Monday, June 27, 2005

 

What DO we call them???

Have you noticed that recently the news media are calling liberals "Progressives"? Apparently, the word "Liberal" hurts their feelings. In today's culture we believe that no one should ever have their feelings hurt (unless they are conservatives or Christians, that is), so the media have created this word "Progressives".

I commented to one of my students that "words mean things" and that we should call things what they are...she commented that "they don't call Conservatives 'jerks'..." Clever child...

Why that word? Given their actions in congress of late, wouldn't a better word be "Obstructionists"? But I digress...

I spent my morning walk today pondering new politically correct terms for the two dominant parties and the two dominant political mindsets, i.e., Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Democrats.

I personally like the terms "Right" and "Left", but part of that is a personal inside joke based on Ecclesiastes 10:2...but I'll leave it to you to look it up yourselves. But for some reason neither side seems to embrace those terms, so let's look further.

A perfectly workable, accurate set of terms would be "Socialists" and "Capitalists", but the Right is about a lot more than capitalism, including individual rights, private ownership, state's sovereignty, national defense, etc. And, of course, Democrats get their panties in a bunch when you call them Socialists. At least most of them do. And again, the purpose of this whole exercise is to prevent them from being offended.

That premise rules out several other descriptive terms such as the "Rational Party" and the "Irrational Party", but that line of thinking took me closer to some more acceptable terminology.

What I finally came up with were "Pragmatists" for the Right, and "Idealists" for the Left. Both informative terms that leave adaquate latitude for detractors, yet are equally flattering to each set of proponents. Let's look at each:

Republicans, the party of George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Arnold Schwarzenegger, are the "go and get the job done" party. Democrats would say that they run roughshod over minority rights in the process. Often, they would say, Republicans jump to action without using their heads or hearts (or without consulting the U.N.--oh, oh, there I go again!) Democrats scoffed at "W's" "Compassion Conservativism", saying that the terms were mutually exclusive. The term "Pragmatist" means: "A person who takes a practical approach to problems and is concerned primarily with the success or failure of her actions". That is a definition that both Republicans and Democrats should find pleasure with.

Democrats, the party of John Kerry, Al Gore and Hilliary Rodham Clinton, are the party of peace, moderation and appeasement. All wonderful ideals. The term "Idealism" refers to "Elevated ideals or conduct; the quality of believing that ideals should be pursued", which should please the Left...the term "Idealist" also includes the definition, "Someone guided more by ideals than by practical considerations" which will give ammunition to the Right.

I am happy with these terms, because I feel that they are discriptive without being sarcastic (unless the user wants them to be). If you like these terms, use them. If you don't, I want to know the reasons why and your better suggestions.

It is all about communication of ideas here...

posted by huggy 10:35 PM

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

 

Truth, Justice and the American Way...

Now, more than ever, I am convinced that these words can never be used together in the same sentence...

O.J. Simpson hacks his wife and her lover to death and is found innocent...

After talking about doing it for years, Robert Blake shoots his wife and is found innocent...

Now, after years of diddling little boys, Michael Jackson is found innocent...

Meanwhile, I can't get out of a traffic ticket to save my soul even when I am innocent!!!

One of the jurors stated today "I don't have any doubts that Michael Jackson molested little boys...but the prosecution just didn't present a good case"... So, this juror conspired with 11 other Santa Maria idiots to release Jackson to molest God knows how many other children...in order to punish the D.A. for bulloxing the case?????

Meanwhile, in other news yesterday, the US Senate voted to officially apologize for decades of congressional indifference toward lynchings...

Let's look at that...

Would a lynch mob's solution for Michael violating a little boy have been any less just than what happened in the Santa Maria courthouse yesterday? I personally am beginning to believe that the structures of our government have become so corrupt and ineffective that civilian vigilantism may be the only way for justice to return to this country.

It is a good thing that Saddam Hussein is being tried in Iraq...

posted by huggy 8:25 AM