Most Americans that I’ve known seem to fall under the definition of either a conservative or a liberal, but what is the real difference between the two? The dictionary definition of a conservative is “Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.” The definition of a liberal is “Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.”
In the minds of Many Americans, conservatives are associated with the Republican Party while liberals generally cling to the Democratic Party. The press often pictures conservatives as stodgy, cigar-smoking, wealthy men, while liberals are viewed as the “thinkers” of society. Lest we not forget,
“Intelligence does not preclude stupidity.”
According to an informal survey conducted of our habits, American’s identified their political allegiances as follows:
· liberal: 30%
· moderate-liberal: 8%
· moderate: 14%
· moderate-conservative: 11%
· conservative: 36%
· other: 2%
· not sure: 5%
In support of the conservatives, many aspects of how this country works are pretty damn good. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” In support of the liberals, there are many issues that can use re-examination. We have many problems with poverty, illiteracy, health care, disparity between the very rich and poor, and other social ills. The one thing I’ve learned in my lifetime is that you can’t fix a problem simply by throwing money at it. Give any person or organization too much money and they’ll easily find ways to pour the money down the sewer through careless spending habits. We all do it - that’s human nature.
According to George Carlin’s, “Yes, I’m A Bad American:”
“I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some mid level governmental functionary be it Democratic or Republican!”
Fixing a problem takes careful analysis, a review of possible solutions, balancing the pros and cons for all affected peoples and then precise planning to implement the solution, and not by throwing caution to the winds. In my observations, government just throws money (our money) at any problem. The problem and the solution are not well thought out. In many cases, the lowest cost solution may be the best solution or let the FREE MARKET resolve the issue, but I don’t think I’ve ever witnessed that approach in government. Just look at the disaster welfare has been over the years. The overly generous politicians never understood that instead of just dumping wheelbarrows of money on the masses, what was required to solve the problem was education. Instead of creating generations of families who are totally dependent on government handouts, educate the people so they are not dependent on the state for their survival. The ancient proverb explains it well:
“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime.”
Why give a man a fish when you send him “freeby” checks to keep him on the hook much like a heroin addict, and assure his vote to make sure the money keeps rolling his or her way?
But which political entity is really in touch with the people? Researchers at the College of William and Mary attempted to find out whether self-described liberals are more compassionate than self-described conservatives. Separate groups of both liberals and conservatives were created. The individuals in each group were asked to contribute to help others but in a way that would be against each individual’s self-interests. The conclusion of the study was that Democrats/liberals behave no differently than Republicans/conservatives in the experiment. Therefore, the fundamental difference between the two groups must be how they apply their compassionate theology. The only recognizable difference I can decipher between the two parties is the Republicans claim to want limited government and lower taxes, but their actions belie those words, while the Democrats seem to want vast governmental control of our lives and wallets. The reality is that both cliques are nothing more than blood-sucking parasites who could care less what happens to the American people, provided that their personal agenda is met.
Let’s examine in principle the concept behind Politically Correct. I’m sure that some well-meaning individual, who was fed up with negative aspects of America said, “All right, it must stop! This racism and bigotry has given America a black eye for long enough!” Damn good idea. The movement solicited government, the media (TV, newspapers and radio), and corporate America to climb on the bandwagon. If politically correct had been applied with a test of “reasonableness” to eradicate the destructive nature of racism and bigotry, it is likely that I would have supported it wholeheartedly. But that is not the case. The implementation of this concept, as with most “utopian” theories, gathered steam and went completely overboard. Whenever academia concocts a solution, its implementation must be 100% pure - the all-encompassing perfect solution. There is little thought of the people implications. That’s why many theories dreamed up by academicians never work in the real world. You can’t say anything about gender, race, religion, culture, ethnicity, etc., etc. And whatever you do, don’t tell any jokes about the Irish, Italians, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, women, men, and just about any other species. Are jokes about dogs allowed?
Well, I don’t buy into the plan. I’m part Irish and I love Irish jokes, and I plan on telling those Irish jokes until I die. It’s inherent in American humor. With the often-maniacal interpretation of politically correct, there are no differences between cultures or ethnicity. What nonsense! That’s what makes the world go around. If you study history and the world around us, obviously there are major differences between the world’s religions, races and cultures. The Irish social life, for one, centers about the village pub (bar), and they tend to have one of the highest per capita consumptions of alcohol in the world. Therefore, I love jokes about drunken Irishmen. Are you telling me that I can’t enjoy humor about my own ancestry? My grandmother’s name was Molly Murphy for heaven’s sake! Every time there is the slightest off color comment or joke (no matter how innocent) or a ruling by a judge that does not placate these demons, politically exploitive congressmen (and congresswomen) capitalize on the situation by jumping all over the poor individual who may have innocently blurted out some slightly off-color joke, just to further their own career. One individual, Senator Charles “Chucky” Schumer of New York is the prime example of this extremism. He finds every news item, regardless of how factual or totally invalid an incident may be, and plays it in the press like a violin as if he is the only person fighting bigotry and racism, even when he deliberately misconstrues the facts to prove his point.
Evidence of the hypocrisy of the politically correct stranglehold blew me away a number of years ago when I was working as a contractor for a large corporation. I was standing with an associate and my boss and we were jovially passing the time throwing out casual humorous remarks. Loving humor, I threw out the classic joke that defines an Irish homosexual:
“An Irish homosexual is an Irishman who prefers women to booze.”
The boss who would never violate the company-mandated politically correct corporate culture (because he was spineless), severely chastised me in front of my associate, another humorist. My associate and I were in shock as the three of us had often told politically incorrect jokes in head-to-head conversations on numerous occasions. I followed the boss back to his office to vent my pent up anger about that bizarre conversation, when the boss quickly turned to me and profusely apologized for his outburst. Now why is that? He explained that I had told the joke in a public hallway with three people in attendance. What utter nonsense!
The bottom line of all of this is I have no intention of letting the Thought Police suppress my right to free speech, regardless of the political consequences of my “politically incorrect” comments or jokes. If for no other reason, there is a principle much larger than my well being at stake in this battle.
When I grew up, for the most part, we had two classes – the rich people and the rest of us. Today, we have the aristocracy (much like the kings and queens of old), the middle class and the poor people. The aristocracy consists of those same rich people but now we can add corporate CEOs, political classes (Congress, state legislators and local government) and the academic professors who will always try to dictate how we should run our lives. But make no mistake. We are definitely in a downward spiral. The middle class, including small business owners, is being wiped out by excessive taxes and regulations. Soon we’ll be back to two classes again. The Robin Hood concept of taking from the rich to feed the poor is another attempt at disguised communism. Has anyone considered the possibility that just maybe some people are wealthier because they busted their ass to get an education or they just worked harder than the poor people? Many well-off people work 50, 60 or 70 hours per week to attain their goals for 20, 30 or 40 years. In fact, the only people I know who work 35 or 40 hours per week are people who work for the government or for large corporations or are members of a labor union. Personally, I’ve worked 50 to 60 hours per week most of my life. Are you telling me that entrepreneurs should be penalized for working that hard to achieve the American dream? I think not! Why is it then that this simple explanation for why some people have more money never receives any press coverage?
As evidence of how frightened people are of the Thought Police, it’s even a “crime” for two students to touch each other. Yes, teachers at Pequot Lakes School are writing up reprimands for students caught hugging in the hallway. They are punished with detention if caught in this “sexual act” three times in a day or four times a week. Traditionally, hugging is a way of saying goodbye at the school. According to the school principal, “We don’t have a hugging epidemic because we’ve clamped down on that.”
How about another really stupid example of the excesses of political correctness? Airline security is not allowed to place special scrutiny on male passengers arriving from middle-eastern countries because that would be considered profiling – a “no-no” under political correctness. I just abhor the stories of the 75 year-old grandmother in a wheelchair who receives extra scrutiny so we can balance the books to assure that the airport screening personnel aren’t skewered with that abominable tag of “profiling” so it can be splashed all over the media. I must assume, therefore, that’s its OK with the enlightened ones if the terrorist’s blow up some more planes as long as we meet our politically correct objectives.
Article I of the Constitution states in part:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…”
Under the banner of “separation of church and state,” liberal elements and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have attacked just about every symbol that has been in place for well over 200 years, including the demand that “In God We Trust” be removed from any official seals, documents and even our currency. The real purpose is to institute the secular policies they desire under the guise of separation of church and state. In a recent petition (www.PetitionOnline.com), to the U. S. Treasury Department, it was affirmed that:
“It is our firm belief that it is unconstitutional to force ones thoughts of God, or a god upon another American. We have the right to religious freedom, as well as the right of freedom from religion. For those who are not believers in God, …should not have to feel as though it is a wrong belief due to the symbolism on our money. Nor should they be made to feel out of place due to the forcing of the idea of a god onto them. The American society has more faiths then Christianity and other deity based beliefs, so the American citizens shouldn’t be forced or stereotyped as being one. Many people come to this country so they can be free to express themselves religiously, and to place the comment on the back of the currency we feel is going against our right, and to remain fair to all other beliefs it shouldn’t have a place on our money….”
If you take a very literal interpretation of the Constitution, this petition may have great appeal to you; however, when viewed in the overall context, many of the principles of the Christian-Judeo tradition were the basis for our government, society and morals, although, unlike Muslim governments, the guarantees built-in to our Constitution recognize the importance of tolerance of other’s religions.
In a similar situation, according to the Associated Press, Los Angeles County has been forced by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to adopt a new official seal, by removing a very small cross from the Spanish mission and a pagan goddess. This nonsense was caused by an ACLU complaint that the cross was an endorsement of Christianity. Have you ever visited a mission in California? These missions were founded by Spanish Catholic priests to bring Christianity to the “heathens,” with crosses adorn virtually every wall of the mission. So, if for no other reason, the cross (regardless of its size) should be retained because it’s historically correct. As a matter of fact, why hasn’t the ACLU petitioned the state of California to rename Los Angeles (City of Angels) or San Francisco (Saint Francis) to non-Christian names? Perhaps names like Sodom and Gomorrah and EarthquakeVille would be more appropriate.
As a final thought on separation of church and state, some misguided California teacher actually banned the reading of the Declaration of Independence in class because the document invokes the term “God.” And the liberals wonder why the American people are turning against their form of a secular society?
Just look at the asinine changes that have been recorded in our daily speech patterns in deference to politically correct. No one’s stupid anymore – that’s too demeaning – they’re mentally challenged. No they’re not – they’re stupid! No one’s deaf – they’re hearing impaired. An even a more precise definition is “they can’t hear” which leaves nothing to the imagination. And we don’t have waitresses and waiters anymore. Now they’re servers. I prefer the gender-specific waiter/waitress categorization for no other reason then I can say, “Would you please send our waitress over when she has a minute.” It’s specific – my request is directed at an individual – not at a “class” of individuals - as in the generalized, “Would you please send our server over when that individual has a minute.”
Another really disgusting example of political correctness occurred in Washington, D.C., when the Mayor, Anthony Williams, who is African-American, accepted the resignation of a white staff member, David Howard, who had used the term “niggardly” in routine conversation in a staff meeting.
Those same politically exploitive congressmen jumped on the bandwagon to chastise this totally innocent remark screaming, “Racist, bigot!” This incident is a perfect example of how many of our elected representatives demonstrate their own ignorance.
According to Webster’s Dictionary, the term “niggardly” is defined as “grudgingly mean about spending or granting.” The word originated in the 1300’s by combining the words “nig” and “ignon” meaning “Miser.”
In no way can this word be construed as a racist comment. But no matter, the poor guy lost his job anyway. It all boils down to the citizens of Washington, D.C. complaining to the Mayor that he was not “being black enough,” especially after he hired a few well-qualified white people to help run the city government. For once, due to heavy press coverage of this nonsense, the man was eventually restored to his job.
In November 2005, the cops in Giants Stadium busted up a group of five Muslims who had thrown down their prayer rugs to pray towards Mecca on a balcony during a Giants football game. The cops were terrified not understanding what was transpiring. The press pummeled them for their “politically incorrect” response in trying to prevent what they thought might be a potential terrorist action. Not only were apologies offered to the five men, but also plans are now afoot to add a Muslim prayer room in the new $800 million Giants-Jets Stadium. If this action weren’t so pathetic, it would almost be humorous. Even though prayer five times a day is not a mandatory part of their religion, what about all of the sincerely devout Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Seventh Day Adventists, Jews, Buddhists, Mormons, and even Satanists who often pray many times a day? In all fairness, should the Giants-Jets not build prayer rooms and altars for these religions, too? Perhaps we could have statues of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, Muhammad, Buddha, Confucius, Moses, Satan, and icons from all the other religions adorn the top row of the stadium to prove once and for all what a wonderful secular society we live in. But whatever they agree on, we can be sure that the Ten Commandments will never be found anywhere within the stadium. Unfortunately, by the time all of these rooms and icons are thrown into the design, the 90,000-seat stadium will probably seat 40,000 people.
Muslims who insist on living under Islamic Sharia law instead of the laws of Australia are going to be handed their walking papers. The government took this “politically incorrect” action in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. This occurred a day after leading Muslim leaders met with Prime Minister John Howard so the government could make it clear that Muslim extremists would not be tolerated.
Treasurer Peter Costello hinted that some radical clerics would be told to find another home if they did not accept the fact that Australia was a secular state and its laws, with which all citizens must comply, are made by Parliament. If any Muslim wants to only obey the laws of Sharia, then they had best find another country that has a theocratic state to their liking. Costello on national television made it quite clear as to the government’s position. In a portion of his speech, he stated, “I’d be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that this is false. If you can’t agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and you have the opportunity to go to another country that practices it, perhaps, then that’s a better option.”
On top of that, Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters, “Basically, people who don’t want to be Australians, and they don’t want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically ‘clear off’”.” If that statement didn’t astound many in-country Muslims, then perhaps his statement that he supports spies monitoring the nation’s mosques will likely have them hiding their copies of the Koran.
Heretics! Infidels! Barbarians! Who do these crude Aussies think they are telling immigrants that they must obey the laws of Australia? American liberals will likely have a heart attack after reading this news, so please pass the newsletter onto as many liberals as you can find.
The examples I cite herein and many other situations I’ve personally encountered is why I strongly suspect that political correctness is in reality an attempt to quash individuality, an essential element of communism, and turn us all eventually into robots of the state. Seems far-fetched? Only time will tell if we continue on our present course.