Political Correctness

I’ve tried to be good, but those of you who know me … know that it was only a matter of time. I know that it is “politically incorrect” to attack “political correctness,” but I find that I just can’t help myself. Someone has to address the issue … and because it requires common sense, I guess it’s my responsibility.

I’m not sure who started the whole concept, but I think it’s important to begin at the definitional level. According to Webster’s Dictionary, “correctness” is defined as “conforming to an approved or conventional standard,” or perhaps more accurately, “conforming to the strict requirements of a specific ideology or set of beliefs or values.” I think the second definition is the better fit, since I haven’t found any regulatory authority that would “approve” of what currently passes for “politically correct” nor does there appear to be any “conventional standard.” However, we seem to have an overabundance of “specific ideologies, beliefs and values” to which we are all expected to “strictly conform.”

Now, let’s add the magic word “political” to the phrase to see what happens. Webster’s tells us that “political” means “of, relating to, or involved in politics and especially political parties.” Are you beginning to get the picture? Just put the words together … “political correctness” … and think about the blended definition: “conforming to the strict requirements of a specific ideology or set of beliefs or values of, relating to, or involved in politics and especially political parties.” To play off of Verizon’s slogan: “Do you get it now?”

Webster’s simplifies the definition as follows: “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.” Let’s look at the word “conforming.” Wow! That just shouts “freedom” doesn’t it? And how about “belief,” which is defined as “a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.” Nothing says “independence” like blindly trusting what someone else defines as “offending political sensibilities” … a phrase that almost begs to be called an oxymoron.

So, what spawned the movement toward “political correctness?” Common sense tells me that politics were involved. We live in a society in which the government has become king (no pun intended). While the Framers began with the apparently misguided phrase “We the people” and the concept that the United States of America could offer a new and better alternative to the historically failed governmental models that vested power within the elite few, I am sure Press Secretary “Glib” would tell us that’s not what they really meant to do.

I can almost hear him now: “What the Framers meant to say was that ‘We the people’ are too dumb to manage our own affairs; that we need a strong, huge government to protect us from ourselves; from our insidious desire to work hard to achieve the American dream; from the ridiculous belief that our efforts should be rewarded based on merit; and from our senseless conviction to the premise that “legal” and “illegal” are not the same terms. And since the Framers were all from Europe, I’m sure they really wanted us to become more like Europe because they must have been homesick. I don’t even know why they left Europe in the first place, but I know the ships back then weren’t very good, so they probably just couldn’t get back home. Besides, if we apologize enough for our past successes and we model our economy after Greece’s, our health care after England’s, our military after Italy’s, our sense of loyalty after France’s, and our personal freedoms after China’s, North Korea’s or the Middle East country of your choice, the people of the world will stop hating us because we’ll be just like them, and they’ll have no reason to migrate to our country.” No one can clarify things quite like Press Secretary “Glib.”

So today, it’s "politically correct" to give passing grades and trophies to all the children so they don’t feel bad if someone else studied or practiced more than they did … or perhaps was just more naturally gifted. After all, they won’t have to face that type of competition during their adult lives.

Today, it’s "politically correct" to create a “Sanctuary City” that serves as a haven for illegal immigrants … but if you try to enforce federal law (with probable cause), you’re a Nazi-racist. Of course, it’s fairly easy to become a racist in our "politically correct" world. This could even re-launch Jeff Foxworthy’s career!

• If you think English should be a required language, you may be a racist.

• If you think that people who can’t afford a home should rent rather than be given loans upon which they almost assuredly will default, you may be a racist.

• If you think that building a Mosque near the site where the World Trade once stood and scheduling its proposed 2011opening on September 11th might be akin to opening a Ku Klux Klan Meeting Hall next to a memorial for Martin Luther King, Jr. on the national holiday named in his honor, you may be a racist.

• If you disagree with our President over anything, you may be a racist … or at least you may be half of the time. The other half, you’re probably guilty of sedition.

And forget the First Amendment. In the interest of “political correctness,” it’s basically been abolished … at least judgmentally. Freedom of religion has all but been eliminated (at least in terms of mainstream religions). Crosses, Stars of David, Christmas trees, the Ten Commandments, etc. seem to offend people if they’re displayed on public property … even though they apparently don’t have the same effect if they’re present on private property right next door. Personally, I think buildings without these artifacts express an implied endorsement of atheism and therefore violate the non-existent but often discussed “separation of church and state” clause. I just haven’t been successful in getting the ACLU to take up my cause … although I pray to God they will some day!

As for freedom of speech, it is apparently “politically incorrect” to express a dissenting opinion about abortion, affirmative action, bribing candidates not to run for public office, Cabinet Members who don’t pay their taxes, earmarks, endangered species, gay marriage, global warming, the qualifications of Supreme Court Justices, the redistribution of wealth, the right to bear arms, etc. So much for freedom of speech ... and the Second Amendment for that matter. Similarly, if you don’t follow the party line … freedom of the press disappears too, as you’ll just be deemed not to be “a real news network.”

And don’t even think about retaining the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It just wouldn’t be “politically correct!” The Tea Party is a prime example. They’re just a mob of racist troglodytes who are being manipulated by right-wing extremists. I have it on good authority. A member of SEIU told me so while he was demonstrating on the doorstep of some bank official’s home, and an activist (and, no doubt, future community organizer) said the same thing as she hurled a rock through a window and a bottle at the police while trying to make a point outside the G7 Conference.

Who needs the First Amendment anyway? Besides, it was the FIRST Amendment. The Framers probably hadn’t even gotten the hang of it, if you know what I mean. (Forgive me. I’m still channeling Press Secretary “Glib.”) For that matter, I suppose “political correctness” has pretty much wiped out the rest of the Bill of Rights as well … but all for good cause.

Just remember the blended definition of the words “political” and “correctness:” “conforming to the strict requirements of a specific ideology or set of beliefs or values of, relating to, or involved in politics AND ESPECIALLY POLITICAL PARTIES.” You see, “political correctness” helps political parties segregate the population in a way that would otherwise be … well … “politically INCORRECT.”

Think of it this way, if our politicians didn’t create class distinctions, they couldn’t foster class warfare (i.e., rich versus poor). When our politicians finally realized there was even a greater number of citizens that identified themselves as middle class, the battleground shifted to the rich versus the middle class. Since our politicians defined “rich” to mean only the top 5% of the population, they automatically began to rally the 95% of voters they purported to “protect.”

What’s really cool about this strategy is that it’s extensible. For example: race warfare can be leveraged if you create a more fragment focus; making more individuals feel like they are part of an oppressed minority. That’s why politicians have had to expand race relations in the U.S. beyond Blacks and Whites. Now, the Hispanic race has become vogue because there’s a bigger voting block if you can add Hispanics as an oppressed minority to the traditional Black minority. Add religious warfare and other social differentiators to the mix and you have an endless realm of possibilities through which to manipulate voting blocks. I just can’t wait for the day when dwarf, Reformed Druid, sub-continental Asian transvestites are in play. I bet it will send a chill up the leg of the host of a then popular socio-political show called No Balls!

As long as we allow politicians to emasculate us through the guise of “political correctness” and we consent to “conform to the strict requirements of (their) specific ideology,” we can continue to surrender our freedoms without anyone getting injured … except for the generations to come whose quality of life will have been sacrificed by our lack of courage and moral conviction.

In the forum of the Common Sense Czar, you still have the right to express your opinion. Don’t worry about whether it’s “politically correct.” I promise not to castigate you for it, to classify you in a demeaning way, or to tax you for not agreeing with the majority. Just tell me what you think. It might be your last chance.

*****

© 2010 by Dr. Terry O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Political Optimism

Many of you may believe that pessimism abounds in our society today. I pity your poor, misguided perception. You see … optimism should be flourishing in your lives. Although, I must admit that I too was pessimistic for a little while. It was probably just “negative press” that was creating the illusion of difficult times: economic woes, puerile and benighted government officials, the rising of a social divide, etc. What was I thinking? These are the greatest times we have ever experienced. This is a time of “Change We Can Believe In” (or “in which we can believe” if you paid attention in English class … although that no longer appears to be a required course).

Let me explain why I’m so optimistic. In just a little over a year, I have seen great new opportunities arise for everyone; opportunities that never existed in the past. Who would have thought you could not only run for President … but actually win … without any real leadership experience. In the old days (i.e., two to three years ago), society expected you to have credentials for any position in life … other than Congress. Congressional positions were reserved for those who lacked any marketable skills … not the Presidency. Today, anyone can apparently be elected President regardless of whether they have any discernible record of leadership achievement. This is reinforced by the fact that Vice President Biden and Speaker Pelosi are next in line, respectively, according to the laws of succession.

I also learned that I could win the Nobel Peace Prize … not by doing anything … but by offering “promise.” How cool is that? (See my October 9, 2009, blog, I Almost Won The Nobel Peace Prize, to see how close I came.) If that isn’t inspirational, I don’t know what is!

But wait, there’s more! In the past, I always thought Cabinet positions were reserved for the intellectual giants of our society; people whose collective accomplishments carved a record of triumph that surpassed the norms of mortal man. Now, you can become Secretary of State if you pose a political threat to re-election. Even more encouraging, you can become Secretary of the Treasury even if you haven’t paid your taxes because you didn’t understand the Internal Revenue Code. As the saying goes: “Only in America!”

And just this week, we learned that out of all of the individuals who have dedicated their life to “the bench” or to litigating in Federal Court, you can qualify to become a Supreme Court Justice without any judicial experience. Think about it. This is a lifetime appointment. It’s a position vested with the responsibility to interpret our Constitution and preserve the integrity of our legal system. Yet, the best we can do … out of the tens of thousands of qualified judges and highly skilled, practicing attorneys … is to nominate a candidate with virtually no real world, legal experience: Elena Kagan. But, hey … she taught at Harvard!

Of course, Ms. Kagan (I won’t call her Justice Kagan until she’s confirmed) chose to ignore a Federal law which required universities that accept Federal funds to allow on-campus military recruiting. Harvard accepts about $400 million in Federal funding each year (don’t ask why it needs it), but Ms. Kagan banned military recruiters from the Harvard campus because she disagreed with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy with respect to gays in the military. Ms. Kagan is openly gay, so she felt that her personal beliefs should trump Federal law … always a good position for a potential Supreme Court Justice to demonstrate early in their career. Why let the law get in the way when it’s at odds with your personal lifestyle choice?

To her credit, she did take the case all the way to the Supreme Court … so, at least, she knows where it is. She lost; probably because the conservative members of the Court felt that they had to obey their oath and interpret the law rather than make it. You see, in the old days, only Congress had the right to make laws; something about the separation of power among the three branches of Federal government. Today, this old fashion idea has been circumvented by a more streamlined approach by liberal judges who chose to change the law on the fly. Of course, this may cause a few problems for you and me since we’ll never really know what the law is until after a judge decides, but what the heck … it is eminently more entertaining.

I guess it’s not a big deal. Supreme Court decisions really don’t carry much weight any more. Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of permitting an eight-foot high cross that had been erected in the Mojave National Preserve 76 years ago by a group of World War I veterans to remain in place as a memorial to their fallen comrades. The cross was situated on a rock in the middle of the desert about 20 feet from a two-lane highway where approximately 10-20 cars pass each day. Evidently, this magnitude of visibility was just too much for some individuals to bear, so they stole the cross during the middle of the night. As a result, I’m even optimistic now. If you don’t like a law, you can just ignore it and take action into your own hands.

And speaking of the law, we are no longer subject to the old definitional constraint that “illegal” is the opposite of “legal.” Witness the immigration debate over the new Arizona law. While there may be a “legal” way to enter this country, there apparently is a perfectly acceptable “illegal” way to do it as well … at least, within the context that there no longer is any politically correct recourse to address one’s proactive choice to ignore the “legal” procedures that are in place. So, again, opportunity abounds! You can enter the United States “legally” … as my grandparents chose to do … but why bother? You can sneak into the United States and get health care, educational assistance, etc. without having to contribute to the cause. Heck, you don’t even need to learn how to speak English. And, God forbid (can I still say that?), don’t you dare ask me if I’m here “legally” if you have probable cause to believe I have otherwise violated the law, or I’ll feel “harassed.” Ah, yes … “America, the land of opportunity.”

Now, as the Common Sense Czar, I could just require one’s nationality to be confirmed and noted on a driver’s license and only allow such licenses to be issued to citizens and “legal” visitors (i.e., those with work visas, educational visas, etc.). Since no one seems to complain about being asked for his or her driver’s license when stopped by a law enforcement officer, that would solve the problem (at least with respect to those individuals who are 16 years or older). It would also be too easy to screen immigration through the distribution of any other social service (e.g., health care, education, etc.). Only legal residents could apply; all others would be deported. That would also eliminate the economic drain caused by funding programs that were never designed to reward illegal immigration. However, there’s a downside: we would lose one more “cause” to justify throwing bottles and rocks at law enforcement officers as a “peaceful” expression of our civil discontent … as compared to the non-violent protests associated with Tea-Party rallies that are often characterized by the media as demonstrations by angry mobs.

As the Common Sense Czar, I could also ordain that one had to be remotely qualified to be considered for a position … but that would be disruptive to our new social order. It would undoubtedly incite riots since it would infringe upon our inalienable right to remain unqualified; inherently creating a biased differentiation based upon effort and ability. We need to redistribute the opportunities; a passing grade for all and a trophy for everyone! That’s what has made America great. Qualifications should only enter into the equation if we can establish a few new governmental agencies to promulgate and enforce new regulations to protect us from ourselves.

No, I much prefer to remain overwhelmingly optimistic. I have so many more opportunities in my life than ever before. I can pick and choose among the laws I choose to obey; I can express myself violently as long as I attach my behavior to a social cause; and I can be President, a Nobel Peace Prize Winner, a member of the Cabinet, and even a Supreme Court Justice … all without having had to dedicate myself in any way or demonstrate any particular level of competence. However, I’m not totally naïve. I realize that I have to overcome being a white, heterosexual male who believes in God. While, realistically, those characteristics represent major obstacles to overcome in our politically correct world, I am still totally optimistic. At some point, people will run out of other “causes” and begin to petition on my behalf. I just can’t wait!

*****

© 2010 by Dr. T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

The National Day of Prayer

Well, it’s May 6th, 2010, and we have nothing better to do as a Nation than to challenge the appropriateness of The National Day of Prayer. Oh sure, Congressional spending is out of control, we’re teetering on the edge of an economic collapse, partisanship has overcome responsible service, and the safety of our citizens has become more a function of terrorists’ ineptitude than proactive engagement by our law enforcement officials … but we still have time to persecute people of faith because … well, they’re about the only definable group (other than “rich people”) that fall outside the protection of political correctness. To paraphrase the old television version of Superman: “this looks like a job for the Common Sense Czar!”

Let’s start with the First Amendment, which seems to be the basis for attacking anything that even tangentially references a belief in a Superior Being (other than political deities). It says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” If we parse out the relevant phrases that pertain to religion, we have: “Congress shall make no law,” which seems pretty clear to me … “respecting an establishment of religion” … you know, like The Church of England, which was headed by the King of England and enforced upon its citizens in colonial times … “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” which I interpret as giving us the freedom to choose whether we wish to believe in a religion … or not.

Hey, wait a minute! Where’s the famous “separation of church and State” language that precludes religious symbols from appearing on government property or prayer from being introduced into publicly funded forums such as schools? After a careful reading, it just doesn’t exist. Its genesis resides within the 1879 Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v. The United States, which relies upon the papers of Thomas Jefferson as being determinative. Interestingly enough, Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence … not the Bill of Rights. In fact, he was in France during the time that the First Amendment was drafted and proposed and the State ratification process began. Jefferson did, in fact, refer to “building a wall of separation between church and State” in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, but he did so in 1802; the Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791. But, let’s not allow facts to get in the way.

While we’re on the subject of Thomas Jefferson, he did write the Bill of Religious Freedom in 1779 that was enacted into law by the Virginia General Assembly in 1786. Its preamble begins: “Whereas, ALMIGHTY GOD hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the HOLY AUTHOR of our religion, who being LORD, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his ALMIGHTY power to do, that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time …” [emphasis added]. It sounds as though he believes in God, but doesn’t place quite as much trust in politicians

In relevant part, the Bill of religious Freedom goes on to say: “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.” Now, as I understand it, Jefferson was considered to be very careful in his choice of words. In that regard, “compelled” would seem to be an important and clear choice of verbs. Our National Day of Prayer doesn’t “compel” anyone to pray. It merely reminds and suggests one to consider it on that one day of the year. I think that falls within the “all men shall be free to profess” element of Jefferson’s thought.

And finally, his view of Supreme Court Justices is enlightening … although rarely cited by the courts: “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” This is just one more reason I like Thomas Jefferson.

So, in spite of the controversy, I find the National Day of Prayer to be no more inappropriately “compelling” than any other national holiday. If you choose not to reflect upon our fallen soldiers on Memorial Day, so be it. If you don’t choose to give thanks to someone or something on Thanksgiving, that’s your choice. If you don’t choose to decorate your home with a tree on Christmas, that is your right. Each of these holidays has either direct or indirect religious overtones.

What about non-religious holidays? Should Martin Luther King’s Birthday be stricken from the roster because it potentially has a racial overtone? Should President’s Day be eliminated because it elevates the Executive Branch of the government (and an individual) over the importance of the Legislative and Judicial Branches, which are to otherwise be deemed equal? Should the Fourth of July be canceled as a possible affront to our British allies? Should Labor Day be banned because it celebrates the American Worker and might offend those who choose to remain on welfare?

Maybe we should just ban all holidays! In fact, we should ban the word itself because it doesn’t create a pristine separation of church and State if our government is supporting an allusion to a word that is derived from “Holy Day.”

In the alternative, please bow you head and repeat after me:

Dear God,

I pray that we stop wasting time trying to be “politically correct” in all we do;

I pray that we can attract responsible leaders who put our best interests ahead of their own economic gain, desire for re-election, and need for Narcissistic fulfillment;

I pray that those who take an oath to support and defend our Constitution actually take the time to read it;

I pray that we demonstrate the ability to operate with integrity and fiscal responsibility in Congress before we self-righteously pretend to have the knowledge to control “free” enterprise;

I pray that we stop creating massive bills with irrelevant earmarks and instead address issues in a more systematic and focused manner;

I pray that we don’t continue to delude ourselves with the belief that multiple new agencies and programs are the solution to all problems;

I pray that, if we don’t learn how to do the some of these other things, we never run out of “rich people” to tax;

I pray that we have the courage to aggressively defend our Country and its citizens rather than relying upon failed plots that we discover after the fact;

I pray that Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe be acquitted (as were the other two S.E.A.L.s) for allegedly punching Ahmed Hashim Abed, who masterminded the capture, torture, and killing of four U.S. citizens before dragging them through the streets, incinerating them and hanging their bodies from a bridge and that we never again waste so much time and money on such frivolous and disrespectful charges;

I pray that we allow Mother Nature to take some responsibility for the environment and the preservation of species (she’s been at the job a lot longer than Al Gore);

I pray that we learn to place our faith in individual rights;

I pray that we no longer tolerate the creation and maintenance of class distinctions to foster fear and anger in an effort to gain political support;

I pray that we learn the difference between the terms “legal” and “illegal” and that we do not selectively choose to enforce laws based upon political donations or potential votes;

I pray that we recognize that “equal rights” means equal rights as opposed to a preference for some … and a punishment for others;

I pray that we learn that the only “race” we should to acknowledge … is the human race;

And, I pray that, if we choose, we pray to God ... rather than pretend we are God.

Happy National Day of Prayer!

*****

© 2010 by Dr. T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.