A recent post by “The Realist” got me to thinking. We are all aware of politically correct speech, but are we aware of the subtle change in our language? These changes appear to be heading us towards the false utopia of the left.

Take for example the word judgment. “Judge not lest you be judged.” So we should assume that it is wrong to judge others? Not at all; if you don’t judge the actions of others, who will? Western law is based upon the mores of Western civilization. This means it is based upon the actions that we, as a whole, judge to be unacceptable. Is it wrong to judge the actions of a child molester as wrong? Of course not, but why can we judge a molester but not a thief? The age old argument from the left is that who are we to say that our views are superior to others? We are. These views have been developed over centuries of trying to live in close proximity to each other and as a whole, Western civilization has done the best job of coexisting. We may not be perfect, but we do a better job than say, China or the Middle East. So is it acceptable to judge another’s actions? Of course but as the Bible warns, if you judge another’s actions to be wanting, be prepared for your actions to be held to the same standards.

So now let’s look at the word discriminate. We all know that discrimination is a bad thing, right? Funny though, Merriam-Webster says that discrimination means to differentiate or distinguish. It is only in the second part of the second definition that M-W states that discrimination means “to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit.” Of course this could also mean discrimination for something such as we all discriminate for our friends; after all they are our friends. So why is it that when most Americans hear the word discriminate they automatically think it a negative word? Is it not a good thing to have a discriminating palate? The media has beaten us all over the head with the term in a negative light for so long that the word has changed meaning to the majority of Americans. This way one more word is removed from the available lexicon and speech is incrementally restricted once again.

Here are several words and phrases that we either are no longer supposed to use or must be very careful how they are used.

Judgmental                               To judge

Discrimination                           To distinguish

Black                                       Absorbs all light

Colored                                    Has color (not white)

Oriental                                    A race of Humans (Asian is an ethnicity)

Mexican                                   Citizens of Mexico

“Those people”             As opposed to these people

Terrorist                                   Unless you are talking about a Republican

Niggardly                                 Stingy

                                                (Which is hundreds of years older than the racial slur)

The other part of all of this that bothers me is the level of stupidity that it has reached. If I so much as write one of the “unacceptable” words that are truly insults, even if I am quoting someone, my blog would disappear overnight. I do swear but don’t believe in using racial slurs. I do, however, believe in everyone’s right to use them. Just as I believe in the insulted party’s right to pop the offender in the nose for being racist. What can I say, I’m old fashioned.

“There is an answer to every problem, and a problem to every answer.”

I have lived my life by this little idiom for many decades now. It is simple sounding but when understood, it could be viewed as profound. 

I take authorship of this as I have said it for more than 30 years and even today when I google it, I find no references. Since it is my own little idiom, I will explain exactly what I mean.

At first this seems like a palindrome.  By my meaning behind the words, it is circular in scope, not linear.

There is an answer to every problem.

I think that all of us realize that every predicament we have ever found ourselves in there are obvious answers that come to mind. Of course these answers are often extreme and not agreeable answers but answers none the less. Take for example when you were young and a bully started to pick on you. What can you do? The accepted dilemma is that if you tell an adult the bully will makes things worse and if you do nothing the bullying will continue.

Of course you could always get a gun and shoot the bully, ending the torment.

This is by far not the best answer and for most not even acceptable, but it is an answer none the less. This is what I mean by there is an answer to every problem. Every situation has answers. Never let yourself feel that you are in a situation that can not be gotten out of. There is always an answer. Life is about finding the one with the least consequences. 

And that my friends segues us to the second part of the idiom,

And a problem to every answer.

By this I mean that the answers to any problem have consequences or its own problems. Using the bully situation, shooting the bully will likely have dire consequences so that particular answer will not be an acceptable one for the majority of us. It does not detract from the fact that it is an answer. Killing ones self is also an answer to the above situation, but again one with dire consequences. Every answer will generally involve the creation of other problems and each of those problems will have answers, each of which will create new problems.

So now do you see what I am eluding too? I feel life is a series of problems that offer a variety of answers, each of which will create more problems. The goal in life is to pick the answers that create fewer and milder problems than the one being addressed.

Everyone (on the right) knows that politically correct speech knows no bounds. However, I recently ran across an article that expounds upon the limits of politically correct speech. 

In Dallas, during a meeting about the sluggishness of processing traffic tickets, one commissioner, (who was white) stated “It sounds like central collections as become a black hole.” Immediately another commissioner (who was of course black) jumped up and cried “RACISM!!!”

Let’s not even discuss that the comment made total sense in the scientific realm, but let’s consider the ramifications of putting innocuous words such as black off limits.  Its bad enough that the common racial slur for blacks, or Afro-Americans, or African-Americans, or the pigmentally over compensated, or what ever, has become so unacceptable that it is now in the mythical realm of the un-nameable. Only great mythical evil doers such as Tolkien’s Sauron were so bad that the common man was in fear of even vocalizing the name. So now we have the “n” word. Even I don’t dare use the actual word for fear of being censored by Townhall due to the screaming that would erupt by the use of the word. Let’s understand that I don’t condone calling anyone by the word. But to make even the reporting of it a bad thing is ridiculous. 

Even other insults have become letter words. I read a piece a while ago where a politician used the “f” word. No not that “f” word, but the derogative term for homosexual. It is beginning to sound like a kindergarten room.  

So now we have the “b” word. To be used in situations such as I would like a regular coffee “b” word or in casinos you could get a “b” word Jack for the win. How about history? Let’s never forget the “b” word plague that wiped out millions in Europe. Or how about less obvious situations? Do we now refer to the radical (or revolutionaries) in the 1960s as the “b” word panthers? Can other “b” words refer to them as black panthers as when ghetto speaking “b” words call each other the “n” word? How far does this go?

If all minorities are allowed to re-label themselves and place the original reference off limits, then as a male (an unacknowledged minority) I want to be known as Native Humans as we were here first. Also the word male is hereto off limits and will be now referred to as the “m” word or I will be offended. I am not sure how the majority of fe-“m” words will react, but hey, the majority is always wrong.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/07/11/texas-county-official-sees-race-term-black-hole/

Will wonders never cease? According to Bill O’Reilly, Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan) is pursuing an investigation into the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) for possible illegal ties to President Obama’s campaign. It seems that two former ACORN employees have testified under oath to a House committee concerning several illegal incidents involving ACORN, some involving President Obama’s campaign. 

Conservatives have long decried that ACORN unduly and illegally influence the 2008 presidential election, in favor if its own son, Barak Obama.  The connection appears to be through ACORN’s “Project Vote”, a project that President Obama was a member of in the 1990s.  

This is the same Representative Conyers that has attacked President Bush (W) at every turn and has even written a book outlining his “case” against the former President. Many, many kudos for a man that can put this obvious partisan animosity aside and see the possible implications of this situation. 

Let’s also remember that President Obama has made sure that ACORN will be instrumental in organizing the 2010 census. An organization that has admitted to filing at least 400,000 questionable voter documents in less than two years.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/BillOReilly/2009/04/04/the_mighty_acorn

In a Washington Times story, the Democrats on a House Panel, investigating the new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy for illegal aliens apprehended during raids on businesses have deemed this policy the equivalent of the civil-rights-era police colluding with the Ku Klux Klan. This policy will grant the release of the immigrant and issue them a work permit in exchange for their testimony against the employer. This policy assists ICE in building cases against the employers for the hiring of illegal immigrants.

But by using the logic of this statement, if ICE colluding with illegal immigrants is the same as police colluding with the KKK, then ICE is the same as the police and the illegal immigrants are the same as the KKK. 

Last Thursday, the United Nation’s Commission on Human Rights signed a new resolution pronouncing the defamation of a religion as a human rights violation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52P60220090326

 So now bad mouthing a religion is equitable to torture. Is there no end to the stupidity?

Let’s look at several aspects of this new resolution.

First, it is a UN resolution and holds no authority over anyone or any country, it is just hot air.

Second, it makes anti-Jewish rhetoric bad, but says nothing about anti-Semitic rhetoric. Of course one chooses to be Jewish, as it is a religion. One does not choose to be Semitic as it is an ethnicity.

Third, most of the thinking world, understands that this resolution will not be pursued in the Middle-Eastern Islamic nations, to end the steady stream of anti-Jewish and generally anti-“anything that is not fundamentalist Muslim” diatribe emanating from these governments. It will be used to attack Israel, Christianity, and anyone protesting the extremist views and behaviors exhibited by a large number of Muslims, and also views and behaviors condoned through lack of protest by the majority of Middle-Eastern Muslims. Don’t forget, this is the same commission that was once chaired by Libya.

What happened to the days of liberal versus conservative politics? The liberals seem to have left American politics all together. 

I have come to this conclusion based upon much reading recently concerning politics. Just look at Politico.com’s article about Senator Reid, a Democrat from Arizona and the Senate Majority leader.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20560.html

Oh, I get the joke. All Democrats have been reborn as moderates. Since moderates occupy the center of the political spectrum, then anyone to the right of them would be by definition conservative. How unfortunate for anyone who deems themselves as a liberal, in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson.

So why would apparent liberals prefer to define themselves as moderates?

Oh, I get the joke. We all know, extreme behavior is a form of insanity. Hey that means that all conservatives are actually insane. How could any sane person hold an opinion in opposition to the thoughtful, intellectual, “moderates?” If conservative thought is insane then it should be regulated to protect the innocent public from catching this form of insanity. 

Interesting how conservative thought is the only contagious mental illness according to the “moderates.”

Oh how I miss debating liberals, if only they would return.

Man guilty of killing 'Harry Potter' actor

LONDON, England (CNN)

A quote from a CNN article

Knife crime in Britain is a political hot topic due to a spate of recent killings of mainly young people in major cities. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has urged tougher sentences for those caught carrying knives. He told the Daily Telegraph last month: "By carrying a knife you are not only endangering the lives of others, but you are more likely to be killed, or end up in jail.

"We need to change the way young people think about knives, we need families and communities working together ... to get this message across and help stamp out knife crime and get weapons off our streets."

So England, one of the Left’s examples of how draconian gun laws reduce crime, is admitting to a problem with knife crimes. More proof that even if we could wave a magic wand and vaporize all weapons, man would just pick up a rock to hit another man with. It is in our nature.

There is little debate about the fact that millions of Mexican citizens cross the boarder between Mexico and the United States every year in search of a better way of life. Mexico’s economy had been in turmoil for decades. Even the re-issuing and re-valuation of the Peso failed to prop up Mexico’s economy. For a country rich in natural resources such as gold, copper, zinc, and oil, and one with a huge tourism trade, the country’s economy is in a constant state of decline, mainly due to rampant government corruption at all levels. So it is no wonder that many of the citizens of this nation would want to sneak across the boarder in the hopes of creating a better life. It is also no wonder that the Mexican government endorses this migration as it creates an inflow of billions of American dollars, helping to keep the economy from completely collapsing. 

So how can this be stopped? The Republicans want to build a fence on the boarder similar to the one built between Gaza and Israel.  The cost would be immense and the effectiveness is arguable at best. The Democrats wanted to open the boarder and offer citizenship to any and all Mexican citizens who asked. This would stop the illegal immigration by means of making it legal and would add a huge voting block to the left. Of course this course has been opposed by the right, even though the only President to grant amnesty to illegal aliens was a Republican.  So far, neither idea has been implemented in its entirety, nor it is likely that either would work as envisioned.

But now the Democrats have a new plan to end illegal immigration. If we can’t keep the Mexican from freely crossing the boarder, take away the incentive to cross. This is not like the Republican plan of pressuring employers to verify the legality of their employees; it is something much simpler. If we can destroy the American economy and bring it to a level lower than Mexico’s then the flow of illegal immigrants will reverse. If it is easier to earn a living in Mexico than it is in the United States, why would anyone illegally enter the United States?  Not only will Mexicans stop trying to enter the United States, but Americans may start to sneak into Mexico in search of a better way of life. 

This new dynamic could change the way the world sees “wet backs”. No longer will such an insult be associated with Hispanics, it will soon come to be associated with the poor white man, paying coyotes to smuggle them across to Puerto Vallarta, in the hopes of getting a good paying job catering to the rich Europeans vacationing there.  Who knows, maybe there will be Angelo chambers of commerce in Mexican cities and English as a second language departments in Mexican schools.

Those Democrats are brilliant, absolutely brilliant. Adios!

Democrats said the bill's tax cuts would help 95 percent of all Americans, much of the relief in the form of a break of $400 for individuals and $800 for couples. At the insistence of the White House, people who do not earn enough money to owe income taxes are eligible, an attempt to offset the payroll taxes they pay.

First a quick lesson on basic economics. The economy consists of two types of units, producers and consumers. Producers produce products and the consumers consume those products. Simple enough? There is one final part of this equation that makes it all work. How do the producers produce these products and how do the consumers earn the money they use to consume these products? Well the consumers supply the labor used to produce the products and in doing so they earn the money used to consume the products. It makes for a closed loop or what is known as the economic cycle.

So if the economy is in a recession, then production and consumption are down. The question is how to get them going full speed again. Do you give money to the producers to help increase production? This will cause an imbalance in the supply and demand ratio. An increase in supply will cause a lowering of prices. A lowering of prices will cause an increase in consumption. Add to that an increase in production will create an increased need for labor (more jobs) and an increase in consumer wealth. All in all a good thing.

So what happens if you give the consumers more wealth? This gives the consumer more consuming power, and IF they increase their consumption, that will cause an imbalance in the supply and demand ratio also. However it will cause an increase in demand that will cause an increase in prices. This increase in prices will cause the producers to increase production and once again all is good.

So kiddies, did you notice the two major differences in where the money is interjected into the cycle?

First, if the money is given to the consumers, they may just hang onto it or they may pay down existing debt. You see consumers are not concerned with cash flow. They have no payrolls to pay; they only have to worry about monthly debt. So there is the first flaw in the Democratic idea. If the money is given to the producers they will use it to increase production and thus increase cash flow. There is little incentive for producers to hoard money. You need to use money to make money.

The second problem is that by increasing consumption, you increase prices. By increasing production you lower prices. These changes in prices will eventually be balanced out by the invisible hand of the free market system, but at least for a short time, the Democratic idea will raise prices. Add to this that the US will more than likely have to increase the money supply, we are heading for inflation again. Can you say President Carter?

So I ask again, why am I the only one noticing this?

Back in 2000, I was living in the San Francisco bay area, making good money, living in a nice house, and driving new cars. Then things went down hill for me financially. I had to sell my home for little to no profit, sell the one car I owned outright for the cash and move to Washington State because it was cheaper to live here. 

So why do I bring this up? I mention this story because it shows that when I hit difficult economic times, I had to make difficult economic decisions. Gone where most of the luxuries that I had become accustom to. Gone were the nightly steak dinners. Gone were the fancy restaurants. Gone were the weekly salon trips for my wife. Gone were the friends and neighbors we knew in California. We pulled the belt in a couple of loops, made some difficult decisions and made it through a very difficult time.

Today we rent a nice house and drive nice cars, one of which is owned outright, but neither was new when we got them. Hard work and perseverance have brought my family through the tough times and things are looking much better, bad economy and all.

Which brings me to the moral of this story. Why do we (the US) seem to believe that during hard economic times we have to increase our spending on more and more luxuries? Do we really need to refurbish various government offices right now? Can we really afford to spend $400 million to help people quit smoking? Should we spend $600 million on new cars for the government, or just continue to drive older cars until the economy turns around? When we the people hit economic times, we are forced to make tough decisions to continue to survive. Why does the government seem to think that the billions spent on “necessary” programs that we could cut and continue to exist as a profitable nation must be continued, even increased? 

In the world of business, boom times are when a portion of your profits are put aside for the inevitable recession. How come after finishing one of the biggest boom times in the history of the world (the Internet revolution) we put nothing aside. Worse we increased our debt dramatically. Now that the inevitable recession has hit, we are spending even more money that we don’t have in hopes of paying if off when? Are we planning on the country filing for bankruptcy so we can be forgiven for all of our debt? This is not the way it works and the monies we continue to borrow every year will have to be paid off at some point. This deficit spending cannot continue unabated forever.

Misquotation is, in fact, the pride and privilege of the learned. A widely- read man never quotes accurately, for the rather obvious reason that he has read too widely.

America lives in the heart of every man everywhere who wishes to find a region where he will be free to work out his destiny as he chooses.

Just what is it that America stands for? If she stands for one thing more than another it is for the sovereignty of self-governing people.

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.

In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.

No man who ever held the office of president would congratulate a friend on obtaining it.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts.

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.

No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent.

That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and, hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

It does not matter how slowly you go so long as you do not stop.

Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in getting up every time we do.

He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason.

All virtue is summed up in dealing justly.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Pleasure in the job puts perfection in the work.

The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law.

Aristotle

The sky is falling, the sky is falling! We need to pass a stimulus bill right away!

OK this may or may not be true, but let us assume for a moment that those shilling for this spending program are right. After all, FDR did it in 1935 and it led to the end of the depression. Right? Well considering the scores of economists that disagree with this statement, I would point out the logical fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc, or “after this, therefore because of this”. Just because the Depression ended after FDR enacted the WPA, is not proof that it was the reason the Depression ended. But, again, let us just suppose that this was true, the WPA was the stimulus that primed the pump and ended the Depression.

So now that we are in another depression, oh I mean recession, that is as bad as the Depression, or at least about 1/3 as bad, we need another WPA to save us. Right?

OK, let us assume this is also true. Yes I know, I am assuming quite a lot here, but for the sake of argument, let us keep heading down this road.

So the new stimulus bill will be the new WPA and save the day. Right?

OK, now we get to the meat of my argument. No the stimulus bill is not another WPA. The WPA was mainly used to build bridges, schools, public buildings, and other tangible assets, most of which still exist.  The stimulus bill will fix up some buildings, but mainly will spend money on short-term assts such as automobiles and the like. Will the hybrid vehicles purchased with this money still exist in 50 years? I think not. Are there dams and bridges in the bill? Not to speak of. Even the more esoteric aspects of the WPA, such as the Historical Records Survey, helped to organize state and local documents, the historical benefits of which will affect us forever.

So which parts of this stimulus bill will have long lasting affects on our nation? Virtually none. It could be argued that the sections such as the green areas will help the environment, but that is an argument for another blog. There are next to no permanent, tangible assets being created here. Comparing this bill to the WPA is like comparing going on a cruise to building a house. At least the house gives you a tangible asset.