The Politically Correct Version of '"I see" Said the Blind Man'
" I see " said the optically impared / challenged personage to the auditorially impared / challenged personge as she / he, the auditorially impared / challenged personage threw a shard of the substance know as 'wood' for a canine species of animal who was however slighlty unfortunate to be infected with the deficiency known as paraplaegia, but, the canine with the crippling paraplaegia was not affected in any other area, so was therefore a completely normal healthy canine in mind, and mentally retrieved the wood for it's master who was not in favour of any kind of restrictions to animal liberty, and therefore decided to let the paraplaegic canine return to it's home in the wild. The auditorially impared / challenged personage was not however in favour of these same liberties and in turn with-held the canine from it's path to former living habitats, and instead had it adopt a human way of life, similar to that example of the american west, where the North American Indians were forced to adopt this same way of life as the caucasian settlers there, who had taken their land away from them, even though they had no legal land rights and correct documentation to with-hold this claim. The canine, unhappy with this method of treatment decided that it was necessary to dispose of the liberty restrictions and reasoned that the only way of completing this task in order to gain freedom was to nullify all previous owners, includindg the optically impared / challenged personage who had by now appliead and recieved legislation determining that this personage could now be known as the visually impared / challenged personage. The canine did succeed in disposing of the visually / optically impared / challenged personage, and also did succeed in nullifying the auditorially impared / challenged personage. The local authorities, however found out about this breach of personal space which the canine had exploited whilst desposing of it's owners, and was therefore tried in a court of law, and consequently found to have murdered (nullified) it's owners and as there was no legislation for canines and indeed all other non-human species, so the court of law decided that the only way to treat this case was to act as if it were a human prisoner in the defendant's chair (or in this case stand). It was therefore decided that the death penalty was the only right and just way of dealing with a case such as this. Howver, the league of animal and human rights did hear wind of an execution of one of their fellow members, and did see it fit to re-itterate their policy of liberty to the court of justice to which the canine had at first be directed to. The court realising it's own breach of the legislation of the declaration of the rights of mankind (now know universally as humankind), decided that the only way to formally rectify the situation was to set free the canine, and give back it's restrained liberties so that it would be free to go as it pleased back to it's former way of life.
Phil Steer [1999]
