Thank You, Ms. Pelosi

I was lounging in bed last night, reading as I often do, before drifting off into the Elysian fields of dreamland when I came across a passage that struck me as imminently relevant to the current situation regarding healthcare reform. The book is The Man Who Laughs by history's greatest novelist, Victor Hugo. Allow me to quote:

"The shouts of one's enemies are useful, and give point and vitality to one's triumph. A friend wearies sooner in praise than an enemy in abuse. To abuse does not hurt. Enemies are ignorant of this fact. They cannot help insulting us, and this constitutes their use. They cannot hold their tongues, and thus keep the public awake."

I cannot think of a more apt description of the Democratic leadership's response to the Town Hall protesters that have been cropping up in such droves of late. The Democratic Party has always claimed to be the party of people, of the oppressed minorities, of the little guy. How is it then, that they can be so deaf to the voices of average Americans? The question is, of course, rhetorical, for we all know the truth.

That is the trouble with elitism. When you place yourself up on a pedestal, high above the lowly commoner, the simple act of placing yourself in his shoes becomes an impossibility. It is for this reason that much of what middle America does is such a mystery to liberals. Furthermore, the innate hubris of these people prohibits them, when asked to explain the perpetual enigma the dissenting opinion, from answering truthfully with "I don't know." Instead, they invariably resort to their old standbys of racism, Nazism and *gasp* Christianity (which is worse than the other two combined.)

However, we should not condemn those like Speaker Pelosi for their comments about swastika wearing, un-American angry mobs. After all, they can't help it and besides, they are actually hurting their own cause. The more they accuse average people (read "voters") of fanatical extremism the more "angry" this "mob" will get. Approval rating plummet, Democrats lose elections and America wins.

So thank you, Ms. Pelosi, for digging your own grave for us. Please keep up the good work, and when the President follows in your footsteps, please give him my regards.

Put the Brakes on Auto Regulations

This week the President announced that he plans to propose new regulations on car emissions and mileage per gallon, as if the U.S. car companies didn't have enough problems without the government further restricting their options. This is another in a series of increasingly troubling instances of the President trying to impose his worldview on the rest of us. "I don't like X, therefore, I'm going to make it illegal."

It would be hard for this carefully orchestrated power grab to be any more obvious. Just look at the chain of events: the government provides automakers with bailout money, then under the uise of "protecting their investment" the CEO of GM is sacked, not by the shareholders or the board of directors but by the President of the United States. Now it seems that the coup is complete, in that the President now is planning to set all the rules for these "private" companies.

Naturally, few if any automakers will be able to make a profit under such stringent regulations, and so the Federal Government will seize the opportunity to jump in and run the whole shooting match, complete with huge subsidies, corresponding tax hikes and the elimination of all competition and consumer choice.

If any of you bleeding hearts out there are still laboring under the delusion that his healthcare plan will be any different, then I fear you are beyond help. When the government controls healthcare, they will be able to enact similar regulations on our lifestyles on the grounds of "protecting their investment." That means no more McDonald's, no more cigarettes, no more alcohol, no more sleeping late on weekends, no more television (except for propaganda purposes naturally), an end to anything Big Brother deems bad for us.

Many of you will no doubt complain that I am exaggerating and engaging in wild and unfounded speculation. Perhaps I am and, for all our sake, I hope so. But this sort of thing has happened before in history, and if you follow the current trends to their logical conclusion,
the future looks bleak indeed. Wake up and defend your freedom of choice before it is too late.

Don't Apologize

We see it over and over again, day after day. Practically every time you turn on the news, someone is asking someone else to apologize for something they said. This is a phenomenon that transcends political parties, race and gender, and it is a very foolish and misguided way of waging the battle of ideas.

There is a specific chain of faulty reasoning that can be pointed to here: "I am offended by what you said, therefore you should apologize." Not only does this miss the mark on the true purpose of apologies, a very noble and praiseworthy purpose I might add, but it effectively renders impotent a rather useful linguistic and social tool.

An apology is (or rather, was) used as a way of expressing regret and contrition for some act of wrongdoing. The entire point of such an admission is lost if it is issued under coercion or fear of reprisal. An apology is only worth making,or hearing,if it is voluntary and therefore sincere.

What I fail to understand is why anyone would want to receive an apology that is a blatant lie. Do such empty words really make people feel less offended, or that they have gained something? If you know the apology is insincere, doesn't that just add insult to injury?

Let me give an example from the news. As my readers will recall, comedian Jeneane Garofalo recently stated on MSNBC that all participants in the tax day Tea Parties were racists. This is obviously an ignorant and offensive statement, and she was asked to apologize. She refused, and for that, at least, I applaud her. Now let's be clear, I have no use for Garofalo, and I believe she has shown herself to be a hateful and uninformed person by her comments, but if she truly believes what she says, as I think she does, then she has nothing to be sorry for. One should never apologize for stating their heartfelt opinions, however stupid they may be.

As things stand, I think Garofalo a fool, but I don't think her a coward. This in contrast with the legions of politicians who have apologized under political pressure rather than because they were truly sorry. When you cave in to threats from the media or even public opinion, you will not make them like you, you merely add "lack of integrity"to the list of reasons why they didn't like you in the first place.

So don't apologize.Stand by your beliefs, however unpopular or politically incorrect they may be. You may not earn much love, but you will certainly earn respect, for the man of integrity is a rare one indeed.

When Common Sense Goes Wrong

The drum being beaten incessantly by both the White House and the Media has been sending out the same message, day and night, since November: Conservatism is dead. The free market has failed and Americans have, for the first time in history, wholeheartedly embraced the principles and values of Liberalism. Or so they would have you believe.

The truth is, most Americans don't know what those values and principles really are. Liberalism is an easy sell, because it sounds nice. We want everyone to be equal, we want to help the poor , we want to help the environment, we want to help the elderly, we want to help the disabled, we want to help everybody and most importantly, we want to help you! Sounds good, doesn't it? Vote for me.

The trouble is that most Americans aren't politically aware enough to know what these platitudes imply, and even if they are, their common sense gets in the way. Now wait a minute (one may wonder), how is common sense a problem? Allow me to explain.

Most people have lots of common sense, which is good. Common sense is what keeps our feet on the ground and helps us not to make ridiculously stupid decisions. However, many politicians, academics and policy makers have little to none of this precious quality, and this is where problems arise. The lack of common sense in people who hold elite positions of power leads to some truly insane laws and regulations. Let me give you a real life example.

Dr. John Muney is a successful New York doctor who wants to offer uninsured patients a flat rate of of $79 a month for all preventative check ups and minor treatments including some surgeries. Sounds nice, right? Well, the state of New York says "no." According to the law, he MUST charge more than this. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go into detail about this stupid law, but if you're interested you can read more here.

Now an ordinary person, when exposed to a story of this level of stupidity, has a natural impulse to dismiss it as untrue. They assume it is the wild rantings of some conservative Chicken Little proclaiming that the sky is falling and get on with their day. In most situations, this is a healthy and productive reaction but, unfortunately, not when dealing with politicians. I have tried to alert many friends to news stories that I find alarming, and in almost every case they simply refuse to believe the facts. Their common sense tendency to disregard information that seems irrational or absurd is causing their brains to shut out the typical behaviour of an average member of congress.

It is my sincere opinion that if most people knew, or believed, even a fraction of what their elected officials actively advocate, the Democrats would never win another election. The country hasn't moved left, Liberals have just started to push an agenda that is so mind-blowingly nuts that no sane person can believe that's what they really want. It's actually a brilliant strategy, but it will only work until the changes they make start to directly affect people's lives in a way that's impossible to ignore. Keep your eyes open, it may happen sooner than you think.

Courting a Justice

This week, it was announced that Supreme Court Justice David Souter will be retiring this summer. This, of course, gives the President his first opportunity to nominate a justice, perhaps the most important decision any president can make during his term, short of going to war. The choice will help shape the direction of the country and its laws for decades to come.

Naturally, with such an important office, the President will want to be careful with his selection. There has already been much speculation about who the lucky nominee might be, but considering the power and influence that these Justices hold, the debate has taken a somewhat peculiar turn.

Now, if I were in the President's shoes, I would want to appoint the most qualified person I could find, someone who would follow the constitution, rule objectively and not let personal feelings interfere with the very impersonal business of the law. These are qualities I consider essential for a good judge. However, much of the discussion I have heard thus far focuses not on these aspects of judgment, character or ability, but rather on a substantially different criterion altogether.

This is what Joy Behar said on the May 1st episode of Larry King Live: "Don't you think it's time for a Hispanic or a Latin American or a[n] African American woman to be put in the place of Souter?"

Now I know Behar is supposed to be a comedian, but she clearly wasn't joking here, and I have heard this sentiment echoed more than once in the short time since Souter announced his retirement. This is a perfect example of the kind of thinking that's destroying America. Liberals are always quick to brand conservatives as "racists," but conservatives aren't the ones suggesting that the most powerful judges in the world be selected based on their race or gender.

Suppose a white man turns out to be the most qualified person for the job. Who in their right mind would suggest denying him the position simply because of his color? We may be able to overlook the unfairness and silliness of Affirmative Action when it comes to fast food workers and low level bureaucrats, but in the case of the United States Supreme Court, such an idea amounts to nothing less than stark raving lunacy. I can only hope that the President ignores these kinds of comments and selects someone with the appropriate qualifications (not you, Harold Koh,) yet it will almost certainly be someone who shares his own ideology.

Souter has turned out to vote rather to the left of center, which means that a far left pick by the president would have little impact on the court's overall balance. The surprising thing is that a liberal like Souter was appointed by George H. W. Bush. Now, it's possible that Bush simply made a mistake in his vetting process, and believed he was getting a more conservative judge, but I see it as a testament to the fact that Republicans have historically been more willing to compromise and reach across the aisle than have their Democratic counterparts. To clarify, I'm not applauding this tendency, but rather lamenting it. Compromise got the Republicans John McCain and it got them massive spending increases throughout the previous administration, neither of which have worked out well for them. In this respect the Democrats have been much smarter, and I fear the new President's Supreme Court pick will continue this trend.

We can only hope he honors his campaign promise and does make his selection in a genuinely bipartisan way. I, for one, won't be holding my breath.

A White Hot Blaze of Discrimination

This is an important week for justice. The Supreme Court is hearing a case in which 18 firefighters claim that they were discriminated against. Here’s what happened: In 2003, the city of New Haven, CT issued a test for all firefighters seeking promotions. When the results came back, all of the top scores were held by white or Hispanic men, with no African-Americans scoring high enough to warrant a promotion. Horrified by that objective test results would display this lack of political correctness, officials tossed out all the test results as invalid.

From what I understand, all the questions on the test were practical, situational problems relating to firefighting. It is difficult to imagine a way in which such questions could be racially biased. I will not speculate as to the reasons for the differences in test scores, but it appears that, in this situation, this particular group of African-Americans were not as qualified for the promotions as those who scored highest.

So now, these highly skilled individuals are suing, and I sure hope they win. It is appalling that in a profession where the slightest error can mean a fiery death we are passing over the best and the brightest because of the color of their skin. Appalling! The fact that these men have been fighting this decision for six years speaks volumes about both their tenacity and the injustice of the system. But I’m sure those poor souls burning to death appreciate the ethnic diversity of the firemen failing to save them.

By the way, I have to take a moment to address a term many are using to describe this lawsuit: reverse racism. I honestly cannot believe how stupid this phrase is. It’s even worse than “overseas contingency operation.” There’s no such thing as “reverse racism”, there is only “racism.” The word “reverse” implies that racism against whites is somehow not “real” racism. Last time I checked, Caucasians are just as much of a race as Asians, Africans or Latinos. Minorities do not have a monopoly on discrimination and I’m tired of the implication that whites cannot be victims of unfair treatment based on their race.

This case will have wide reaching implications, whatever the outcome. If the plaintiffs win, it will set a precedent that will essentially end affirmative action. I have always found affirmative action and other such laws insulting, because they imply that minorities can’t succeed without the government stepping in to help. Racism in the real world (as opposed to government enforced racism) is far less common than the Al Sharptons of the world would have us believe. The issue has such public awareness that any business engaging in racist hiring practices would be quickly exposed and severely hurt by the bad press. Economically speaking, racism just isn’t good business.

However, if the defendants win this case, white parents all over the country will get to explain to their children that it doesn’t matter how hard you study or how good you are at something. Because of some bad things that happened hundreds of years ago, you will forever be punished for your color. Reparations, here we come.

Cybersecurity or Cyberfascism?

Once again, the internet is under attack. The Senate has proposed a new bill that would give the federal government vast and unprecedented control over the internet. We've seen this before. This is another in a long line of attempts to reign in the last bastion of free expression. Almost all of the media is already in the government's pocket, with cable news and newspapers alike diligently toeing the party line. With talks about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio will likely soon follow.

The internet is one of the few places where government really lacks a foothold, and this drives the power hungry politicians in Washington crazy. Unlike previous attempts at regulation, however, this bill does not seek to merely tax or censor internet content. I'm afraid it goes far deeper than that. The proposal, known as the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, would actually give the President the power to "shut down internet traffic" in the event of a national security crisis. Yes, you read that right: "shut down internet traffic."

Now we all know that "in the event of a national security crisis" is political code for "whenever we feel like it." The implications of such unrestricted government authority are simply staggering. Since the administration has already branded Ron Paul supporters, gun owners, gold purchasers and veterans as potential terrorists, you can imagine how quickly these folks will be silenced. The very fact that the internet was used to organize last week's Tea Parties seems to have sent the administration into a semi-panicked rage, so it's not surprising that they want to shut it down.

In addition, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 would give the President access to tons of information from banks and other industries that is simply none of his business. In case you haven't noticed a pattern yet, this new administration is trying to grab power in every major industry in the country. Where will it end? Only time will tell, but I believe they will not rest until they have complete control of business, and that translates to complete control over your life.

While we're on the subject of Net Neutrality, I have a few things to say about censorship. On Bill O'Reilly's show last night, the host launched into yet another rant on the dangers of the internet,decrying the ability of children to access pornography. Now don't get me wrong, I like Bill O'Reilly. I find him entertaining and often insightful, but he has long complained about the "chaotic" staatee of the internet, and on the subject he is dead wrong.

I think the misconception that the internet is for kids arose as a result of the prominence of simple, kid friendly games in the early days of computing. Back then, people associated computers with things like Pong. But the internet is not for children, indeed, it is both as dangerous and as exhilarating as the streets of New York City. Sure, there's FAO Schwartz, but you wouldn't let your child wander around in there all alone, would you?

The problem arises when parents try to use the internet as a babysitter. What we need to focus on is not more regulation, but rather educating the public about the realities of the internet. As with any great tool, there is the potential for abuse, but where O'Reilly and others go wrong is that you can't outlaw or overregulate everything that is dangerous. Instead, you have to punish the bad behavior as it occurs. A hammer can be used to kill, but no one suggests regulating the sale of hammers. We simply have a law that punishes people who do use them to kill.

Now with the internet under threat of, at worst, extinction or at best, stultification, it is important that we all speak out in its defense. Now perhaps I am overreacting, as I find it unlikely that the Senate bill will pass, but the President is considering offering his own proposal on the subject. I expect that such a counteroffer will be mildly less intrusive, therefore prompting lawmakers to react with an "at least it's not as bad as that other bill" attitude and pass it. I can only hope that the vast willpower and organizational talents of internet users will rise up to make such regulation politically suicidal.

Tea Parties Revisited

I feel the need to respond to some of the things being said about the tax day Tea Parties that were held nationwide on April 15th. The amount of ignorance and misinformation being passed around by the mainstream media and liberal blogs is simply stunning. I don't know what we expected, but this is low even for the New York Times.

The first issue I would like to address is the charge that these events (which turned out 700,000 protesters) were organized by Fox News and/or Rush Limbaugh. This is imply false. The New York City Tea Party I attended was organized by an enterprising young gentleman named Kellen Guida who, using the amazing networking power of the internet, rallied over 12,000 people to City Hall. Mr. Guida is by no means a stooge for right wing billionaires or Fox News. He's just an average citizen who decided to take action.

It is true that Fox News covered the Tea Parties heavily, thereby promoting them to some extent. They did this because they saw an opportunity to scoop the other stations. Fox News knew that CNN and MSNBC weren't going to touch this, and therefore, by playing up the fact that they had exclusive coverage, Fox boosts its ratings. Unlike its competitors, Fox is driven by profit, not ideology, and that's as it should be in a capitalist society.

In hindsight, it may have been a mistake to hold the Tea Parties on tax day. Although the symbolism and historical significance is nice, the emphasis on taxes has somewhat derailed the actual purpose of the protest, and has fueled (wholly unfounded) criticism that those in attendance were merely the greedy rich, who don't want to pay their fair share. While taxes are certainly an integral part of the big government machine, the primary focus of the Tea Parties was to protest the rapid expansion of the federal government and its power over average citizens. The massive budget deficit, out of control spending and taxes are all symptoms of this problem, but the focus should be on the overall disease, the ever expanding beast that is government power.

What is really outrageous, though, is the far more serious charge made by Janeane Garofalo (apparently a political commentator now. Funny, I thought she was a comedian), among others, that everyone who participated in these events were "redneck racists." Now, as I said, I attended the New York City Tea Party, and I can personally tell you that the crowd was made up of all classes, all colors and people from every walk of life. I saw a lot of clever protests signs, but not a single one that had any racial component to it.

Of course, the media wouldn't know that, because they weren't there. In fact, Fox News was the only cable news station to show up. You would think 12,000+ people rallying at City Hall would be newsworthy, but I guess that would ruin all the name calling fun. I was particularly disturbed by some of my friends and coworkers parroting the "racists" line, which they picked up from newspapers and television. So I guess this is the way it's going to be. You can call George Bush a murdering Nazi, but a peaceful demonstration against the policies of the new President is considered racist.

The undisguised mocking tone coming from the left is telling. We saw the same thing with Sarah Palin. Whenever liberals get scared, they resort to cheap shots and derision, and judging from the reaction to the Tea Parties, they must be terrified. I, for one, had a hopping good time and I hope to see more of these sorts of events in the near future. It's nice to know that we Americans who still believe in small government and individual liberty still exist, and that we are not alone.

Big Business & You

Upon opening the morning paper today, I was treated to this story about the president's desire to enact tougher restrictions on credit card companies, limiting their ability to alter their rates as they see fit.

As I drank my tea and absorbed the story, it occurred to me that there always seems to be a lot of anger directed, particularly from the left, at the biggest cogs in the wheel that is our society. To those that are fed up with credit card companies, I would like to pose the following question: what if they are fed up with you as well?

What if, in response to the flood of anger and intrusive government regulation constantly flung their way, Visa, Mastercard and American Express just decided to throw in the towel? It is important to remember that these companies are providing a service. They are under absolutely no obligation to give any of us lines of credit, without which most of us would not be able to buy houses and cars. So suppose that one day they simply stop. Can you even begin to imagine the devastating impact to society that would result from such a move?

Consider another target of unrelenting hatred: pharmaceutical companies. These nice folks spend millions of dollars in research to provide us with life saving miracle drugs. No one is forcing them to do this. They could just as well let us all die if they so choose, but they don't. Imagine a world where, due to overregulation, overtaxation and perpetual public vitriol, they abandoned their trade to sell vacuums. I don't think any one who has ever had a seriously ill friend or relative would relish such a scenario.

Yet, do we fall to our knees and thank these giants of industry who so vastly enrich and lengthen our lives? No. To the contrary, we do everything in our power to punish these brave men and women for the incalculable good they have wrought.

So the next time you make a charge on your credit card, refill your gas tank or take an Advil to relieve a headache, stop a moment and think about who is responsible for such conveniences. It would behoove us all to remember who provides us with the amenities of modern life: Hard working private citizens, not the federal government.

On Political Correctness

There is a war being waged in our schools and in our offices, on television and radio and on the public stage. It is not a war fought with guns and bombs, but rather a war whose weapons are ridicule, humiliation and ostracization. The enemy in this war is not a people or a country or even a criminal activity (at least not yet.) The enemy is the very language we speak, write and read. I speak not of the English langue, but rather language as a more general concept. In fact, the very act of communication is under attack. And the leader of the charge against our words and consequently our ideas is the beast known as Political Correctness.

To be “politically correct” is to abandon simple, common sense words that are both descriptive and efficient in favor of long, convoluted phrases whose meaning is often difficult, if not impossible, to discern. This practice is advanced in the name of “sensitivity” to the feelings of others, who may find that shorter, more direct words result in deep psychological scars to their fragile self-esteem.

Putting aside psychology for a moment, let us examine the impact of such a practice on a society. Throughout history, any society that wished to control the thoughts of its citizens began by controlling their language. Prohibited speech was a prominent feature under Stalin’s regime, as well as in Nazi Germany in the 1930’s. George Orwell documented this phenomenon quite artfully in his landmark anti-fascist novel, 1984. In the novel, Orwell describes a language called Nu-Speak, which attempts to remove any words or phrases that could possibly be used to form anti-government sentiments. Sound like science fiction? Think again.

Wisely acknowledging the tendency for governments to control their citizens through censorship, the framers of the United States Constitution included an amendment for freedom of Speech. However, the amendment only prohibits overt action by the government to curtail speech it finds distasteful, leaving the door open for more subtle means of control.

Although Americans do not yet face the threat of imprisonment for speaking their minds, they have often been fired from their jobs and expelled from public (repeat public!) schools. Most universities, supposedly bastions of free thought and ideas, have enacted speech codes which prohibit “hate speech” on campus. Hate Speech is a hazily defined umbrella term designed to mean “anything that anyone could possibly object to, provided that person is a woman or minority.” Since Hate Speech has no hard and fast definition, policy makers are free to interpret it in any way they choose, and therefore what is free expression today, may well be Hate Speech tomorrow. Any man who attempts to directly control the actions of another is subjecting him to a form of tyranny, and is the enemy of freedom.

Why should my speech be controlled by the whims of others? We used to say someone with a bad leg was crippled. Then we were told that the word “cripple” was insensitive and that “handicapped” was correct. Recently, “disabled” has replaced “handicapped.” Why? What makes one collection of sounds inherently better or worse than another? Obviously nothing, for sounds are just sounds. My opponents will argue that it is not the sounds themselves that offend, but the thoughts behind the sounds. I challenge anyone to define distinct differences between the thoughts associated with the words “crippled,” “handicapped,” and “disabled.” In any case, how can anyone presume to know my thoughts? How do you know that when I say “crippled” I am not thinking the most wonderfully empowering and uplifting thoughts imaginable?

We are told that “black” is an acceptable description for the color of someone’s skin, but for God’s sake don’t use “negro!” Any educated person, of course, knows that negro is simply the Spanish word for “black.” I can only presume, then, that a person living in Spain can use “negro,” but “black” is right out! I hope that by now the absurdity of such rules is becoming apparent.

I was recently informed that the word “backwards” was offensive when used to describe the right-to-left writing system of some cultures, because it implies that there is a right way and wrong way to do things. If this is so, then my question is as follows: when is it appropriate to use the word “backwards?” Can someone walk backwards? Not if there is another person who walks that way all the time. By this logic, if anyone, anywhere does something differently than I do, it must be equally valid and therefore, the word “backwards” should be excised from our vocabularies entirely.

Of course, from the point of view of the moral relativists, there is no such thing as right or wrong. They believe that every course of action is as morally acceptable as every other. I am not attempting to attach a moral value on the direction of writing, but the argument is easily extended to other areas. Not long ago I read an article which stated that illegal aliens should be called “undocumented workers” instead, despite the fact that they are both illegally in this country and aliens. The goal here is to strip from discussion any sort of value judgment. However, it is value judgments that are at the backbone of our civilization. If we do not condemn what is wrong and celebrate what is right, we become no more than savages, acting without regard for either the lives or the property of others. In this way, the stated goal of Political Correctness contradicts itself. By failing to draw distinctions we cause people, rather than to regard each other more highly, to disregard each other altogether.

The very concept underlying politically correct speech is fundamentally flawed. We are allowed to make fun of white people, because they are numerous. We are allowed to make fun of men, because they hold many of the world’s most powerful positions (though it should be pointed out that men are in fact a minority. 51% of the world’s population are women.) And I have never heard of an Irishman being offended when it is asserted that he along with all of his fellow countrymen are hopeless alcoholics.

On the other hand, we are prohibited from discussing openly our differences with people who are quick to take offense. In other words, we coddle the thin skinned and lash out at those who have strong enough egos to handle it. This is all backwards. Those who are secure in themselves to the point where they don’t mind a little criticism should be rewarded for their strength, not punished, while those who cry foul at every innocent joke are only encouraged by our eagerness to defer to them.

A story from my personal life is instructive here. When I was but a wee lad, my sister, a year my junior, had a skin as thin as rice paper. She would burst into tears at every perceived slight. Being an older brother, I felt it my obligation to toughen the girl up to prepare her for the real world, and after a decade of merciless teasing she learned to give as good as she got, and is a stronger person for it. Had I been a good, sensitive, politically correct individual, she would never have learned to cope with criticism and her llife would go much harder. So you see, by attempting to spare the feelings of the emotionally weak, we are in fact doing them a grave disservice. How will they ever grow as people if no one is willing to offend them? Instead, they are like the spoiled prince who has never heard the word “no and who is shallow and unpleasant as a consequence.

I often encounter people who insist that they “don’t believe in labels.” They feel that others using words to describe them is narrow minded and judgmental. How silly! Language is nothing more than a series of labels. When I say “the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog” I am applying labels to the animals as well as to the actions they perform. Is it judgmental of me to label the fox a “fox?” Of course not, that is simply what he is.

Furthermore, labels have meanings. If they had no meanings, they would become quite useless. I would have thought this point too obvious to be worth mentioning except for the fact that I am constantly running into people who dispute it. When I say to my friend: “you are a socialist,” she immediately protests that she is a moderate. However, when I pull out a dictionary and show her the definition of Socialism, she is forced to admit that she agrees with its principles. One is defined by one’s actions, one’s beliefs and the realities of life. A fisherman fishes. A Christian believes that Christ was the son of God. A Jamaican comes from Jamaica. These are facts that cannot be disputed, no matter how hard the moral relativists try.
By using politically correct terms such as “differently abled” and “person of color” you are obfuscating the truth and robbing language of its communicative properties. Why should someone be less insulted when I call him “vertically challenged” than when I say “short?” He knows I mean short, so why not just say it? If we are really so fragile that we are bruised by mere words, than I shudder to think of what might happen if we were ever to encounter something so fearsome as, say, a Whiffle bat.

Grow up, people. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Honesty is and always shall be the best policy. If we succumb to the tyranny of Political Correctness then our speech shall soon become completely paralyzed for fear of causing offense to even the tiniest minority of the population. Unless of course they happen to be Republicans. In that case it’s fine.

On Abortion

In order to support the morality of abortion, you must accept one of the following premises: a) that a fetus is not a human life, or b) that it is permissible to kill an innocent, defenseless infant. If you choose the latter, then we suffer from a fundamental ideological difference that cannot be resolved by any amount of discussion. However, if you choose the former, as do most supporters of abortion, then you are faced with a problem. At what point does a fetus become a human life?

I have heard numerous answers to this query. Some claim that the fetus becomes human at the quickening, at the first signs of spontaneous movement. But a why does the capability of movement grant humanity? Is not a hospital patient who has been paralyzed still a human being with the right to life? Others place personhood at the time when the fetus can feel pain, but this suffers from the same problem. A man subjected to total physical numbness is still a man. His ability to feel pain has no bearing on his right to life. I have a friend who claims that the fetus is a person when it can support itself outside the womb, apparently failing to realize that a two year old child cannot support itself outside the womb without someone to feed it. Finally, some claim that the ability of thought is the prerequisite for personhood. This is perhaps the most compelling of any of these arguments. After all, how can humanity exist without thought? But consider, thought is a sliding scale. There is no single moment when a fetus can “think.” Furthermore, a four year old child does not think in the same way as an adult, yet has a much greater capacity for learning. This seems a far too subjective and arbitrary basis on which to justify killing.

Whenever I enter into a discussion of abortion, the phrase I hear over and over is “a woman’s right over her body.” I couldn’t agree more that a woman has the right over her body, but I do not see what that has to do with abortion. A fetus is not part of a woman’s body. A fetus has a body of its own, with its own unique human DNA. A woman has the right to choose, but not when that choice is to kill another human being.

At this point someone usually points out that if a fetus is person and must not be harmed, then the same must be said for a man’s sperm and a woman’s eggs, which die by the thousands every day. This is false. Sperm is a part of a man’s body in the same way that blood, sweat and tears are. They have his DNA and he can do whatever he chooses with them. Likewise for a woman’s eggs. Their potential for creating life is irrelevant. We are not concerned with what could be, but rather, what is.

Therefore, taking all this into account, it is obvious that the one and only moment that a fetus becomes a human life is that of conception. When a sperm and an egg collide to create a unique life form with unique DNA, a human being is born, and from that point on any action taken towards its destruction is nothing short of murder. Any desperate justifications about rape victims or situations which endanger or, God forbid, inconvenience the life of the mother are irrelevant. The prohibition of the crime of murder takes precedence over all of these things. What if the infant would have to be put up for adoption and therefore lead an unhappy childhood? Doesn’t matter. Murder.

Maybe some of you support a woman’s right to infanticide, but I cannot.