March 2007 Archives

One of the things that has long fascinated me in watching the left is their penchant for contantly re-writing their own labels. Not content with a label that would accurately portray their beliefs, they always seem to come up with a contrary word to use. It's as if they're always trying to hide their real thoughts behind a word that means the opposite of what they are.

Liberal is the first word that comes to mind. Liberal is a term that once applied to those who believed in a personal application of rights, and opposition to infringement of those rights by government. Liberals believed in minimal taxation, freedom to speak one's beliefs, freedom to associate with the groups you wished, freedom to believe in the faith of your choice, and the right to own weapons as a last resort against a government that might choose to infringe upon those, and other, rights. Today, though, liberalism is not appeased unless taxes are raised to oppressive levels. Liberalism attacks those who choose to belive non-liberal ideas, or worship in certain ways. Above all, liberalism opposes any ownership of weapons except in the hands of a government, especially to prevent anyone from opposing that government.

Later came the term "progressive." Personally, as a former liberal, I have progressed beyond such backward beliefs. My own progression involved understanding the "liberal" belief system I was expected to espouse. I progressed beyond the religious beliefs in government as the savior, and government as the provider. I progressed beyond the idea that higher taxes can, in any way, help anyone except those who get their paychecks out of those taxes. I progressed beyond a wish to become a government employee leech on our society. I progressed to a belief that God, through his son Jesus Christ, was my source of power, rather than the political whims of a majority in Congress. I progressed to a point where the lies of the left no longer gave me pride, but instead caused me to pity those who had not yet progressed.

The latest term for the left is the most humorous of them all. In the last few years, the term "reality-based" has come into popular use among the left. This "reality" proposes that the right is the source of racism, and the left is the cure. I've posted recently on how this isn't "reality" at all. The same "reality" says that Bush stole the 2000 election when many studies have shown the opposite. This "reality" claims that Bush put forth a pre-emptive effort in Ohio, to steal another election, knowing that this would be the one state that this effort was needed in. On and on, the "reality" of the left ignores truth. Richard Armitage leaked Valerie Plame's name to the media, but the "reality-based" left still thinks Dick Cheney should be put in prison for it. Evidence of weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq was found before and after we invaded, but the "reality-based" left says no evidence exists.

As one term for the left becomes unpopular, not because the term is a bad one, but because the beliefs of the left are so horrible, they throw that term away and grab onto another one. More terms will come, just as other terms have gone that I haven't even mentioned.

Every day, though, another leftist progresses beyond the non-real religious belief system and toward a true liberalism that is better in every way. Some, but far from all, on the right come close to this perfect liberalism that we should be fighting for. If, one day, the Republican Party begins to espouse this classical liberalism that our country was founded on, I might be one. Until then, I associate freely with the Libertarian Party, an imperfect example itself of what should be.

No matter how many times I've said I'm not a Republican in the past, though, there will always be those regressive, non-reality-based hatemongers on the left who will call me one. It's not their fault. Functional illiteracy keeps the left alive.

After taking a poorly rated newscast that was a dim shadow of its former self, and installing a new anchor that offered little but a cute face, CBS has solidified its last-place position in the evening news. Worse yet, since Katie Couric took the helm, CBS's evening newscast has fallen further behind, with no end in sight for the drop. Now, a change in producers is underway with Rick Kaplan taking over as producer.

My mother-in-law watches Couric regularly, to which I remark, "So you're the one." Face it. Nobody wants Katie Couric in the anchor chair except CBS, and they aren't going to stay loyal for long. Ratings are key in the TV industry. The two most important timeslots for ratings are the 8-10 prime-time and the news. In local TV, the nightly news is the gravy-train for advertising revenue. On the network level, much is the same. More can be charged for advertising during the evening news, because the viewers that are watching are watching intently. That only goes so far, though, as you actually have to have loyal viewership in order to continue charging those high rates.

Katie Couric, a true star in the fluffy morning-show format, simply isn't seen as a trustable source for the news by a vast majority of America, and for good reason. Cute sells beer and cellphones, not information. When the information given reeks of bias, and offers little in the way of quality, people will turn elsewhere for it. Right now, the news industry is suffering from abandonment. The public is turning to the Internet, where they can read more about any given story, and select the stories they're interested in reading. Cable news, though not available in every home, is chipping away more and more at the audience of the broadcast networks. With CBS focusing more on style than substance, it's no wonder viewers are going away.

Couric's term at CBS began with high ratings, as viewers came in droves to see what was new. They quickly discovered that the newness had to do with style and quality. For everything CBS gained in style, they lost as much in quality, and it showed. Kaplan's job should be to bring in the quality, but his track record in this area is spotty, at best.

I'm still waiting for Fox to bring the Fox Report with Shepherd Smith to its affliliates, and steal away a major chunk of the news audience from all three broadcast networks. It wouldn't be hard, and they could do it with little investment. Smith offers better substance, better style, and a more engaging news-hour than any of the major three networks are offering. What's more, he does it with less bias in the news than any of the other major networks, broadcast or cable.

Hey, CBS. Want to get better ratings in your news? Fire Couric, and hire a real newsman for the job. Like it or not, viewers don't want a woman giving them the news, unless it is a woman who can be trusted to tell the news "the way it is." That's why Connie Chung failed, and it's why Couric is failing.

Like it or not, that's the way it is.

It was entertaining to read and listen to the speeches given by Hillary Clinton and H. Barack Obama in Selma on the anniversary of "Bloody Sunday." Obama toned down his usual "articulate" self in his speech. One has to wonder if he every pronounces "before" as "befo" when he isn't trying to make himself sound like a "real black person." Clinton, who typically eschews talk of religion, and whose mid-west accent is very prominent, turned on her black evangelist tone when addressing the crowd. Being the wife of "America's First Black President" must give her some credit on its own, but she had to go and make herself sound like an illiterate former slave when she quoted hymns and paraphrased biblical quotes in yet another attempt to fool America into thinking she's something she is not.

Offensive? Yes. Yes she is.

It is amusing, though, to watch the white yankee woman and the black man that many in the African-American community think isn't white enough, trying to battle for what they see as the rightful heir in the next big election to the black legacy. Neither of them is qualified for this heir-esy, and yet they think they can just show up and paint on the blackface and fool the community into accepting them as their own.

It's also quite funny to see how they push government as the solution to race problems in America. It was government, in the hands of white Democrats, that prevented blacks from voting. It was white Democrats that formed the Ku Klux Klan and lynched black men, burned black towns, and terrorized black communities. It was a white Democrat that blocked the schoolhouse door against integration. White Democrats fought to keep slavery. White Democrats fought to keep blacks on the back of the bus. It was even a white Democrat that stole Obama's chances of ever being the first "black president" in America.

Oh yeah, it's offensive.

Today's white Democrats fight to keep blacks in America's failed public school systems. It's white Democrats who fight attempts to better our education system, saying it will have negative impacts on "minority students" (black students are, in their eyes, incapable of keeping up with higher standards) It's white Democrats that fight any attempt to reduce the role of welfare in America. White Democrats fight for racial quotas.

Based on their policies, you'd have to conclude that white Democrats think that blacks in America are too stupid for a better education system, too incompetent to get a good job, and too useless to take care of themselves.

Oh yeah. It's very much offensive.

There they are, though, down in Selma. They're down there trying to fool the black community into more of their horrible policies. These are policies designed to hold back, dehumanize, and keep black America in it's place.

The answer for black America is the same as it is for the rest of America. Work hard. Save your money. Get a good education (and take your kids out of public school). Look to those who do these things as your heroes, no matter their race, creed, religion, or sex.

And, above all, throw the Democrat bums out.