all of the attention. Why do they set the agenda. Heck, CNN, MSNBC (these castaway organizations) have no real following - no huge numbers of people watching them; yet, these are the people who are quoted and whose "expert" opinions are highly sought. Why, when a crisis is unfolding in the world, unless the New York Times deems it close to their personal interest and that no "friend of the NYT" is involved, is the story always relegated to the seventh or eighth page of the paper? It doesn't make sense. Yes it does. I'm just saying that to progress my argument.
Caitlyn Jenner and Siri
Ask Siri (SERI) on your iPhone to tell you about Bruce Jenner. Telephones are now Politically Correct. Of course, the uber liberal (yet monstrous money making monopoly) Apple, has the power to program their phones. Siri is not a live person. Hence, the technicians at Apple are programming the phone to say politically correct answers. Why would a phone correct my mention of Bruce Jenner - what in the world does a phone know? But it seems like part of a larger plan. Bombard the common man and women. Give them no chance of getting away from this "stuff."
Now, to me, Bruce Jenner was and still is an important part of American sports' history. Winning the 1976 Olympic Decathlon was a monumental feat. And, judging from interviews, even recent interviews with Jenner, (and I am watching my words carefully here) those memories are good ones to this person. So, getting back to Siri. Ask Siri questions about Bruce Jenner's history and Siri corrects you and explains to you that YOU are speaking about CAITLYN Jenner "Do you mean Caitlyn Jenner?" Siri asks. Gosh, our iPhones are now telling us what we should and should not say.
But today one cannot say anything negative about this change without antennae going up and people ready to pounce on any misstatement or negative statement one might make, or a joke or comic routine one might make. Thousands and thousands of people have been making fun of the Kardashians on a daily basis. To me, the Caitlyn Jenner thing is part of this huge media machine created by this family. When Bruce Jenner interviewed with Diane Sawyer (and I am far from a psychologist), I saw a lot of the "Kardashian way" of attention seeking in that interview. That's just my opinion, and I am permitted to have it. Like it or not. And believe it or not, it has nothing to do with Bruce's/Caitlyn's transitioning whatsoever.
To set this record straight, and I need to make this point, I couldn't care less about Bruce and/or Caitlyn Jenner. It's none of my business. I am glad she is happy. I truly am. Frankly, when Bruce was Bruce, if you watched any part of the show when he was in the action, he was constantly ridiculed by his wife. She took every chance to put him down. I am glad she is happy. However, I don't find her attractive - she's not my type. To me, and just to me, there is something a bit peculiar about this, but that is something I have to deal with and get over. In today's society, we cannot say "anything" that upsets the politically correct apple cart. If we do, it is deemed appalling. I understand. Many view those who might make a comment about such things are viewed as neanderthals. But why? Why can't average, American citizens who work hard for a living be excluded from the conversation that effects them directly.
Presidential Candidate Donald Trump
Let's look at the other side of this argument. Cut to Donald Trump. Trump has been called a "clown", a "joke", an "idiot", a "charlatan", a "fool" and much more that I cannot repeat in this article on national television. Because it is "okay" to say negative things about Donald Trump. Even to attack the way he wears his hair - just so easy to make fun of someone when everyone seems to be on the bandwagon, and this is wrong. So, Donald Trump makes billions of dollars negotiating deals. He is a Fordham University and University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Business graduate. He is very smart. He is the son of an extremely hard working father. He realized a dream. Maybe, just maybe, we need a business person to run the country. For goodness sake, politicians don't seem to have answers.
And for that, he is a pariah who gets criticized by left and right wing media outlets daily. But, believe it or not, he is leading the Republican pack of candidates, which is making a lot of media executives take a lot of diarrhea medicine.
So, if citizens are permitted to say ultra-negative things about one candidate, then why is it NOT "okay" to say negative things about other candidates such as Hillary Clinton or President Obama (since so much negativity was circulated about President Bush). Poor Bernie Sanders. In the national media, he is a crazy lunatic fringe socialist - "it's okay to say that." Why? Then, if we are able to say that, why can't we say something negative about his opponent? I know why, and the answer quite sickens me.
Switch to a very recent press conference where CBS reporter Major Garrett had the audacity to ask President Obama at the Iran Nuclear Treaty speech about the four Americans still being held hostage in Iran. President Obama scolded the reporter and replied "you know better than to ask me that." Headline the next day "Major Garrett DARES to Ask Obama about Americans Still Held in Iran and Liberal Media Freaks Out." Reporters and correspondents can no longer ask our public officials questions? To me, the fact that the United States is even negotiating with Iran is a huge mistake. And, how would you feel as a family member if the president of your country acts as if he has no care in the world for your son, your husband, your brother rotting away in an Iranian jail cell. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT QUESTION? The real answer: nothing. Except the hostages would get in the way of a legacy hound!
"Comedian" Bill Maher said this about Major Garrett's question: "Garrett is a huge asshole and probably would have done the same damage had he screamed out the "N" word at the press conference." Talk was circulating the next day that Major Garrett, to me who seems like a pretty decent reporter, was going to lose his job at CBS. The next morning, on the CBS morning news program, host Charlie Rose apologized for his colleagues insensitive remarks. His response "we all have our moments when we ask the wrong question." Again, what was wrong with that question? There are four souls waiting to be released in Iran and they are NOT an issue? Major Garrett was not sorry for asking the question. Please understand what I am trying to say. I guess the best way to explain it is "what's good for the goose is good for the ganger."
Same Sex Marriage
One a bit more personal note. I am not against same sex marriage. I am fine with it. I still believe it is a State issue and not a Supreme Court of Federal Issue. However, if one (such as a baker or a caterer) is not in favor of this because of a sacredly held religious belief, why this headline:
BAKER FACES PRISON FOR REFUSING TO BAKE SAME-SEX WEDDING CAKE
Jack Phillips is a baker who declined to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because his Christian belief is that marriage exists only between a man and woman. Now a Colorado judge has ordered him to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, and if Phillips refuses, he could go to jail.
Folks, I do not believe this is hate. (I do believe it is bad business practice when the purpose of a baker is to make money). This is merely a person exercising his freedom to honor his religious faith. Just as those who wish to marry should be able to marry, we are asked to honor their spiritual feelings. In the United States, it MUST go both ways. It's actually the baker's fault for taking a business loss on this transaction. Personally, if I were a business owner, I wouldn't turn any customers away if it meant losing money. But this person just doesn't feel that way. Does that make him a bad person? The court system cannot force the Catholic church to practice something that goes against its own teachings. This is the United States of America, and if we feel strongly about something based on religious accountability, we are permitted to exercise that right. If this were the case, what about the Amish.
Should they be forced to use power tools and electricity in order that they keep up with the current state of affairs in America - to pay the government taxes and the utility company electric bills? Or, should they be ridiculed because of their belief systems regarding many of the topics I have just mentioned? By the way, I read an article where every Amish interviewed was 1) against Bruce Jenner's transitioning and 2) against same sex marriage. But where is the outrage against the Amish community? Just a thought.
Back to the baker: why jail time? What will this accomplish? This is the point I am trying to make. If one group has the right to say something controversial, then it should not be the "job" of another group, any group, to stop those people from saying what they want unless is causes actual, physical damage to a person or persons. There are many stores I do not frequent because I do not like their business practices. So be it. That's the way we "protest" in this country.
President Abraham Lincoln Subject of Segregationist's Scorn for Not Being
These attacks are not new. President Lincoln, arguably the best president we have ever had in our young country, was pummelled by the media and segregationists for his anti-slavery views. My feeling is that his battle to end slavery and the civil war would have eventually killed him if John Wilkes Booth had not. Scientists are finding out through DNA samples of Lincoln's blood that he probably was suffering from some form of cancer.
The following are some political "cartoons" condemning Lincoln's views on slavery. Talk about sniping. These are just a few of hundreds of attack ads against Lincoln (er, President Lincoln):
Thank God Abraham Lincoln didn't give in to political correctness during his presidency. Thank God we had such a man running our country at this most difficult time.
So what if Chick-Fil-A doesn't open its doors on Sunday? These are personal beliefs. Isn't it a good thing that we all believe different things? Isn't this why this country was formed? Why can't a privately owned company not open its door anytime it feels like it? I remember when I was a young child in the 1960's, no stores were open on Sunday.
And finally, and I must say this next point disgusts me, it isn't politically correct to mention that the Islamic terrorist organization is killing Christian's by the thousands. Even Pope Francis has not spoken out aggressively regarding this issue. Remind anyone of Pope Pius XII? Keep out of it. Just as long as it isn't hurting us. When I brought this up in conversation recently with a friend, he didn't want to talk about it. He wouldn't even comment on this horrific event and the Pope's lack of intense response. It wasn't that he couldn't - he WOULDN'T. I was apoplectic. He didn't want to talk about it. Christian children being beheaded. Christians being drowned alive. Christians being burned alive. Christians being beheaded and heads placed on sticks to "warn" other Christians they had better convert or else.
Again, trying to push the issue a bit further, I wrote a piece about this on my blog and FB page. A few responses were by people who said that they didn't want to be reminded of tragedy and didn't feel FB was the place to post such a thing. He simply didn't want to be reminded of this. They wanted Facebook to be a happy place. Guess what, there are no happy places anymore. Yes, there is still room for kitten videos, but the tenor of our country is changing. Five soldiers are being buried this week because of an extremist who may indeed have ties to ISIS.
For the record, I am a full-fledged supporter and advocate of free speech. I believe in many things; however, I also sort of like to express my opinions about things. I am frankly getting tired of apologizing for things I say that I believe. Two night ago, I published a joke (on my FB page, I publish a nightly joke to entertain and hopefully lighten someone's day) regarding police officers. The joke was just that, a joke. It was funny. But it sort of made some lighthearted fun at the expense of police officers. I automatically, after publishing the joke, posted a disclaimer that I loved police officers.
But, do I love ALL police officers? Not at all. I especially do not love the police officer who mistakenly arrested me years ago under false pretenses and roughed me up, only to apologize afterwards.
I do not like the Pittsburgh City cop who falsely arrested me for "having a feeling" I was drinking and driving because I was speeding too fast for his liking (I was late coming home from work and had a parent/teacher conference in Sewickley for my daughter that I couldnt miss), taking me to the police station in the Hill District, forcing me to take three sobriety tests (I passed all three plus blowing a zero on a breathalyzer test) only to be held in a cell and then told "never mind...you're fine...you can go home now.... Sorry for the inconvenience. By the way, this is the Hill District and your car is in Sheridan on Carson Street next to McKees Rocks. Do you have a ride?" Not permitting me to make a phone call to explain to my wife where I was while she was waiting at the school worried that something serious had happened to me. No cell phone calls. No calls at the police station. Being forced to sit in a jail cell for three hours after having done nothing wrong. Do I respect him? Absolutely not. I cannot in good faith even forgive him for making this mistake. He was a jag off, pure and simple. A real tough guy who threw his power around at my expense. He was a bad seed, a mean person, a person I hope has retired from his position so that he can't do the same thing to someone else. Yes, I was told by a fellow officer, a nice guy who drove me back to my car. "He was just having a bad day." Thanks for taking it out on me.
In fact, I still have animosity toward that particular police "officer." However, this was ONE bad cop. The rest of the officers seemed okay. I was not going to make a huge issue because of one bad egg. If this were to happen today, all hell would break lose. Television camera's, riots, hands up, don't shoot (exaggerated, I know, but you get the idea). One bad cop who to me didn't represent the entire US police force.
Are there good police officers and bad police officers? Yes, there are indeed. And, we should be able to say "this officer is a bad one" and "this officer is a good one." We should never, even if a police officer did a direct wrong to us, throw all of the good police officers under the bus because we are angry about the actions of a few bad apples.
The same is true throughout society. Good teachers, bad teachers. Good politicians, bad politicians. Good doctors, bad doctors. Good priests, bad priests. But for some reason, we personally may have been wronged by one of those mentioned above, we do not lump them all together as all good or all bad. We are permitted to say the bad ones are bad, and equally, I think, we have an obligation to say the good ones are good. Anyway, back to my disclaimer on my FB joke about cops: Why would I write that disclaimer? After about fifteen minutes of thought, I took the disclaimer down. I was damned if I was going to play that game. It was a funny joke. I left it at that. So what if someone PC protector didn't get it that it was a joke.
Of course, in this day and age, one has to be careful what one says because he might be indeed saying something that is politically incorrect. Please don't be pro-second amendment, or at least don't say that in public. You may get your head torn off, which is kind of a joke due to the violence aspect of it. I believe strongly that people kill people. People have been killing people with rocks (David and Goliath), clubs, bats, knives, strangulation, arson, physical brutality - it is PEOPLE doing this, not the instrument. Even if we took every gun off the street in the United States, people would still kill people.
Here's a joke for you. How do you turn a pacifist, peace loving liberal into a conservative? Go up to him and punch him in the nose. See how "peaceful" he becomes (that, by the way, is a joke)
The Gun Issue - Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People
Update: A student at Georgia Southern University is dead after an aggravated assault that occurred at a bar near campus. Officials with the Statesboro Police Department in Statesboro, Ga., said the incident occurred at a bar called Rude Rudy's shortly after midnight Thursday morning. Michael Gatto, 18, was non-responsive when police arrived on scene. Gatto was transported to East Georgia Regional Medical Center and later flown to Memorial Health University Medical Center in Savannah. (Point - no gun).
And this local headline:
Family Devastated By Beating Death Of 11-Year-Old Boy (no gun)
And still this recent story:
Man Arrested In Shaking Death Of Infant (no gun)
Final Note: Even Siri is getting on the PC bandwagon. If you have an iPhone (and who doesn't), ask Siri this question:
You: Siri: What is zero divided by zero?
Siri: Imagine if you have zero cookies and you split them among zero friends. How many cookies does each friend get? See. It doesn't make sense. The Cookie Monster is sad that there are no cookies, and you are sad that you have no friends.
Our world. Siri tells us that if we don't have any cookies to share we don't have any friends, and that is sad. Why is that sad? If I only had friends because I gave them cookies, I wouldn't have many friends because I like cookies and would eat them all myself. Sorry Siri, you're wrong on this one. How about this question and answer for Siri.
Question: Siri, what is zero divided by zero? Siri: Zero.
Why make it a political issue about not having friends! Remember folks, this is a phone that was programmed by Apple programmers. Don't blame the phone, blame the PC-ers at Apple for these comments.
Here is one that Apple has my permission to use
Question: Siri, what is one plus one?
Siri: Well, if you have one politically correct person and one person who is willing to speak his mind truthfully on sensitive subjects, the one politically correct person will denigrate the other person, make several phone calls, and a crowd will form who will both physically and verbally assault the one who is truthfully speaking his mind. Police will show up and arrest the one honest person and take him to jail. The local and national news will then run a hate filled story about that one person. So the answer would be 1. And the politically correct person will prevail and will make sure that the one person no longer speaks causing him to be a nothing - to no longer exist.
Which is basically what is happening to our country now.
Why make it a political issue about not having friends! Remember folks, this is a phone that was programmed by Apple programmers. Don't blame the phone, blame the PC-ers at Apple for these comments.