Feeling Squeezed by Political CorrectnessLearn Politics on mps-politics.com. Feeling Squeezed by Political Correctness article will help answer your questions on Politics.We at mps-politics.com specialize in Politics. Politics at mps-politics.com provides the most up to date news and articles. If you have questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
The Left tells us: (1) Being simply tolerant of all kinds if sexual variants like homosexuals, bisexuals, transvestites, and the trans-gendered is not good enough. We must accept their lifestyles as natural and normal. We must never, of course, say anything negative about the practitioners of those lifestyles. Ideally, we should worship the ground they walk on like the Hollywood crowd does. My take: I'm all for tolerance and I'm basically a live-and-let-live kind of guy, but this is over the top. Tolerance, yes; forced acceptance, no. (2) Women are equal to men in every way (except those ways in which women are better or do not choose to be equal). They must be given every opportunity men are given, but must not be held to the same physical or emotional standards. In addition, women are considered minorities (even though there are more of them than there are men), so they must be given special preferences and opportunities that are not afforded to men. Violence to women is always unacceptable but men often deserve it. Any depiction of violence to women is no laughing matter and must be abolished, but depictions of violence to men are usually quite funny. Anything that can be perceived as degrading to women is horrible but most men deserve a little degradation at times. My take: Any woman should be given the opportunity to prove that she can do any given job as well as a man could do. If she can, then she should be given equal access to that job and paid whatever a man would be paid. However, if she can’t, then she shouldn’t complain about the lack of access to the job or unequal pay. It is every woman's right to determine whether or not she wants to be treated differently because of her gender. However, no woman has a right to have it both ways. Either she wants to be treated differently from a man or she doesn't. Also, violence to either sex, except to defend oneself or someone from imminent physical harm, is totally unacceptable. (3) All races and ethnic groups are equal, but those who are considered to be minorities must be given special preferences in order to succeed. More specifically, African-Americans must be given preferential treatment to offset the way white males treated them during the 18th and 19th centuries. All of the problems that exist in the African-American community can be traced back either to the direct actions or indifference of white males. My take: I totally agree with the premise that all races and ethnic groups are equal. I've always endorsed the 'color blind society' school of thought, with no special preferences for anyone. I think we would all do well to quit identifying ourselves and one another by racial and ethnic categories. (4) Trees, land, and animals are all more important than making life better for humans. You cannot develop life-saving or life-enhancing drugs if some small animal will be hurt in the process. You cannot build what you want nor can you do what you want on your own land if it requires cutting down some trees or forcing some animals to go elsewhere. You cannot cut down trees to develop land and/or build new homes. You cannot drill for oil if it will ruin the pristine nature of any piece of land or interfere with any animal's habitat. Besides, you're supposed to drive small, cramped economy cars to conserve the oil supply. You're also supposed to carpool and/or use public transportation, even if it's not convenient. My take: Any person or organization should have a right to do what they want with their own property, as long as no human being is directly harmed. The Right tells us: (1) The actions of a conservative Republican president should never be questioned but it is quite okay and even encouraged to bash a liberal Democrat president for every little peccadillo. My take: This is complete hypocrisy. (2) When the President decides to take the country to war (or is even contemplating it), criticizing or protesting that decision is un-American, unpatriotic, and even borders on treasonous. This kind of stuff gives aid and comfort to the enemy and there should be certain consequences for those who do this. You should follow the President in mindless lock-step when he decides to go to war. Whether or not that decision makes any sense to you is irrelevant. My take: One of our most valued rights as U.S. citizens is to protest anything that the government does that we don't agree with, including making war. (3) The Second Amendment is absolute and cannot be infringed upon but more limits need to be placed on the First Amendment. All the sex, violence, and vulgarity on TV, in the movies, and in video games are not doing anyone any good and must be curbed substantially either through boycotts, intimidation, and/or government intervention. Not only must children be protected from this filth, but adults need to be as well. After all, this kind of stuff causes people to commit crimes such as murder and rape. My take: The people who spend so much time worrying about what someone else is watching, hearing, or reading would be better served to just turn off and/or avoid the stuff the they claim offends them and endangers their children. If they did, a lot of it would disappear for lack of a market/audience. Parents are ultimately responsible for monitoring their children's reading, listening, and viewing habits. It is not my responsibility and it's not the government's responsibility. In fact, when the government gets involved, it is nothing less than censorship. Also, there is not any credible evidence that sex and violence in the media causes people to commit crimes. Even if there was, the principle of personal responsibility dictates that those crimes should not be pinned on anyone or anything other than the criminals themselves. (4) Laws should be written with a bias toward 'family values', even if these laws cause single people with no children to feel like second class citizens. For example, tax laws, drug laws, zoning laws, etc. should be geared toward the benefit of traditional family units. Also, there are certain actions that should be illegal, even if they appear on the surface to be victimless crimes. The real victim of these actions is the traditional family unit and it must be protected in order to maintain a free and prosperous society. My take: The 'equal protection under law' provision of our Constitution requires that everyone be treated equally. Any bias toward traditional family units is not only a violation of the Constitution but also stems from a misapplication of biblical teachings (which know nothing of the of the kind of “family values” being pushed on everyone by the Right). In addition, no action that is without a clear and direct victim should be illegal. The fact that it might be vile and repulsive is not alone enough to justify making it illegal. Any evidence of the effect of victimless crimes on the traditional family is only anecdotal at best. That's just a small sampling from both sides but you get the picture. We will have true liberty in this country only when no one is allowed to impose his or her will on anyone else and everyone can be free to speak his or her mind without the fear of retaliation or censorship. Political correctness on both ends of the political spectrum is the one thing that's standing in the way of this lofty goal.
President Barack Obama delivers the fourth State of the Union address of his presidency at 9 tonight. If you own a television set, it will be almost impossible to avoid. All the major networks - ABC, CBS, NBC - will carry the annual policy speech before a joint session of Congress, and for good reason. The State of the Union is no ordinary speech. It is the political event of the year. And in an election year, it is unmatched in its import. So how many people will actually watch? How Many People Really Watch the State of the Union? originally appeared on About.com US Politics on Tuesday, January 24th, 2012 at 00:01:23. Article Index: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
More Articles:1. Interview With A Former ACLU Lawyer For God And Country ForeverSurrender To The ACLU Never”I had the benefit of getting an interview with Mr. Reese Lloyd, a former ACLU lawyer affiliated with the largest Veterans Organization in America, the American Legions. When I called the media relations department there and inquired about their support for Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 , this is the man they referred me to. I soon found out why. This was a very passionate, wise, and well spoken man.I first inquired of his history… 2. Mass Transportation Efficiencies and Price Per Rider Theories By Lance Winslow Having redundancies and today’s technologies in transportation we have protected the system for nearly any eventuality. Today in California, the BART train tram system is trying to figure out how to continue with mounting costs and California’s financial debacle. The idea to fix this problem has been pondered and they have come to the conclusion they need to raise fees in order to save it.This is linear in thought and sure to destroy the integrity of confidence with the riders and patrons. Alt… 3. Global Entrepreneurs, Mining and Raw Materials By Lance Winslow There are many mines around the world, which are owned by the new global citizen who considers no country their home. Literally a world-class jet set of entrepreneurs. They are unconcerned with where on Earth that they do business, they take their business to which ever country they can make a deal with and make the quickest ROI and the greatest profit. This is not good or bad, this is the reality of opportunity, capitalism and risk-reward scenarios.The United States can compete, if we will dr… 4. No Child Allowed To Advance Game By Lance Winslow Are we missing the boat in education of our next generation? Will we be able to shape the minds of innovation we need for the progression of our civilization? Can the; No Child Left Behind Act solve the problems in education? Many believe it will; yet others are not so sure. Most believe in education and mile markers for performance as an over all concept. However this could indeed cause a problem; you ask how so?Well, with "no Child Left behind" we end up teaching to the middle or the lower o… |
||||
