Depression is setting in on the conservative side of the political spectrum. First abandoned by Bush 41 then toyed with and confused by Bush 43 and finally had a stake driven through its heart by John McCain last night.
By winning in Florida's winner-take-all primary over Mitt Romney McCain has cemented himself as the front-runner for the Republican nomination in 2008.
McCain will have a hellva time winning in November if he doesn't have the base of the party behind him - and he doesn't. Conservatives HATE him. He remains a huge reason George W. Bush has had a hard time over these 7 years. He has continually stabbed the President in the back while absolutely thumbing his nose at the conservative base of the party.
Unless Hillary or Obama stumble big time this fall McCain will not win. I think it is proven that if a candidate doesn't have his base in line and enthusiastically endorsing him victory becomes very elusive.
McCain has been a part of the Big Media Party for years. His desire to be loved by the dominant media has literally turned the stomachs of party Republicans. The list of his transgressions is as long as my arm and I will go into them at a later date. Needless to say "the right" is not happy and from comments I read everyday a lot of Republican voters will stay home rather than vote for this man.
Romney is on balance a more palatable human being than McCain, but his slickness and frankly his phoniness comes across upon first impression. He is truly a candidate that will say anything to get elected. This is opposed to Obama who talks a lot but says absolutely nothing. Clinton makes you feel like you are being pandered to or lied to every time she opens her mouth.
Be that as it may... Mark my words - by this time next year we will have just celebrated the inauguration of President Obama or President Clinton.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Chesterton's Wisdom
Almost everyone can agree on this observation: Wisdom and common sense are dying.
We see it everyday. We would cry if weren't so funny - or rather - we would laugh if it weren't so sad. Thankfully wisdom and common sense are not suffering from a terminal disease, they can be resurrected.
Let me re-introduce you to a brilliant and sage man who could - if we let him - bring common sense and right thinking back to life. G.K. Chesterton was a profound thinker and inspired an entire generation of thinkers a hundred years ago. His work absolutely stands the test of time. He had something to say on nearly every subject important to mankind. Today I'd like to look at one profound point that strikes to the heart of my life and maybe yours as well.
Chesterton said that when a man leaves his little house to go off to work in the big city he is leaving the larger world to enter a smaller one. This of course seems patently counterintuitive. Consider: a man would rather go to work and deal with the small and trivial problems of a large enterprise than deal with the huge issues facing him in his small house.
Think about that for a minute.
Our personal lives can be overwhelming, our problems intransigent, the solutions profoundly difficult to come upon. On the job our complex daily tasks and frequent juggling acts are child's play in comparison. We would rather take on more responsibility and stress on the job than face the responsibility and stress of - say - raising a teenager. The two are not even comparable.
I can relate. There was a time in the not too distant past when Monday was my favorite day of the week. When I would actually say this out loud people would say I was sick. Unfortunately it was true. I was more bruised by the huge problems in my little house that literally overshadowed the business critical duties I was ultimately responsible for on the job at a multi-billion dollar corporation.
This phenomenon clarifies what is really important. It is also the reason we can be one kind of person at the office and a different kind of person in the living room. We tell our teenage children that friends are great and that having many friendships is a good thing, but when the chips are down it is your family that is there for you. Long after high school and even college the people who they thought were so important will be gone, but their parents and siblings will still be there.
Human nature leads down the path of least resistance. No one wants a hard life. Still, everyday, at home or at work, someone wants a piece of you. Your wife and children (dogs and cats too) require all of you not just the "professional" you. For me personally, it is the most difficult thing in the world to give anyone, including myself, "all of me".
We are often defined by the world and by ourselves by what we do instead of who we are. Our families know who we really are, our bosses see only what we do. In reality we are both. Ultimately we need to be successful at both... Not impossible, right?
It's no wonder people drink, divorce and deny themselves. Pleasing the boss is easy, pleasing your family can be hard. If you focus too much on pleasing yourself everything suffers. On Sunday the priest offers this: Try pleasing God and all else will fall into place. Not impossible, right?
CW
We see it everyday. We would cry if weren't so funny - or rather - we would laugh if it weren't so sad. Thankfully wisdom and common sense are not suffering from a terminal disease, they can be resurrected.
Let me re-introduce you to a brilliant and sage man who could - if we let him - bring common sense and right thinking back to life. G.K. Chesterton was a profound thinker and inspired an entire generation of thinkers a hundred years ago. His work absolutely stands the test of time. He had something to say on nearly every subject important to mankind. Today I'd like to look at one profound point that strikes to the heart of my life and maybe yours as well.
Chesterton said that when a man leaves his little house to go off to work in the big city he is leaving the larger world to enter a smaller one. This of course seems patently counterintuitive. Consider: a man would rather go to work and deal with the small and trivial problems of a large enterprise than deal with the huge issues facing him in his small house.
Think about that for a minute.
Our personal lives can be overwhelming, our problems intransigent, the solutions profoundly difficult to come upon. On the job our complex daily tasks and frequent juggling acts are child's play in comparison. We would rather take on more responsibility and stress on the job than face the responsibility and stress of - say - raising a teenager. The two are not even comparable.
I can relate. There was a time in the not too distant past when Monday was my favorite day of the week. When I would actually say this out loud people would say I was sick. Unfortunately it was true. I was more bruised by the huge problems in my little house that literally overshadowed the business critical duties I was ultimately responsible for on the job at a multi-billion dollar corporation.
This phenomenon clarifies what is really important. It is also the reason we can be one kind of person at the office and a different kind of person in the living room. We tell our teenage children that friends are great and that having many friendships is a good thing, but when the chips are down it is your family that is there for you. Long after high school and even college the people who they thought were so important will be gone, but their parents and siblings will still be there.
Human nature leads down the path of least resistance. No one wants a hard life. Still, everyday, at home or at work, someone wants a piece of you. Your wife and children (dogs and cats too) require all of you not just the "professional" you. For me personally, it is the most difficult thing in the world to give anyone, including myself, "all of me".
We are often defined by the world and by ourselves by what we do instead of who we are. Our families know who we really are, our bosses see only what we do. In reality we are both. Ultimately we need to be successful at both... Not impossible, right?
It's no wonder people drink, divorce and deny themselves. Pleasing the boss is easy, pleasing your family can be hard. If you focus too much on pleasing yourself everything suffers. On Sunday the priest offers this: Try pleasing God and all else will fall into place. Not impossible, right?
CW
Saturday, January 26, 2008
UPDATE: UFO Over Texas
Something I never mentioned in the previous post was that several witnesses of the Stephenville UFO(s) reported seeing military jets giving pursuit. This was predictably denied by military spokesmen from a nearby air base. Since the story had legs and moved like wildfire through the local and then national media just as predictably the military has changed its story. The claim is now rather than commercial jets and the sunset playing tricks on the unsuspecting it was a training mission with 10 F-16 jets.
Initially the military said that they had no jets flying that evening. I supposed they head slapped themselves "oh yeah, those jets - we did have a training mission - musta have slipped our minds."
The witnesses said they first saw the craft silently moving across the sky (the silence was one thing that caught their attention about the whole experience). A short time later the object reappeared and was being pursued by the military jets. Now I have seen - and heard - fighter jets take off and fly and I can assure you they are anything but silent. They can be heard for miles. Now multiply that by a factor of ten and tell me someone witnessing that would report on the silence???
Writing for the NationalLedger.com Alan Burkhart sums it all up quite nicely:
And, if indeed these are extraterrestrial visitors then why are they buzzing around the planet? If they have the technology to fly across the void to our world, why do they not just land and have a chat (maybe they're afraid of those F-16's)? And why all the lights? Obviously, they don't care to travel with any degree of stealth. They wish to be seen. But why announce one's presence so dramatically and then just speed away?
So many questions.
Some time back, I wrote that there cannot be a massive government conspiracy to keep a lid on knowledge of UFOs because our government cannot keep a secret. I'll admit to having changed my mind. While the bulk of the supposed sightings across the globe are probably either false alarms or hoaxes, too many of them have the ring of believability to be false. Too many people with nothing to gain by fabricating a UFO story have reported sightings in good faith. Far too many of these stories describe one or more of the same types of objects - either cigar-shaped or spherical, and either glowing from within or illuminated by banks of colorful lights.
And, the lies produced by our government are getting sillier by the day. Steve Martin, a pilot who saw the object near Stephenville said, "A bunch of stuff is bubbling up. They may have to tell us the truth."
CW
Initially the military said that they had no jets flying that evening. I supposed they head slapped themselves "oh yeah, those jets - we did have a training mission - musta have slipped our minds."
The witnesses said they first saw the craft silently moving across the sky (the silence was one thing that caught their attention about the whole experience). A short time later the object reappeared and was being pursued by the military jets. Now I have seen - and heard - fighter jets take off and fly and I can assure you they are anything but silent. They can be heard for miles. Now multiply that by a factor of ten and tell me someone witnessing that would report on the silence???
Writing for the NationalLedger.com Alan Burkhart sums it all up quite nicely:
And, if indeed these are extraterrestrial visitors then why are they buzzing around the planet? If they have the technology to fly across the void to our world, why do they not just land and have a chat (maybe they're afraid of those F-16's)? And why all the lights? Obviously, they don't care to travel with any degree of stealth. They wish to be seen. But why announce one's presence so dramatically and then just speed away?
So many questions.
Some time back, I wrote that there cannot be a massive government conspiracy to keep a lid on knowledge of UFOs because our government cannot keep a secret. I'll admit to having changed my mind. While the bulk of the supposed sightings across the globe are probably either false alarms or hoaxes, too many of them have the ring of believability to be false. Too many people with nothing to gain by fabricating a UFO story have reported sightings in good faith. Far too many of these stories describe one or more of the same types of objects - either cigar-shaped or spherical, and either glowing from within or illuminated by banks of colorful lights.
And, the lies produced by our government are getting sillier by the day. Steve Martin, a pilot who saw the object near Stephenville said, "A bunch of stuff is bubbling up. They may have to tell us the truth."
CW
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
UFO Over Texas
Larry King was talking about it. The Washington Post, CBS, Fox, the AP and MSNBC reported on it. A UFO over Stephanville Texas seen by dozens of people has stirred things up. Is veil finally coming off this whole UFO scene. One observer was quoted as saying:“It's unexplainable,” Odom said. “It was something not natural; it was moving way too fast.”
In Mexico over the last few years there have been sightings of UFO's by 100's of people in large crowds, including police and government officials. More than once the crowds saw multiple UFO's in the daytime skies. The skeptics come out of the wood work and claim that ordinary people are not trained observers and don't know how to interpret what they saw. This was case in Phoenix ten years ago when hundreds of people all over the city saw a gigantic UFO that was visible for a very extended period of time. According to the skeptics there are always logical explanations - usually referred to as "atmospheric conditions" or normal aircraft so distant that they look strange to the naked eye. Here an untrained observer cleverly observed the Texas craft:
Sorrells said he has seen the object several times. He said he watched it through his rifle's telescopic lens and described it as very large and without seams, nuts or bolts.
Sorrells said. "It feels good to hear that other people saw something, because that means I'm not crazy."
I reported right here in 2006 about the United Airlines pilots and other ground crew personnel at O'Hare International in Chicago who reported seeing a saucer-shaped craft hovering over the airport before shooting up through the clouds. Again federal officials and skeptics said nothing showed up on the radar and explained it as some type of weather phenomenon.Citing the lack of any physical evidence the skeptics say we have nothing to prove that UFO's are anything but ordinary events that "look" extraordinary. Hard to argue the point about having physical evidence. However, more and more people are convinced the U.S. government in particular knows much more than they are letting on. Other governments are starting to come forward. The feeling I get is that something is going on and the government does absolutely know some things they are not willing to share, but the bottom line is that I don't think they have any better answers than the rest of us.
This is the very premise of my version of the "Great American Novel" that I wrote a few years ago. It is available here for all to read -- Eye In the Sky -- you tell me: is it actually coming true?
CW
Monday, January 14, 2008
Embrace Your Inner Socialist
John McCain Has...
I am afraid that regardless of who gets the nomination on the republican side the Dems are going to win in 2008. Maybe that's not so bad. Randall Hoven writing for the American Thinker web site tells us "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Start Loving Obama". He makes a good case for letting the libs give it a try. The Republicans have not only abandoned their own beliefs they have achieved the very damage to the country that they fear liberals will effect. Paradoxically the liberals will not get the credit or the blame. Others conservative pundits have also come to grips with the realization that "change" is necessary.
Hoven makes some very valid points:
...in 2003 Republicans got the Democratic foot off their collective neck. They had the House, Senate and Presidency. Finally, they could do all those things Republicans had talked about for the last 50 years: cut taxes, cut spending, cut regulations, reduce the scope of government, appoint constitutionalist judges, etc.
How did that work out?
Well, let's just look at Campaign Finance Reform, for example. It was proposed by a Republican Senator. It was passed by a Republican Congress. It was signed into law by a Republican President. And it was approved by a Supreme Court whose nine justices included seven who were appointed by Republicans. The result? It sure looks to me like money and special interests still have some influence in politics. Plus, Republicans were thrown out of Congress in 2006 partly because they were painted as the party of corruption.
Gee, I wonder who that Republican Senator was? Hoven continues:
Mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare are the Godzilla eating the federal budget and are estimated to go broke in just a few more years. Did the Republicans reform those programs? No, they added prescription coverage to Medicare, the greatest expansion of entitlements in 40 years. The result? Republicans got labeled as being too stingy. Seniors were irritated. Government spending spiraled and the date of Medicare bankruptcy grew closer.
We thought we largely ended farm subsidies under President Clinton with the Freedom to Farm reforms. Instead, with Tom Daschle's support, President Bush brought them back, and now we'll soon be swimming in ethanol.
President Clinton started that silly AmeriCorps, a sort of Peace Corps for America, remember? President Bush did not get rid of it or even try to; he expanded it.
Examples go on. New tariffs. Increased minimum wage. Gargantuan transportation spending. Spending growth not seen since LBJ. And what did we get for all that compassionate conservatism? George W. Bush is labeled the most ideological and divisive President in modern times, with a job approval rating approaching Jimmy Carter levels. A federal debt over $9 trillion. A loss of both the House and the Senate to the Democrats in 2006, the first time since Bush's father lost in 1992. And a field of 2008 Republican candidates that looks like the bar scene in Star Wars.
In fact, the one thing that was truly effective - the Bush tax cuts - was not even supported by the republican front runner. Will it even matter if Barack or Hillary let these tax cuts expire or if McCain does?
With the Main Stream Media talking down the economy for 6 years now it is bound to crash if for no other reason than the natural cycle of such things. Far better it be under Hillary and Barack than a republican. (Yeah, the MSM will blame Bush for it, but the average Joe will look to see who's in the White House when it hits his wallet).
Actually, if McCain wins the nomination he will most definitely lose the general election because the only thing conservatives stand side by side with him on is the War on Terrorism and Iraq. On every other issue conservatives HATE him with a passion. The fact is conservatives will stay home on election day rather cast a vote for a man they truly despise.
I'm not sure -yet- if I despise him that much.
CW
I am afraid that regardless of who gets the nomination on the republican side the Dems are going to win in 2008. Maybe that's not so bad. Randall Hoven writing for the American Thinker web site tells us "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Start Loving Obama". He makes a good case for letting the libs give it a try. The Republicans have not only abandoned their own beliefs they have achieved the very damage to the country that they fear liberals will effect. Paradoxically the liberals will not get the credit or the blame. Others conservative pundits have also come to grips with the realization that "change" is necessary.
Hoven makes some very valid points:
...in 2003 Republicans got the Democratic foot off their collective neck. They had the House, Senate and Presidency. Finally, they could do all those things Republicans had talked about for the last 50 years: cut taxes, cut spending, cut regulations, reduce the scope of government, appoint constitutionalist judges, etc.
How did that work out?
Well, let's just look at Campaign Finance Reform, for example. It was proposed by a Republican Senator. It was passed by a Republican Congress. It was signed into law by a Republican President. And it was approved by a Supreme Court whose nine justices included seven who were appointed by Republicans. The result? It sure looks to me like money and special interests still have some influence in politics. Plus, Republicans were thrown out of Congress in 2006 partly because they were painted as the party of corruption.
Gee, I wonder who that Republican Senator was? Hoven continues:
Mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare are the Godzilla eating the federal budget and are estimated to go broke in just a few more years. Did the Republicans reform those programs? No, they added prescription coverage to Medicare, the greatest expansion of entitlements in 40 years. The result? Republicans got labeled as being too stingy. Seniors were irritated. Government spending spiraled and the date of Medicare bankruptcy grew closer.
We thought we largely ended farm subsidies under President Clinton with the Freedom to Farm reforms. Instead, with Tom Daschle's support, President Bush brought them back, and now we'll soon be swimming in ethanol.
President Clinton started that silly AmeriCorps, a sort of Peace Corps for America, remember? President Bush did not get rid of it or even try to; he expanded it.
Examples go on. New tariffs. Increased minimum wage. Gargantuan transportation spending. Spending growth not seen since LBJ. And what did we get for all that compassionate conservatism? George W. Bush is labeled the most ideological and divisive President in modern times, with a job approval rating approaching Jimmy Carter levels. A federal debt over $9 trillion. A loss of both the House and the Senate to the Democrats in 2006, the first time since Bush's father lost in 1992. And a field of 2008 Republican candidates that looks like the bar scene in Star Wars.
In fact, the one thing that was truly effective - the Bush tax cuts - was not even supported by the republican front runner. Will it even matter if Barack or Hillary let these tax cuts expire or if McCain does?
With the Main Stream Media talking down the economy for 6 years now it is bound to crash if for no other reason than the natural cycle of such things. Far better it be under Hillary and Barack than a republican. (Yeah, the MSM will blame Bush for it, but the average Joe will look to see who's in the White House when it hits his wallet).
Actually, if McCain wins the nomination he will most definitely lose the general election because the only thing conservatives stand side by side with him on is the War on Terrorism and Iraq. On every other issue conservatives HATE him with a passion. The fact is conservatives will stay home on election day rather cast a vote for a man they truly despise.
I'm not sure -yet- if I despise him that much.
CW
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Bumper Stickers For 2008
Coming Soon to a Car near You!
Holding your nose in the voting booth can be painful after a while...
She deserves it. All of it!
OK, it's a take off on "I Like Ike", hey it worked for Dwight.
Modern, hip, and on message... But something smells in 08.
Subtle, huh?
Nailed it, didn't I.
Holding your nose in the voting booth can be painful after a while...
She deserves it. All of it!
OK, it's a take off on "I Like Ike", hey it worked for Dwight.
Modern, hip, and on message... But something smells in 08.
Subtle, huh?
Nailed it, didn't I.
These bumper stickers were created with love by yours truly.
CW
CW
Friday, January 04, 2008
Carbon Dioxide: Delicious and Nutritious!
No, not another Global Warming article!
I know, I know it's like beating a dead horse. Here's the deal... Climate change is real. The climate is always changing. It always will. The question is why does Al Gore and IPCC scientists automatically assume that the climate we had in the 60's, 70's and 80's was the "normal" or "right" climate? Well, they don't know it. These folks have an agenda that goes way beyond saving the polar bears.
Pursuing my initial question leads to another that is never answered in the media whenever this subject is broached. Why is it assumed that global warming is automatically bad?
Many scientists and historians have made the point of how mankind's lot improved greatly during the well documented Medieval Warming Period. Population soared because food production soared. The growing seasons were longer and fewer people perished during the shorter, milder winters. Remember that my claim is that the global warming scare mongers have an agenda? I'm fairly certain they are not thrilled by the thought of longer growing seasons and milder winters and a healthy, growing human population. In fact, there is ample evidence that far from evil intentions Gore and the scare mongers are in it for money and control. That is a topic for another day.
Dr. Arthur Robinson published an article on HumanEvents.com entitled "The Virtues of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" that just shoots holes in all of Al Gores specious and over the top claims regarding carbon dioxide. (Robinson is President and Research Professor of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.) Far from being a scary pollutant carbon dioxide is essential to all life on Earth. It is more dangerous to allow the scare mongers to re-classify this vital substance than it is do nothing about about it.
Robinson explains:
The three most important substances that make life possible are water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. The primary structural and functional element in all living things is carbon. All carbon in protein, fat, carbohydrate, and the other organic molecules in living things is derived from atmospheric carbon dioxide. Without atmospheric carbon dioxide, life as we know it would not be possible. Plants inhale carbon dioxide and are thereby fertilized. When atmospheric carbon dioxide increases -- as it has by about 30% during the past century, plant life and the animal life that thrives upon it are also increased. The annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide attributable to human activities -- primarily the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas -- is about 1 part in 10,000 of that contained in the oceans and biosphere -- a contribution of ultimately negligible consequence.
Regarding the increasing levels of man-caused carbon dioxide in the atmosphere having a cause and effect relationship to the global greenhouse it has been explained to me like this: Picture a window with a shade pulled down to block the incoming light. If you add a second, and then a third shade you will block more light. Adding subsequent shades will have an exponentially smaller and smaller effect until no more light can be blocked. It will not get any darker no matter how many shades you add. As such, this is how it is with carbon dioxide - it will not ultimately increase the greenhouse effect beyond a certain point.
There is also good evidence that the oceans can and will absorb additional carbon dioxide just as it has happened for millennia after huge volcanic eruptions and long before SUV's. There is just so much we don't know about global climate change and the literally thousands of inputs both internal and external. The computer climate modelers are inadequate to predict the future. Enough people have tested the models against the past and have found them wanting that we shouldn't allow them to be used as an impetuous for policy and action.
Read Dr. Robinson's article - it is very level headed and illuminating. Dr. Robinson pulls up all the window shades to allow the light back in on this subject.
CW
I know, I know it's like beating a dead horse. Here's the deal... Climate change is real. The climate is always changing. It always will. The question is why does Al Gore and IPCC scientists automatically assume that the climate we had in the 60's, 70's and 80's was the "normal" or "right" climate? Well, they don't know it. These folks have an agenda that goes way beyond saving the polar bears.
Pursuing my initial question leads to another that is never answered in the media whenever this subject is broached. Why is it assumed that global warming is automatically bad?
Many scientists and historians have made the point of how mankind's lot improved greatly during the well documented Medieval Warming Period. Population soared because food production soared. The growing seasons were longer and fewer people perished during the shorter, milder winters. Remember that my claim is that the global warming scare mongers have an agenda? I'm fairly certain they are not thrilled by the thought of longer growing seasons and milder winters and a healthy, growing human population. In fact, there is ample evidence that far from evil intentions Gore and the scare mongers are in it for money and control. That is a topic for another day.
Dr. Arthur Robinson published an article on HumanEvents.com entitled "The Virtues of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" that just shoots holes in all of Al Gores specious and over the top claims regarding carbon dioxide. (Robinson is President and Research Professor of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.) Far from being a scary pollutant carbon dioxide is essential to all life on Earth. It is more dangerous to allow the scare mongers to re-classify this vital substance than it is do nothing about about it.
Robinson explains:
The three most important substances that make life possible are water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. The primary structural and functional element in all living things is carbon. All carbon in protein, fat, carbohydrate, and the other organic molecules in living things is derived from atmospheric carbon dioxide. Without atmospheric carbon dioxide, life as we know it would not be possible. Plants inhale carbon dioxide and are thereby fertilized. When atmospheric carbon dioxide increases -- as it has by about 30% during the past century, plant life and the animal life that thrives upon it are also increased. The annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide attributable to human activities -- primarily the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas -- is about 1 part in 10,000 of that contained in the oceans and biosphere -- a contribution of ultimately negligible consequence.
Regarding the increasing levels of man-caused carbon dioxide in the atmosphere having a cause and effect relationship to the global greenhouse it has been explained to me like this: Picture a window with a shade pulled down to block the incoming light. If you add a second, and then a third shade you will block more light. Adding subsequent shades will have an exponentially smaller and smaller effect until no more light can be blocked. It will not get any darker no matter how many shades you add. As such, this is how it is with carbon dioxide - it will not ultimately increase the greenhouse effect beyond a certain point.
There is also good evidence that the oceans can and will absorb additional carbon dioxide just as it has happened for millennia after huge volcanic eruptions and long before SUV's. There is just so much we don't know about global climate change and the literally thousands of inputs both internal and external. The computer climate modelers are inadequate to predict the future. Enough people have tested the models against the past and have found them wanting that we shouldn't allow them to be used as an impetuous for policy and action.
Read Dr. Robinson's article - it is very level headed and illuminating. Dr. Robinson pulls up all the window shades to allow the light back in on this subject.
CW
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
PC: Not Just For Breakfast Anymore
Political Correctness is Killing Britain and America
Like so many things that come from the emotional, feel good crowd on the left side of the political spectrum Political Correctness is a movement that takes a certain reasonableness and then goes too far. In the end it makes the truth a lie and denial a virtue.
The late George MacDonald Fraser lamented what had happened to Britain during his lifetime. Fraser gained fame as a novelist and a screen writer, most notably for his Flashman series of historical novels. The Flashman character was a coward and bully originally created by Thomas Hughes in Tom Brown's School Days. Harry Flashman was the poster boy for political incorrectness. And the Brits loved him.
In an article published on London's Daily Mail website Fraser recounts:
When 30 years ago I resurrected Flashman, the bully in Thomas Hughes's Victorian novel Tom Brown's Schooldays, political correctness hadn't been heard of, and no exception was taken to my adopted hero's character, behaviour, attitude to women and subject races (indeed, any races, including his own) and general awfulness.
On the contrary, it soon became evident that these were his main attractions. He was politically incorrect with a vengeance.
Through the Seventies and Eighties I led him on his disgraceful way, toadying, lying, cheating, running away, treating women as chattels, abusing inferiors of all colours, with only one redeeming virtue - the unsparing honesty with which he admitted to his faults, and even gloried in them.
And no one minded, or if they did, they didn't tell me. In all the many thousands of readers' letters I received, not one objected.
In the Nineties, a change began to take place. Reviewers and interviewers started describing Flashman (and me) as politically incorrect, which we are, though by no means in the same way.
This is fine by me. Flashman is my bread and butter, and if he wasn't an elitist, racist, sexist swine, I'd be selling bootlaces at street corners instead of being a successful popular writer.
But what I notice with amusement is that many commentators now draw attention to Flashy's (and my) political incorrectness in order to make a point of distancing themselves from it.
In America everyone here uses the Seinfeld defense when talking about that which is not politically correct "Not that there's anything wrong with that". (We all laugh that little uncomfortable laugh because, of course, this disclaimer is the evidence that something is wrong with it).
I urge you to read this article because Frasier says it better than I ever could. While his focus is mostly on what has happened to Britain, it applies to this country as well.
Funny thing is most people are sensitive to the reasonableness of treading lightly on others who may be different from us. Knee jerk and brutish name calling and cultural stereotyping serves no useful purpose, but almost everyone believes political correctness has passed the point of ridiculousness. Unfortunately once you have groups in positions of power racked with their own insecurities and a contempt for what the public thinks, pushing an agenda to alter peoples' thoughts, you have a monster on your hands.
CW
Like so many things that come from the emotional, feel good crowd on the left side of the political spectrum Political Correctness is a movement that takes a certain reasonableness and then goes too far. In the end it makes the truth a lie and denial a virtue.
The late George MacDonald Fraser lamented what had happened to Britain during his lifetime. Fraser gained fame as a novelist and a screen writer, most notably for his Flashman series of historical novels. The Flashman character was a coward and bully originally created by Thomas Hughes in Tom Brown's School Days. Harry Flashman was the poster boy for political incorrectness. And the Brits loved him.
In an article published on London's Daily Mail website Fraser recounts:
When 30 years ago I resurrected Flashman, the bully in Thomas Hughes's Victorian novel Tom Brown's Schooldays, political correctness hadn't been heard of, and no exception was taken to my adopted hero's character, behaviour, attitude to women and subject races (indeed, any races, including his own) and general awfulness.
On the contrary, it soon became evident that these were his main attractions. He was politically incorrect with a vengeance.
Through the Seventies and Eighties I led him on his disgraceful way, toadying, lying, cheating, running away, treating women as chattels, abusing inferiors of all colours, with only one redeeming virtue - the unsparing honesty with which he admitted to his faults, and even gloried in them.
And no one minded, or if they did, they didn't tell me. In all the many thousands of readers' letters I received, not one objected.
In the Nineties, a change began to take place. Reviewers and interviewers started describing Flashman (and me) as politically incorrect, which we are, though by no means in the same way.
This is fine by me. Flashman is my bread and butter, and if he wasn't an elitist, racist, sexist swine, I'd be selling bootlaces at street corners instead of being a successful popular writer.
But what I notice with amusement is that many commentators now draw attention to Flashy's (and my) political incorrectness in order to make a point of distancing themselves from it.
In America everyone here uses the Seinfeld defense when talking about that which is not politically correct "Not that there's anything wrong with that". (We all laugh that little uncomfortable laugh because, of course, this disclaimer is the evidence that something is wrong with it).
I urge you to read this article because Frasier says it better than I ever could. While his focus is mostly on what has happened to Britain, it applies to this country as well.
Funny thing is most people are sensitive to the reasonableness of treading lightly on others who may be different from us. Knee jerk and brutish name calling and cultural stereotyping serves no useful purpose, but almost everyone believes political correctness has passed the point of ridiculousness. Unfortunately once you have groups in positions of power racked with their own insecurities and a contempt for what the public thinks, pushing an agenda to alter peoples' thoughts, you have a monster on your hands.
CW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)