Friday, May 14, 2010


OK, it's time for a rant, or in this age of politically correct euphemisms, a "tolerance challenged exhortation". The information/opinion/commentary overload of which this forum is a part has reduced itself to a feedback loop of clichés', worn out epithets and politically correct nonsense. It's time for a clean sweep of the commentary idiom and a refreshing breeze of new expressions. Here's some candidates for expulsion.


Now every conservative no matter how traditional or how "neo" has been anointed with this new pejorative by liberal critics. Few if any of the liberal users have any idea how the term originated; who the term applied to or what ideological point of view it describes. It's simple name calling and it sounds more sinister than "Republicans", maybe.


This catchy phrase was almost immediately caught up in the political-media "phrase de jure" syndrome and unfortunately refuses to die. How about bringing an "end" to this overused concoction's "days" and using something else like the old fashioned cliché' , "In the final analysis" or the old standby "When all is said and done." Too untrendy I guess.


According to this "carved in stone" (whoops!) assertion, any policy of any advocate automatically is responsible for all the measures of U.S. "greatness". The usual candidates are immigration, legal or otherwise; the family farm despite its growing obsolescence; free elections, which usually have less than 60% participation; protest marches which often turn into violent confrontations with police; and pretty much anything else from cock fighting, you know angry chickens with sharp things on their feet to Indian casinos that can make the 150 members of the Eastern Omygosh tribe rich beyond their ancestors wildest dreams. What did "make America great"? Well, lots of things but no one thing in particular. Maybe it was the wisdom of the founders and the free market economic system. Naw, had to be the angry chickens.


This ridiculous euphemism is just an obvious ploy to give moral equivalence to illegal immigrants with those who enter the country through the prescribed "legal" channels. The former just forgot to do their paperwork. It's like describing shop lifters as "unreceipted customers". With eleven million inside the borders and a national debate swirling in state legislatures and the Congress , it's OK to say the "I" word.


If you're a heterosexual, white, male you are one or more of these. Why? Because you are a heterosexual white male. Don't like Hillary? Sexist! (or it's darker cousin "misogynist"). Of course this only applies to conservatives. You can criticize Sarah Palin all you want because she has been neutered by liberals and doesn't get to wear the Kevlar vest of alleged “sexism“.

Don't like Al Sharpton? "undocumented immigrants"? Muslim terrorist suspects? You need race therapy. Of course this also only applies to conservatives. It's OK to criticize Supreme Ct. Justice Clarence Thomas or Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele because they have been declared "unblack" by the "real blacks" like Jesse Jackson and Sharpton. Now that's a physiological transformation that would make Michael Jackson envious. Too bad he's no longer around to cheer; or is he? Rumor has it that he and Elvis are living together in North Dakota.

Even mentioning that someone in the public eye is gay or lesbian will bring on the label of homophobe. Not signing on to the homosexual political agenda is "proof positive". Been to San Francisco lately? Gyrating “guys” in Speedos on floats in "Pride" parades? Better not say anything. Well, maybe it's more interesting than Saint Phoebe's Girls School Marching Bagpipe Band. And hey, "That's what made America great".


Ah yes. How clever. If you don't agree with someone's liberal or conservative point of view they are obviously extremists on the "wings" of their ideologically identifiable group. The problem is, this overused phrase implies the physical impossibility of everyone in the group being on the "wing". Of course being on the wing, even if part of the whole, makes you an incurable "nut". The users of this one are just describing themselves.





These increasingly popular adjectives are the last refuge of those who have no evidence to support their opposition to conservative or liberal political leaders and their supporters. How could the "land of the free and the home of the brave" have so many leaders with old school European style authoritarian philosophies? Simple; these are increasingly overused examples of schoolyard name calling by the undereducated who have no idea what the terms mean except that they are "real bad". It's just another example of the excesses stimulated by the comfortable anonymity of rallies, demonstrations and the internet but it's mostly just dumb.


No kidding! Ever been to "China Town" for sesame chicken or taken a cab in New York City? This over used and politically charged declaration borders on tautology. Every school kid knows that when "Columbus sailed the ocean blue" there was nobody in North America except the descendants of "immigrants" from Siberia  and for the next five hundred years the doors have been open to travelers, until now, mostly from the "Old World". Most developed countries in the world are now multicultural immigrant destinations; France, Middle Easterners and North Africans; Britain, Pakistanis and Carribeans, Germany, Turks; Sweden, Eastern Europeans. Even fairly homogeneous Japan has an immigrant population of Koreans. The statement by itself provides no insights at all with respect to how to deal with the current immigration issues and is simply a weak rationalization for an open border policy. 

No comments: