In My Right Mind

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

My Photo
Location: Universal City, Texas, United States

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

Friday, October 19, 2007

The Problem With Politically Correct Speech

Ok. This is kind of a bit off topic. Well, not the problem with politically correct speech, but the setting where I encountered it in.

This blog is about politics from a conservative view point. I have purposely tried not to clutter it with my personal life. However, I'm going to bend my rules in order to make a point.

Our youngest daughter is 5 years old. She has been diagnosed with epilepsy (uncontrolled seizures) and, as if that wasn't enough, she has also been diagnosed with autism and ADHD.

Anyway, my wife and I attended our second Autism Chapter meeting in our area and that was where I encountered a shocking display of political correctness. The guest speaker was a lady from the Advocacy Center. She began her introduction by apologizing for the presence of the word, "disability" on the paper she had distributed as a hand out. She stated that she should have used the word, "issues".
There was a few nods of assent. I wasn't one of them. I was a bit stunned. Here's why.

Politically correct speech is nothing more than replacing one "allegedly" offensive word with another word, or phrase that, in the end means the same thing. Sort of.

Sort of? Well, let's take a look at the politically correct substitute word, issues.
Exactly what does that word mean? Well, it could mean someone who lives with consequences, (i.e. the autistic person has to deal with the consequences of the limitations, and difficulties that autism imposes on them).

But, the word issues could also refer to the autistic person's opinion and the personal/political opinion that informs that opinion.

So which is it?

Words like "disability" have meanings. If the autistic person fits that meaning then, it is appropriate to use that term with respect to their autism and its effect upon them.

But, once you replace a well defined word with something ambigious like the word "issues", communication is now obfuscated. Now, there is no real way to communicate clearly what is meant by the new, politically correct term.

This now provides a loop hole for each person who uses the politically correct term to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. On the negative side, it allows people to treat a person with autism as simply being, yet another whining victim whose complaints and feelings about what they are going through can be summarily dismissed. On the other hand, it can be used to mean...well, what the original word, disabled means.

There is another more dastardly reason for the injection of politically correct speech into our dialogue. And that is, to limit, and restrict our freedom of speech. And that is the worst damage that politically correct speech inflicts upon our culture.

It would be one thing, if the goal of the liberal driven politically correct speech was to try and stop people from using offensive words to hurt someone's feelings. I believe that most decent people would agree with that goal. But, that's not what is going on here. Liberals are intentionally using politically correct speech to take away people's freedom of speech to use English words in context and instead replace that speech with words and phrases that are ambiguous and actually allow leeway for abuse and control of the person described.

Liberals fool people into thinking that they are helpless victims who need to depend upon liberals for their very quality of life to be protected. Not only does the new liberal speak not free them from their actual condition, it instead, keeps them trapped in a new ambiguous label that leaves no room for them to interpret their condition other than through dependence upon the liberal solution for them; and that is dependence upon liberals to define their existence and provide for them.

This is a travesty that no one should be subjected to. People will always fare better when they can face their own situation for what it actually is and then begin to construct strategies for dealing with whatever impediment they are facing and overcome it or work around it on their own.

Politically correct labels only trap the person as impotent in the face of an ambiguous diagnosis depending upon the liberals who develop such disingenuous labels to prescribe for them a liberal controlled solution.

And that solution is slavery to the liberal, socialist/communist State for help.

This is totally unacceptable here in the United States. Maybe under Marxist societies it is workable, but not here in the "home of the free and the brave".

Freedom and bravery is exactly what disabled people need in order to freely define their lives of their own accord.

And that is my problem with politically correct speech.

Stark, Another Unhinged Liberal

Democrat California Representative, Pete Stark has joined the ranks of his fellow liberal democrats (Dick Durbin, John Kerry, to name a few,) in disparaging our military, the war in Iraq, and President Bush.

The topic of conversation on the House Floor was about President Bush's veto of the proposed SCHIP bill. Stark's comment is so typical of liberal's attempts to address any topic. They can't resist working some anti-Bush, anti-American statement into whatever they are commenting on.

Commenters on the conservative web site: "Town Hall", refer to the intense, obsessive, hatred of President Bush on the part of liberals as, Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).

Stark's unhinged statement on the House Floor the other day is probably the most intense display of BDS by a liberal to date. Here is what Stark babbled when it was his turn to speak:

“I, uh, yield myself two minutes, uh. Madame Speaker, uh, I first of all, I’m just amazed that they can’t figure out the Republicans are worried that we can’t pay uh for insuring an additional ten million children they sure don’t care about finding two hundred billion dollars to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies? Like you are telling us today? Is that how you are going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement.”

He then, turned his attention to the topic at hand and went on the usual liberal misinformation campaign to suggest that President Bush was against helping poor children with obtaining insurance.

But, poor Stark, being so badly infected with BDS just couldn't resist one more cheap, pot shot at President Bush:

"...But the President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress."

What is it with these liberal Democrats? How can someone be so full of hatred for Bush that they can't offer their constituents anything more than non-stop, immature, displays of hatred for our nation's President. Their hatred is apparently so deep, and all encompassing, that it leads them to make treasonous, anti-American statements about Bush, the war in Iraq, and even against our soldiers who are fighting that very war.

Democrat Senator Dick Durbin tried to compare our troops in 2005, with Nazis.

Democrat Senator John Kerry made this (it's the video underneath the headline: "U.S. troops terrorize Iraqi citizens") anti-troop remark:

“…and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night terrorizing kids, and children, uh, uh, uh, you know, women breaking sort of the customs of, the, of, of, of, of , of, of historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that.”

Then he also made the snide remark implying that if you were too stupid to go to college then, you wind up a soldier fighting in Iraq. A comment that he later was forced to apologize for after he received much deserved ridicule and blowback.

It seems, "decorated war Veteran", John Kerry forgot that officers have to have college degrees in order to be officers in the first place. He also displayed his ignorance regarding the fact that many enlisted troops also have college degrees, or obtain them during their enlistment. Is this ignorance on Kerry's part or, hatred for his own nation's troops? Either way it's a good thing he never became Commander in Chief.

Senate Majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid who declared the war in Iraq lost, this past April (if that isn't demoralizing to the troops, blatantly false, and aiding and abetting the enemy, I don't know what is) had the nerve to accuse conservative talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh as going over the top with his "phony soldier" comment. You can download the letter that Reid sent to the CEO of Clear Channel Communications, (the company who broadcasts Rush Limbaugh's syndicated radio talk show), to try and get Rush fired here.

Not only was Reid guilty of hypocrisy, (where was his censure of other Democrats and their anti-troop statements, let alone his own self-censure?), but, also, it is really an egregious abuse of power when a congressman uses his office to harass an ordinary citizen that he is supposed to serve, not attempt to slander.

Of course, Rush has gotten the last laugh in this one by auctioning off the letter from Reid and donating the profits to an organization to help the children of fallen marines and firefighters. Rush is even matching the final bid to add to the contribution. Not only was Rush's "phony soldier" remark deliberately taken out of context by the dubious "Media Matters" and Harry Reid, but, the only one guilty of being anti-military in the end is Harry Reid, not Rush.

Last week, Nancy Pelousi, Democrat, Speaker of the House pushed for a bill declaring the Turkish Ottoman Empire guilty of genocide against Armenians between 1915 and 1923.
The timing of this bill threatens to sever the ties we have with Turkey, who is an invaluable ally in the War on Terror, providing us supply access to troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and possibly opening up another front into the War in Iraq, namely, Turkish military forces invading the Kurds in northern Iraq.

Now, either this is a deliberate move on Pelousi's part to sabotage the War in Iraq, or ignorance on her part because she failed to think through the ramifications of such a bill at such a time. I suspect it is the former that drives Pelousi. But, either way, she is clearly not a good person to be in the position of leadership that she currently holds.

If one took the time, one could find quote after quote after quote since 2000 from Democrats showing nothing but: whining over Bush's election victories, hatred for Bush, anti-Americanism, anti-US troops etc. Couple those quotes with the Democrat's half hearted attempts to "cut and run" from a war that they approved of and voted for, (so much for Stark's lie about an "illegal war"), and their attempts to sabotage the war via this new charge against our ally Turkey, it just begs the question: why would any informed, serious US citizen ever vote for the Democrats ever again? They don't represent the American soldier or citizen. They are just power hungry. Couple this lust for power with their obsessive BDS, and it becomes abundantly clear that a vote for a Democrat is a vote against any good direction for this country.

That is, unless you are for race baiting, political correctness, class warfare, limited freedom of speech and limited freedom of religion, and most of all, a move towards turning this Democratic Republic into a Socialist Democracy in line with the rest of the failed Socialist Democracies of Western Europe.

As it has been said several times before, this ain't your grandfather's Democrat Party. It ain't my party any more either. I used to be a Democrat. But, I left that party years ago. And I am very glad that I did. Looking back, especially since 2000, I would have very little, if anything, to be proud of, and everything to be ashamed of, if I hadn't left.

I am in no way a staunch Republican, but there is no way I would ever return to support the Democrat party unless, by some miracle, it weeded out Pelousi, Kerry, Durbin, Reid, Murtha and the rest of the liberals and embraced a conservative platform. If that were to happen, I would leave the Republican Party in a heartbeat!

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Some More Food For Thought

I, once again, have no idea who the author of this piece is but, it is, nontheless, thought provoking.

Sobering thought!!

A man whose family was German aristocracy prior
to World War 2 owned a number of large industries
and estates. When asked how many German people were
true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our
attitude toward fanaticism. "Very few people were
true Nazis," he said, "but many enjoyed the return
of German pride, and many more were too busy to
care. I was one of those who just thought the
Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just
sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we
knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and
the end of the world had come. My family lost
everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and
the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and
"talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace,
and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to
live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion
may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is
meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and
meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics
rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at
this moment in history. It is the fanatics who
march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50
shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who
systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups
throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the
entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the
fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill.
It is the fanatics who take over mosque after
mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the
stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals.
The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful
majority," the "silent majority" is cowed and

Communist Russia comprised Russians who just
wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists
were responsible for the murder of about 20 million
people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China's huge population, it was peaceful as
well; but Chinese Communists managed to kill a
staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War
2 was not a war-mongering sadist. Yet, Japan
murdered and slaughtered its way across South East
Asia in an orgy of killing that included the
systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians;
most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into
butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of
Rwandans were "peace loving?"

History lessons are often incredibly simple and
blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often
miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by
their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our
enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend
from Germany, they will awake one day and find that
the fanatics own them, and the end of their world
will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese,
Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis,
Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and
many others have died because the peaceful majority
did not speak up until it was too late. As for us
who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to
the only group that counts; the fanatics who
threaten our way of life.