Let's do a little fill in the blank. What is the first word to fill the blank which comes to mind when I place the word in front of the blank space? We'll try 'global ________'. If you are honest with me and yourself, the initial thought you had was the word 'warming'. I could have been thinking of 'terrorism', 'markets' or 'positioning'. But you have been so conditioned by hearing the combination of words 'global warming' that it instantly became almost a knee-jerk response to think only of the word 'warming'.
Now, let's consider the work 'maverick'. Without a doubt, the name or face of Senator John McCain came to mind - particularly if you are attuned to any degree to the news media and politics. Also, if you are familiar with the connotations of the word as it has been used with the television show which aired a few decades ago or with its use in western movies or novels, it is not an unpleasant word. It generally conjures up images of non-conformity, those who go against the grain, the established sense of decorum or accepted behavior by a group; one who does not follow the dictates of the pack mentality - a true individual.
If, in fact, this corresponds to your view of the word, then you are giving the exact reaction which the media wants you to give. Congratulations, you do not think, (which can be such a strain) you simply react (which is far less labor-intensive). The press has conditioned you well.
The senator has been given the label by a media which has slavishly turned the cameras, microphones and newsprint toward him each time he has joined with the left to assist them in promoting their political agenda. In each instance, he could have been labeled as a centrist-conservative, a moderate Republican, a defector or a renegade, yet those labels (though more accurate and equally synonymous with 'maverick') would have given an impression of McCain which would have been counter to how highly esteemed he is by the major media. Thus, the 'maverick' designation.
Any defection from the right toward the left is celebrated by the mainstream press in this country. They would like to see more, not less, of it. Therefore to accurately describe McCain's moves toward the left would have been detrimental to their template of how the masses should accept his 'reaching across the aisle'.
Zell Miller, a former Democrat Governor of Georgia and Senator of that state was never given the term 'maverick' from the press when he demonstrated a political dogma closer to Ronald Reagan than to Ted Kennedy. In fact, the more Senator Miller exhibited behavior leaning away from the left toward the right, the more he was ignored by the press. Not so with McCain; each time he has made alliances with the left, the more celebrated he has become with the elite media.
McCain has used his status as a Viet Nam war veteran and a prisoner of war to his advantage since his initial run for the Senate from the state of Arizona. He has been consistently re-elected time after time based (I think) primarily on this part of his resume. McCain is like Ted Kennedy. The voters of Massachusetts feel guilty for not voting for Kennedy. His family members have been the unfortunate victims of the tragedies of history and he alone is the only survivor of a politically ambitious family of that generation. Massachusetts voters feel that, if they don't keep him in Senate, they have somehow betrayed the Kennedy family and have turned their collective backs on history with cold, callous disregard. With the same emotions in play, few have ever ran against him in a primary.
It is the same with McCain. There is, in the American populace, a certain guilt associated with the Viet Nam conflict. We sent all those guys and gals over there to a war which was so political in nature that it could never have been won. Therefore, we owe those vets something a little over and above what we might owe another Korean war vet , for instance. Therefore, the Arizona voters feel a twinge of guilt if they don't continue to elect McCain. He has that patriotic distinction and has married into a well respected Arizona family. Add to this his ability to never hesitate to call attention to his war service and even refer to himself as a war hero and (especially) his status as a prisoner of war and thus he increases the loyalty and guilt felt by the voters of that state. Ergo, guilt and pity keep the 'maverick' in office just as his refusal to have any sense of loyalty or convictions to Conservatism keep him in the eye of the camera as a sweetheart of the press.
Christ was crucified between two thieves. The fact that they were all crucified creates a sense of sympathy in the mind of the person considering their plight. However, neither of the thieves could logically be assigned any attributes of the Master simply by their having endured the same cruel death. Being a victim doesn't necessarily imbue one with greater intelligence, morality, wisdom, judgment or skill.
The same applies to war prisoners who have faced capture, battle or torture. Ira Hayes was a hero of Iwo Jima but I doubt that would have qualified him to be an American President.
We can all feel a sense of sympathy for the suffering of any who have gone through such as has Senator McCain or any other person who has sacrificed for his or her country. We owe them and their families honor and respect. We owe them even more than we could ever express or hope to pay back. However, we should not allow ourselves to be held hostage to overpowering ambition based solely upon those attributes. There comes a point when honor and respect must not give way to slavish loyalty which ignores detrimental behaviors that have the capacity to negatively affect large numbers of persons or the future of a political system or a party.
The Senator from Arizona, in my opinion, suffers from attributes ranging from obsessive ambition to narcissism to a messiah complex. He knows buttons to push with the press, with the public, with voters and with his party; all of which do not necessarily involve convictions, ideology, principles of conservatism or an ability to lead. He has studied the media, has seen how they can manipulate the public; they have become his enabler and he theirs, he has become embedded with many of them and knows how to play the game.
I fully believe that John McCain's famous temper is the result of something with which he was infected in Hanoi by his captors and torturers. If he doesn't get the respect, the admiration, the attention he feels he deserves based on his service and sacrifice-if you, as a peer or co-legislator, do not see things his way, beware his wrath. McCain feels he deserves the presidency no less than Hillary Clinton feels she deserves the same office. He, by tortures visited upon him in service to his country; she by tortures visited upon her by her husband.
I cannot vote for a Republican who has the 'convictions of the day' syndrome. Maybe he will appoint conservative supreme court nominees, maybe he won't. Maybe he'll secure the Mexican-American border, maybe he won't. Maybe he'll keep taxes down, maybe he won't. It will all depend on the direction of the wind, if the planet Mars is in retrograde and the how best he can look to the press, to his admirers and to history on that particular day.
Candidate McCain will get through the convention wooing the conservative base of his party. I fully expect that afterward, he will pull a trick out of the Clinton play book and paint himself as a centrist - giving you the best of both worlds, pleasing both the global warming /America-is-the -villain crowds as well as the pro-life/national defense group. Should he win the office with that technique; what will he become after he takes the oath? If he continues his 'hand across the aisle' mission, he will take many Republicans loyal to him with blind, selfish ambitions farther to the left. And those selfish ambitions far outweigh their Conservative convictions and he and they will thus further blur the lines separating conservative/liberal principles.
McCain will, no doubt, continue to hammer on the theme of war hero which has served him so well for decades. I always thought the public determined the status of a 'hero', not the person upon whom the compliment was bestowed. Thinking of and calling oneself a hero, denotes, to me, a certain character flaw. And, undoubtedly, the press will continue elevating him with their 'maverick' theme until such time that they abandon Senator John McCain and his few conservative positions in favor of their more liberal choice-be it Obama or Clinton. And, I'm also sure that the 'Straight Talk Express' will continue to bob and weave and dodge certain issues and do anything other than talk straight.
When voting in the past, many persons have expressed that they simply voted for the lesser of two evils. When the evils are equal, what does one do then?
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
May I Have My Language Back...Please?
You know, Southerners have always been ridiculed and have caught much flack regarding their speech and the bastardization of the King's (and Queen's) English down through the years from their more urbane and sophisticated counterparts north of the Mason-Dixon, a.k.a., yankees. But we have been able to communicate with each other, and to the world, to a degree slightly beyond the screeching of the howler monkey or the chest thumping and grunting of the larger primates. So much so, that we have been able to endow the nation and the world with such gifts as NASCAR racing, country music, a handful of distinguished writers, some decent universities, a poet or two and quite a few cooks and cookbooks.
Now, granted, we have our few idiosyncratic words and phrases which may throw the unenlightened into a semantic tailspin such as: "D'jeet chet?", to which the reply might come: "No, d'jew?". A simple translation of which is an inquiry into a moment of hunger or 'Have you eaten, yet?' hence the reply: 'No, did you?' Or, the ever popular, ' Howzhyee Momma n'em?', translated as 'How is your family?' These might be two questionable examples of Southern parlance not in total compliance with the aforementioned King/Queen's English - there are others.
However, such as Southern dialect might be incomprehensible to the uninitiated given the two examples, there are examples of the dominant media - particularly the northern or yankee media -as to the current butchery of the English language as spoken and written by the American population. Some of the ones I will mention are merely an indication of laziness among the media elitists; others are the product of political promotion of one party over another.
The first example I want to introduce is the phrase (or compound word) 'unquote'. The candidate said, quote, "Blah, blah, blah," unquote. Every time I hear an educated media person who projects the image that they are the ultimate authority on this subject or that, that theirs is the only true and exact source of vital information that you should ever need, and they use that term, I cringe. Any scintilla of credibility which the speaker or writer might have had with me (which is, I assure you, very little) is immediately eroded away with that statement. There is, in existence of the accepted grammar of the English language, no such word as unquote.
These persons attended major universities in many cases; studied journalism under the tutelage of esteemed and respected professors and have attained careers which cater to millions of citizens thirsty for information regarding Brittany Spears, Tom Cruise or Oprah and have a burning desire to know what new affliction or tragedy we may now lay at the feet of George W. Bush. And yet, they lose their god-like status by not knowing even the most basic usage of journalistic verbiage. Alas, one may unzip, unhook, unroll or even undress but there is no such thing as UNQUOTE!!!
Listen and learn, oh self-absorbed purveyors of political propaganda! The proper phrase is 'END QUOTE or CLOSE QUOTES! It is basic entry level Journalism 101.
Now, moving right along. Let's examine the word, 'gay'. How did 'queer' and 'homosexual' come to get replaced by the word 'gay'? When I was growing up and in my late teens, gay was associated with "don we now our gay apparel", or "gay Paree" or a "gay old time". Now, the word is immediately associated with persons who choose to have sexual preferences which do not correspond to the general population. This is the fault of a manipulative media which is more concerned about promoting politically correct terminologies and agendas than with choosing to remain true to standard and acceptable journalistic practices. The elite mainstream media is primarily concerned with altering and shifting viewpoints in the popular culture by methods of repetition and propaganda rather than delivering factual information in an accepted manner. And they have done such a magnificent job in this instance that the word itself will probably die out in its more familiar usage. When was the last time you heard anyone say, " We're going to Disney World in a few weeks. I think we'll have such a gay time!"? I rest my case, your Honor.
Next, the most annoying phrase that I hear on news programs is probably the most currently used one. How often have you heard the phrase, 'Democratic primary' in the last day or hour, for that matter? Democratic refers to a form of government; a democracy. It has nothing to do with a political party. Nothing...not one thing. Yet, it has become so pervasive among pundits, news outlets, and the general public that it has become completely accepted without question. How can there exist in our language both a Democratic party and a Democrat party?
There is, on the one hand, the Republicans, Republican party, the Republican minority, the Republican candidates. Notice the word does not change, no matter if used as a noun or as an adjective. Yet, on the other hand, there's the Democrats, the Democratic party, the Democratically controlled Congress, and the Democratic candidates. Now, my question is thus, how did a descriptive adjective which, for thousands of years since the dawn of Greek and Roman governments, has modified a type of government, get to the point of becoming an adjective for a political party? Is it the rats part of the word which bothers both the media and those identified with this party? Or is this a subtle manipulation of the language designed to subconsciously fool the public into believing that those of the party are more attuned to democracy than those evil Republicans?
Probably both are the answer. But what gets me is that no one - not an English professor, not a language professor, not a lexicographer, not a media person, not even a Republican has raised this question! It is a completely and totally incorrect use of the word and yet, we accept it without question. Even Bill O'Reilly, who is such a stickler for word usage and an expansive vocabulary, has fallen victim to the media conditioning and misuses the word daily without even a thought as to what he speaks.
There are so many others which have become so annoyingly ingrained in the culture from repetitious use by the media. Undocumented workers instead of illegal aliens. How do we know they are all working? If they aren't and they are robbing homes or convenience stores do they then become undocumented thieves? Sorry, they are all illegal aliens whether they are working, thieving, driving without a license or just living off the largess of the federal government. So, would this make me, a citizen, a documented worker? Doesn't the word take on a somewhat former USSR connotation? Such as 'the Worker's Party'?
African-Americans. Hispanic Americans. Asian Americans. Native Americans. Does this make me a European-American? Or, am I just an American. Why not Australian Americans, Russian Americans, Norwegian Americans? This is nothing more than racial categorization. I have never understood this one coming from a press that is the mouthpiece for the liberal left which touts that we should be a color blind society and preaches constantly to a white population that it is only they who can be intolerant or racist.
They have now embarked upon a new course of manipulation in the form of substituting the word 'progressive' for the word liberal. So, if liberals now become progressives, does that make conservatives 'regressives'?
We are being manipulated by a media which has an agenda. That agenda is a politically correct, socialistic one for a country of which they are ashamed. They despise all things military, all things conservative, all things Christian, all things free market, all things Constitutional. In other words, the media wants our traditions destroyed, our military gutted, our economy at other countries mercy; our status destroyed as a world superpower. They seem to want us dressed in leaves and riding bicycles to our jobs so as to diminish our carbon footprints. Each and every incremental detail with which our country and our traditions are undermined by them are designed to lead to that end. Even things as small as changing the language.
The thing which is not yet realized by these left leaning media idiots is that , when their goal has finally been achieved, that their only meaningful Constitutional right - The First Amendment - will also disappear. Then, someone else whom they have propagandized for the consumption of the masses will dictate what they print, broadcast or show. So be careful for what you wish. Study carefully the ends to which your agendas may lead, the unintended consequences of your political correctness and the promotions of your favorite leftists. You are not immune to the stifling regulations and the loss of freedoms which you wish on the rest of us.
Now, granted, we have our few idiosyncratic words and phrases which may throw the unenlightened into a semantic tailspin such as: "D'jeet chet?", to which the reply might come: "No, d'jew?". A simple translation of which is an inquiry into a moment of hunger or 'Have you eaten, yet?' hence the reply: 'No, did you?' Or, the ever popular, ' Howzhyee Momma n'em?', translated as 'How is your family?' These might be two questionable examples of Southern parlance not in total compliance with the aforementioned King/Queen's English - there are others.
However, such as Southern dialect might be incomprehensible to the uninitiated given the two examples, there are examples of the dominant media - particularly the northern or yankee media -as to the current butchery of the English language as spoken and written by the American population. Some of the ones I will mention are merely an indication of laziness among the media elitists; others are the product of political promotion of one party over another.
The first example I want to introduce is the phrase (or compound word) 'unquote'. The candidate said, quote, "Blah, blah, blah," unquote. Every time I hear an educated media person who projects the image that they are the ultimate authority on this subject or that, that theirs is the only true and exact source of vital information that you should ever need, and they use that term, I cringe. Any scintilla of credibility which the speaker or writer might have had with me (which is, I assure you, very little) is immediately eroded away with that statement. There is, in existence of the accepted grammar of the English language, no such word as unquote.
These persons attended major universities in many cases; studied journalism under the tutelage of esteemed and respected professors and have attained careers which cater to millions of citizens thirsty for information regarding Brittany Spears, Tom Cruise or Oprah and have a burning desire to know what new affliction or tragedy we may now lay at the feet of George W. Bush. And yet, they lose their god-like status by not knowing even the most basic usage of journalistic verbiage. Alas, one may unzip, unhook, unroll or even undress but there is no such thing as UNQUOTE!!!
Listen and learn, oh self-absorbed purveyors of political propaganda! The proper phrase is 'END QUOTE or CLOSE QUOTES! It is basic entry level Journalism 101.
Now, moving right along. Let's examine the word, 'gay'. How did 'queer' and 'homosexual' come to get replaced by the word 'gay'? When I was growing up and in my late teens, gay was associated with "don we now our gay apparel", or "gay Paree" or a "gay old time". Now, the word is immediately associated with persons who choose to have sexual preferences which do not correspond to the general population. This is the fault of a manipulative media which is more concerned about promoting politically correct terminologies and agendas than with choosing to remain true to standard and acceptable journalistic practices. The elite mainstream media is primarily concerned with altering and shifting viewpoints in the popular culture by methods of repetition and propaganda rather than delivering factual information in an accepted manner. And they have done such a magnificent job in this instance that the word itself will probably die out in its more familiar usage. When was the last time you heard anyone say, " We're going to Disney World in a few weeks. I think we'll have such a gay time!"? I rest my case, your Honor.
Next, the most annoying phrase that I hear on news programs is probably the most currently used one. How often have you heard the phrase, 'Democratic primary' in the last day or hour, for that matter? Democratic refers to a form of government; a democracy. It has nothing to do with a political party. Nothing...not one thing. Yet, it has become so pervasive among pundits, news outlets, and the general public that it has become completely accepted without question. How can there exist in our language both a Democratic party and a Democrat party?
There is, on the one hand, the Republicans, Republican party, the Republican minority, the Republican candidates. Notice the word does not change, no matter if used as a noun or as an adjective. Yet, on the other hand, there's the Democrats, the Democratic party, the Democratically controlled Congress, and the Democratic candidates. Now, my question is thus, how did a descriptive adjective which, for thousands of years since the dawn of Greek and Roman governments, has modified a type of government, get to the point of becoming an adjective for a political party? Is it the rats part of the word which bothers both the media and those identified with this party? Or is this a subtle manipulation of the language designed to subconsciously fool the public into believing that those of the party are more attuned to democracy than those evil Republicans?
Probably both are the answer. But what gets me is that no one - not an English professor, not a language professor, not a lexicographer, not a media person, not even a Republican has raised this question! It is a completely and totally incorrect use of the word and yet, we accept it without question. Even Bill O'Reilly, who is such a stickler for word usage and an expansive vocabulary, has fallen victim to the media conditioning and misuses the word daily without even a thought as to what he speaks.
There are so many others which have become so annoyingly ingrained in the culture from repetitious use by the media. Undocumented workers instead of illegal aliens. How do we know they are all working? If they aren't and they are robbing homes or convenience stores do they then become undocumented thieves? Sorry, they are all illegal aliens whether they are working, thieving, driving without a license or just living off the largess of the federal government. So, would this make me, a citizen, a documented worker? Doesn't the word take on a somewhat former USSR connotation? Such as 'the Worker's Party'?
African-Americans. Hispanic Americans. Asian Americans. Native Americans. Does this make me a European-American? Or, am I just an American. Why not Australian Americans, Russian Americans, Norwegian Americans? This is nothing more than racial categorization. I have never understood this one coming from a press that is the mouthpiece for the liberal left which touts that we should be a color blind society and preaches constantly to a white population that it is only they who can be intolerant or racist.
They have now embarked upon a new course of manipulation in the form of substituting the word 'progressive' for the word liberal. So, if liberals now become progressives, does that make conservatives 'regressives'?
We are being manipulated by a media which has an agenda. That agenda is a politically correct, socialistic one for a country of which they are ashamed. They despise all things military, all things conservative, all things Christian, all things free market, all things Constitutional. In other words, the media wants our traditions destroyed, our military gutted, our economy at other countries mercy; our status destroyed as a world superpower. They seem to want us dressed in leaves and riding bicycles to our jobs so as to diminish our carbon footprints. Each and every incremental detail with which our country and our traditions are undermined by them are designed to lead to that end. Even things as small as changing the language.
The thing which is not yet realized by these left leaning media idiots is that , when their goal has finally been achieved, that their only meaningful Constitutional right - The First Amendment - will also disappear. Then, someone else whom they have propagandized for the consumption of the masses will dictate what they print, broadcast or show. So be careful for what you wish. Study carefully the ends to which your agendas may lead, the unintended consequences of your political correctness and the promotions of your favorite leftists. You are not immune to the stifling regulations and the loss of freedoms which you wish on the rest of us.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Social Re-engineering in Presidential Debates
I wasted an hour last month watching the Democrat debate from Iowa. This was the debate(?) following the other abysmal embarassment given by the Republicans and hosted by the same unsalted cracker the day before.
Both the questions and answers as well as the format of the so called 'debates' gives me visions of American cities burning and someone (probably a Clinton) fiddling as our Republic slowly sinks into the west with the setting sun.
The first issue that strikes me is the moderator for both farces, Carolyn Washburn, a journalist in Iowa. Obviously a pseudo-intellectual tree hugging liberal who worships at the Global Warming Altar. The debates were also put on by Iowa PBS stations. Now, insofar as the Republicans, what the hell is wrong with this picture? The Repubs get questions on global warming/federalized healthcare, etc., questions not normally associated with the Republicans or conservatives in general. And, of course, the Dems get questioned in the exact same way. Why not questions which would speak to conservative viewers who are trying to make a determination as to who might be the most conservative among them? Questions regarding gun control, bigger government , taxation, etc. This forum, this moderator, these questions served no purpose for Republicans other than to make the candidates feel as if they need to move more to the left to be accepted by the voting public. It also serves to try and make Republican candidates as well as the party itself look like its policies are out of touch with the mainstream (whateverthehell that is). Mizzzz Washburn might as well have asked them what their favorite wood was for cross burnings.
And then there was the Democrat softball press conference...er, debate. Hell, why didn't Carolyn just parrot the same questions of one group as she did the other. For the Democrats, these were furry softballs which only gave them a better platform to show off for their constituency. For the life of me, I don't understand why these Republican candidates fall for this smarm. This is a media person (liberal) hosting a debate with questions chosen by and broadcast by PBS (liberal). Why not just have Al Franken as the moderator and have Air America come up with the questions and broadcast the thing? Here Mr. fox, come on into my henhouse and guard my chickens while I'm away!
The Republicans would have been far better off to refuse the debate as offered! Pull a Nancy Reagan and JUST SAY NO, They would have gotten more press, more soundbites, and been seen in a more principled light by their party voters than they ever could have been in agreeing to this spectacle.
The left as represented by the mainstream media is controlling the dialogue, the content, and the issues of the presidential race and the conservatives are completely oblivious to it. For all intents and purposes, they create the issues for political dialog, package them with the buttons and bows as they see fit and present them in a manner which highlights their left wing heroes and makes their Republican opponents look like they just stepped out of one of Nurse Ratchett's facilities... and none of the candidates - conservative or liberal - seem to be willing to stray from that template.
Apparently, the Republican candidates are so anxious for exposure they would subject themselves to anything short of mud wrestling to get some type of media coverage.
What these guys refuse to acknowledge or even think about is how badly they are allowing themselves and conservatism to be dumbed down and drawn farther toward the left end of the political spectrum.
The media is allowed to define issues and intimidate conservative candidates into taking positions which would have been vehemently fought by a true conservative ten years ago. By participating in these and the YouTube types of debates, the rather poor and disappointing pool of potential presidential pretenders are allowing their own ideology to be trashed and recycled into something which comes out looking like a soft boiled democrat position.
Just by answering a question on global warming, for instance, it gives crediblity to the issue as presented by the elite media and the Alberto Gore minions. As most registered Republicans sit in their dens and watch this tripe and listen to the contenders give their pap answers (which are spun and designed to hopefully pull in voters from their own party without pissing off the nutcases at Media Matters) they, being loaded up with guilt in the first place, think that maybe they also should soften their conservative positions as have their cadre of candidates. At the very least, the candidates answers and positions on these issues cast doubt in the minds of Republican voters who either look at themselves as 'moderate' or have latched on to one or two issues, i.e., abortion or strict constructionist supreme court nominees and (without knowing anything else about conservatism) they get carried away by the tide of 'consensus' on global warming, illegal aliens, socialized health care, etc. Once the seed of doubt on such issues gets into their mindset, they invariable get pulled another notch toward the left.
Take a stand candidates: develop a backbone as opposed to a backcartilage. As you allow the media to set the hook in your jaw and refuse to even fight being drawn from the waters of your beliefs, the great unwashed masses of Republicans whose ideology is not as yet congealed swims right behind you within striking distance of the media and the radical liberals nets. And, as you and they are pulled from those familiar waters you will either die at their hands or evolve your gills to breathe their fetid, stagnant air of indoctrination, dependency, socialism and amoral anarchy.
Well, don't take my soul with you when you sign the contract with the Mephistopheles Media. And get rid of the Vince Lombardi winning-is-everything attitude. When and if you win, you won't be that far from the philosophy of the one who lost!
All the while, the mainstream punk media elitists win the day and the Media Matters and Move On liberals (whom the candidates are so afraid of insulting) are laughing until they wet their all natural recycled vegetable dyed pants.
Get a grip guys! Act conservative. Have an ideology. Lift up your skirts and show some convictions. Read a few Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Judge Bork books. Let John McCain continue to lean left and the rest of you lean over toward Ron Paul. You might learn something.
Both the questions and answers as well as the format of the so called 'debates' gives me visions of American cities burning and someone (probably a Clinton) fiddling as our Republic slowly sinks into the west with the setting sun.
The first issue that strikes me is the moderator for both farces, Carolyn Washburn, a journalist in Iowa. Obviously a pseudo-intellectual tree hugging liberal who worships at the Global Warming Altar. The debates were also put on by Iowa PBS stations. Now, insofar as the Republicans, what the hell is wrong with this picture? The Repubs get questions on global warming/federalized healthcare, etc., questions not normally associated with the Republicans or conservatives in general. And, of course, the Dems get questioned in the exact same way. Why not questions which would speak to conservative viewers who are trying to make a determination as to who might be the most conservative among them? Questions regarding gun control, bigger government , taxation, etc. This forum, this moderator, these questions served no purpose for Republicans other than to make the candidates feel as if they need to move more to the left to be accepted by the voting public. It also serves to try and make Republican candidates as well as the party itself look like its policies are out of touch with the mainstream (whateverthehell that is). Mizzzz Washburn might as well have asked them what their favorite wood was for cross burnings.
And then there was the Democrat softball press conference...er, debate. Hell, why didn't Carolyn just parrot the same questions of one group as she did the other. For the Democrats, these were furry softballs which only gave them a better platform to show off for their constituency. For the life of me, I don't understand why these Republican candidates fall for this smarm. This is a media person (liberal) hosting a debate with questions chosen by and broadcast by PBS (liberal). Why not just have Al Franken as the moderator and have Air America come up with the questions and broadcast the thing? Here Mr. fox, come on into my henhouse and guard my chickens while I'm away!
The Republicans would have been far better off to refuse the debate as offered! Pull a Nancy Reagan and JUST SAY NO, They would have gotten more press, more soundbites, and been seen in a more principled light by their party voters than they ever could have been in agreeing to this spectacle.
The left as represented by the mainstream media is controlling the dialogue, the content, and the issues of the presidential race and the conservatives are completely oblivious to it. For all intents and purposes, they create the issues for political dialog, package them with the buttons and bows as they see fit and present them in a manner which highlights their left wing heroes and makes their Republican opponents look like they just stepped out of one of Nurse Ratchett's facilities... and none of the candidates - conservative or liberal - seem to be willing to stray from that template.
Apparently, the Republican candidates are so anxious for exposure they would subject themselves to anything short of mud wrestling to get some type of media coverage.
What these guys refuse to acknowledge or even think about is how badly they are allowing themselves and conservatism to be dumbed down and drawn farther toward the left end of the political spectrum.
The media is allowed to define issues and intimidate conservative candidates into taking positions which would have been vehemently fought by a true conservative ten years ago. By participating in these and the YouTube types of debates, the rather poor and disappointing pool of potential presidential pretenders are allowing their own ideology to be trashed and recycled into something which comes out looking like a soft boiled democrat position.
Just by answering a question on global warming, for instance, it gives crediblity to the issue as presented by the elite media and the Alberto Gore minions. As most registered Republicans sit in their dens and watch this tripe and listen to the contenders give their pap answers (which are spun and designed to hopefully pull in voters from their own party without pissing off the nutcases at Media Matters) they, being loaded up with guilt in the first place, think that maybe they also should soften their conservative positions as have their cadre of candidates. At the very least, the candidates answers and positions on these issues cast doubt in the minds of Republican voters who either look at themselves as 'moderate' or have latched on to one or two issues, i.e., abortion or strict constructionist supreme court nominees and (without knowing anything else about conservatism) they get carried away by the tide of 'consensus' on global warming, illegal aliens, socialized health care, etc. Once the seed of doubt on such issues gets into their mindset, they invariable get pulled another notch toward the left.
Take a stand candidates: develop a backbone as opposed to a backcartilage. As you allow the media to set the hook in your jaw and refuse to even fight being drawn from the waters of your beliefs, the great unwashed masses of Republicans whose ideology is not as yet congealed swims right behind you within striking distance of the media and the radical liberals nets. And, as you and they are pulled from those familiar waters you will either die at their hands or evolve your gills to breathe their fetid, stagnant air of indoctrination, dependency, socialism and amoral anarchy.
Well, don't take my soul with you when you sign the contract with the Mephistopheles Media. And get rid of the Vince Lombardi winning-is-everything attitude. When and if you win, you won't be that far from the philosophy of the one who lost!
All the while, the mainstream punk media elitists win the day and the Media Matters and Move On liberals (whom the candidates are so afraid of insulting) are laughing until they wet their all natural recycled vegetable dyed pants.
Get a grip guys! Act conservative. Have an ideology. Lift up your skirts and show some convictions. Read a few Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Judge Bork books. Let John McCain continue to lean left and the rest of you lean over toward Ron Paul. You might learn something.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
The American Voter
Well, we've just passed the one year point to the next general presidential election. We have a field of Democrats who all want to do more for us and increase the power of the nanny state by instituting more cradle-to-grave entitlements and, on the other hand, we have a field of Republicans who are fighting to explain how they are more Republican than the other Republicans who are running.
All the candidates have one thing in common - the American voter decides who wins. Well, hopefully anyway; unless the American voter sleepwalks until next November! Also, I have a sneaky suspicion that this will probably go down as one of the most crooked voting periods in American history. There's way too much opportunity for cheating. But, I digress...
Most voters are impelled to vote based on a single reason. Generally speaking, just based on personal observation and experience, I'd say that the second largest slice of the pie chart would go to fear.
Think about your own situation. The last time you voted, did you vote to put in the best candidate or did you vote against someone whom you were afraid would: raise taxes, support George Bush, not give the local public school system every stinkin' thing they asked for 'for the children', or be just too controversial for your delicate tastes?
Now, I could list a whole litany of reasons to fear one candidate over another, but, you get the point.
I reckon the next largest slice of that chart would go to knowing or rather thinking you know the candidate. The familiarity syndrome - which is often linked to the incumbency syndrome - is one to think over as well. For example, how often have you heard, "I don't know much about X, but Y has been in there one term. He/she wasn't so bad, better a devil you know than a devil you don't know!"
Ain't that a killer! Forget finding out who they are, what they believe, their political philosophy, etc., hell, just vote for the other one that is 'Not too bad.' God forbid you would expend a minute particle of gray matter to actually get a little information. It's too much like work to track down a little more information on a candidate - where he/she stands morally, philosophically, politically? How many terms do you give 'nottoobad' before they become 'too bad' and tax you out of existence?
This one always gives me a similar sensation to kicking a chestnut burr barefoot. I've heard comments at local or state elections like, "Well , I don't know much about him but he goes to the same church Aunt Hazel goes to , I guess he'll be alright." That's about as irrational as voting for/against someone whom your daddy's half-neighbor went to the same school with ten years apart!
Thanks. It is so good to know that voters such as this so carefully weigh the future of their city/county/state/country as well as my future. Which leads me to the next one...
Appearance/personality: GodAlmighty folks! Since when did the future of Western Civilization get boiled down to who looks good in a suit/pantsuit or who has such a charming smile? When did the future of the greatest nation in western civilization boil down to a beauty contest? Miss America mentality. 'Nuff said.
Probably the one that annoys me the most as a Southerner is the party faithful. You see, after the Civil War, The War for State's Rights, seems like everybody in the South wanted to punish Abe Lincoln so they all became Democrats. That was okay, then. Southerners wanted to make a statement. They had followed the war and the politics up to, through and past the war and they chose to continue their defiance of Abe in this manner. But we are getting into the 5th and 6th generation after that period and too many of us are still registered as Democrats and the only reason you get from them is, " Well, my daddy was a Democrat and his daddy was a Democrat. If I was to register as a Republican, they'd roll over in their graves."
Hello! The platform of the Democrat party is only about 180 degrees from where it was during the War for States Rights!!! So let grandpa roll. We lost the war. Get over it! Sherman's dead, Abe's dead. Get a fix on your political philosophy and make a decision on your own before we become the new France. SOCIALISM is the new Democrat platform...Period!
Sexism. Now, it has been stated that white males are intimidated by Hillary because she is a strong, take charge kind of woman. Yeah, so was Margaret Thatcher, so is Condoleeza Rice, so is and Kay Bailey Hutchinson. It is the policies not the ovaries. Southern men married women who could plow, chop wood, and cook a full meal on a woodstove in the middle of August without air conditioning or electric fans long before MS. Rodham-Clinton came along. If MS. Rodham-Clinton is too strong, it is like the strong of coffee that has sat on the burner from 6:00 a.m. til noon. Unpalatable and bitter. Run a woman that is a southern momma and you'll find that issue melts away. And if any of you ladies are voting for Rodham-Clinton just because she's a woman, you're thinking with your reproductive organs which is what you accuse men of doing!
There are, of course, another half dozen reasons why people vote one way or another, such as the single issue fixation, i.e., taxes, abortion, 'free' health care, ad infinitum. Nevertheless, figure out into which category you fit and do a little thinking. If you aren't too busy watching reruns because of the writer's strike, get some information about where candidates stand. Get a grip on your political philosophy and make a written or a mental list of the likes and dislikes of a candidate you're leaning toward.
Do a little investigating. Virtually every community has both a local Democrat and Republican headquarters, or at least a local party chairman. Seek them out for more information on a particular candidate. Most national or state candidates have websites while they are running for office, check out the website. Read newspaper articles, magazines, talk to your neighbor, seek out alternative media but don't just rely on the network from which, "More Americans get their news than from any other source." They will only tell you what they want you to know!
A little homework won't kill you! It didn't send you to Forest Lawn in the sixth grade, it won't now. An ignorant voter is a detriment to himself, his children, his neighbor and his nation. Don't be an ignorant voter.
All the candidates have one thing in common - the American voter decides who wins. Well, hopefully anyway; unless the American voter sleepwalks until next November! Also, I have a sneaky suspicion that this will probably go down as one of the most crooked voting periods in American history. There's way too much opportunity for cheating. But, I digress...
Most voters are impelled to vote based on a single reason. Generally speaking, just based on personal observation and experience, I'd say that the second largest slice of the pie chart would go to fear.
Think about your own situation. The last time you voted, did you vote to put in the best candidate or did you vote against someone whom you were afraid would: raise taxes, support George Bush, not give the local public school system every stinkin' thing they asked for 'for the children', or be just too controversial for your delicate tastes?
Now, I could list a whole litany of reasons to fear one candidate over another, but, you get the point.
I reckon the next largest slice of that chart would go to knowing or rather thinking you know the candidate. The familiarity syndrome - which is often linked to the incumbency syndrome - is one to think over as well. For example, how often have you heard, "I don't know much about X, but Y has been in there one term. He/she wasn't so bad, better a devil you know than a devil you don't know!"
Ain't that a killer! Forget finding out who they are, what they believe, their political philosophy, etc., hell, just vote for the other one that is 'Not too bad.' God forbid you would expend a minute particle of gray matter to actually get a little information. It's too much like work to track down a little more information on a candidate - where he/she stands morally, philosophically, politically? How many terms do you give 'nottoobad' before they become 'too bad' and tax you out of existence?
This one always gives me a similar sensation to kicking a chestnut burr barefoot. I've heard comments at local or state elections like, "Well , I don't know much about him but he goes to the same church Aunt Hazel goes to , I guess he'll be alright." That's about as irrational as voting for/against someone whom your daddy's half-neighbor went to the same school with ten years apart!
Thanks. It is so good to know that voters such as this so carefully weigh the future of their city/county/state/country as well as my future. Which leads me to the next one...
Appearance/personality: GodAlmighty folks! Since when did the future of Western Civilization get boiled down to who looks good in a suit/pantsuit or who has such a charming smile? When did the future of the greatest nation in western civilization boil down to a beauty contest? Miss America mentality. 'Nuff said.
Probably the one that annoys me the most as a Southerner is the party faithful. You see, after the Civil War, The War for State's Rights, seems like everybody in the South wanted to punish Abe Lincoln so they all became Democrats. That was okay, then. Southerners wanted to make a statement. They had followed the war and the politics up to, through and past the war and they chose to continue their defiance of Abe in this manner. But we are getting into the 5th and 6th generation after that period and too many of us are still registered as Democrats and the only reason you get from them is, " Well, my daddy was a Democrat and his daddy was a Democrat. If I was to register as a Republican, they'd roll over in their graves."
Hello! The platform of the Democrat party is only about 180 degrees from where it was during the War for States Rights!!! So let grandpa roll. We lost the war. Get over it! Sherman's dead, Abe's dead. Get a fix on your political philosophy and make a decision on your own before we become the new France. SOCIALISM is the new Democrat platform...Period!
Sexism. Now, it has been stated that white males are intimidated by Hillary because she is a strong, take charge kind of woman. Yeah, so was Margaret Thatcher, so is Condoleeza Rice, so is and Kay Bailey Hutchinson. It is the policies not the ovaries. Southern men married women who could plow, chop wood, and cook a full meal on a woodstove in the middle of August without air conditioning or electric fans long before MS. Rodham-Clinton came along. If MS. Rodham-Clinton is too strong, it is like the strong of coffee that has sat on the burner from 6:00 a.m. til noon. Unpalatable and bitter. Run a woman that is a southern momma and you'll find that issue melts away. And if any of you ladies are voting for Rodham-Clinton just because she's a woman, you're thinking with your reproductive organs which is what you accuse men of doing!
There are, of course, another half dozen reasons why people vote one way or another, such as the single issue fixation, i.e., taxes, abortion, 'free' health care, ad infinitum. Nevertheless, figure out into which category you fit and do a little thinking. If you aren't too busy watching reruns because of the writer's strike, get some information about where candidates stand. Get a grip on your political philosophy and make a written or a mental list of the likes and dislikes of a candidate you're leaning toward.
Do a little investigating. Virtually every community has both a local Democrat and Republican headquarters, or at least a local party chairman. Seek them out for more information on a particular candidate. Most national or state candidates have websites while they are running for office, check out the website. Read newspaper articles, magazines, talk to your neighbor, seek out alternative media but don't just rely on the network from which, "More Americans get their news than from any other source." They will only tell you what they want you to know!
A little homework won't kill you! It didn't send you to Forest Lawn in the sixth grade, it won't now. An ignorant voter is a detriment to himself, his children, his neighbor and his nation. Don't be an ignorant voter.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Introduction or What is Kudzu?
Greetings and Salutations from the South! Notice that the word 'South' is capitalized. It is a small indication of reverence for my region, my people and a vanishing way or life. It is not necessarily a reverence for my state, North Carolina, which is rapidly becoming the most liberal state south of the Mason-Dixon line. I am amazed at a state that could elect Senator Jesse Helms term after term and then turn around and give illegal aliens a drivers license. But that is another subject which will be addressed at a later time.
Kudzu is that wonderful Chinese import vine which threatened, at one time, to take over the entire Southland. Unfortunately, among other things, it is representative of the South. It grows along interstates, beside pastures, crawls up roadsigns to the point where the information on the sign, and indeed, the sign, post and all, is obliterated by the creeping vine and and the hand sized leaves.
It crawls up power poles, along power lines, covers billboards, suffocates trees and generally spreads to take over everything it possibly can. It is reported to incrementally grow up to two feet or more in a single day and is of no use for much of anything other than itself. Kinda reminds me of liberalism. But over and above that, Kudzu represents, for me the essence of the South. In most cases, farmers were introduced to the intrusive plant by local extension agents as being the cure all for building up their poor red soil.
My dad used to tell me about how the local agriculture extension agent sold the bad bill of goods to my grandpa. "Plant it, it'll build up your soil and prevent erosion. When you plow it under, it'll rot and compost and enrich the soil and your pasture land and garden will grow anything you plant."
Yeah. Sure. Grandpa believed him and planted it around the farm. It did nothing the man told him other than take over the place. My daddy spent the next 55 years trying to get rid of it. Another shining example of ' I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.'
So, there you go. That's why I chose the name for this blog. I'll be giving you some perspectives from my point of view. I'm not necessarily the classic stereotype of southern 'baccer chawin' redneck. But you'll find out more information about me, my eclectic views and interests, my rearing in the South and my views on liberalism, the media and the sad state of politics in general as we go along.
Grandpa was deceived by the government, I've been deceived and ripped off by the government and I've been lied to for far too long by that sacrosanct branch of government...the liberal media. I intend to take no prisoners.
It ought to be good for a few idle moments. It might possibly help offset some of the pap you're fed from The New York Times, Charlie Gibson or the gang at M(ostly)S(ocialists)NBC.
Kudzu is that wonderful Chinese import vine which threatened, at one time, to take over the entire Southland. Unfortunately, among other things, it is representative of the South. It grows along interstates, beside pastures, crawls up roadsigns to the point where the information on the sign, and indeed, the sign, post and all, is obliterated by the creeping vine and and the hand sized leaves.
It crawls up power poles, along power lines, covers billboards, suffocates trees and generally spreads to take over everything it possibly can. It is reported to incrementally grow up to two feet or more in a single day and is of no use for much of anything other than itself. Kinda reminds me of liberalism. But over and above that, Kudzu represents, for me the essence of the South. In most cases, farmers were introduced to the intrusive plant by local extension agents as being the cure all for building up their poor red soil.
My dad used to tell me about how the local agriculture extension agent sold the bad bill of goods to my grandpa. "Plant it, it'll build up your soil and prevent erosion. When you plow it under, it'll rot and compost and enrich the soil and your pasture land and garden will grow anything you plant."
Yeah. Sure. Grandpa believed him and planted it around the farm. It did nothing the man told him other than take over the place. My daddy spent the next 55 years trying to get rid of it. Another shining example of ' I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.'
So, there you go. That's why I chose the name for this blog. I'll be giving you some perspectives from my point of view. I'm not necessarily the classic stereotype of southern 'baccer chawin' redneck. But you'll find out more information about me, my eclectic views and interests, my rearing in the South and my views on liberalism, the media and the sad state of politics in general as we go along.
Grandpa was deceived by the government, I've been deceived and ripped off by the government and I've been lied to for far too long by that sacrosanct branch of government...the liberal media. I intend to take no prisoners.
It ought to be good for a few idle moments. It might possibly help offset some of the pap you're fed from The New York Times, Charlie Gibson or the gang at M(ostly)S(ocialists)NBC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)