Definitions

Whoever writes the definitions controls the culture. 

Pro-choice instead of pro-abortion – what other choice are they talking about – Coke or Pepsi?  Paper or plastic?  Cash or credit?  Nope, the term pro-choice only refers to one choice, and yet the actual object of choice cannot be mentioned.

African-American instead of Negro or black or whatever – I had a friend in grade school who was born in South Africa - he was white with red hair – is he a African-American?  How about an Egyptian or Tunisian?  Nope, the term isn’t accurate but no one seems to care.

Typically, the trouble is that labels often use a word or two that is not properly defined.  I refer to them as “squishy” words.  There are a few terms that I want no part of, nor do I think they are accurate:

Progressive – in order for this to be an unqualified positive term, one must have a universally accepted idea of what constitutes progress.

Environmentalist – We all want the environment to be preserved, right?  Does the environment ever change, or should we fight to keep it exactly the way it is?  Think of the Green Revolution and how it fed millions while altering the environment in small, benign ways – was that a good idea or a bad idea.  I think the term “conservationist” is a little bit better.  Conserve the natural world as best we can while making the world better for all of us. 

A side note to this term: ever notice that environmentalists tend to call Earth a “planet” instead of our “world”?  Planet seems to make the Earth seem smaller and more fragile.

Diversity – I’m not against people being who or what they are, I just don’t see the advantage of celebrating it.  I disagree with the saying “our strength is in our diversity”.  Our strength is our ability to unify despite our differences.  Even our money says “out of many, one”.  That’s “E Pluribus Unum” for the non-Latin scholars out there.
I see a big difference between diversity and individuality.  The diversity supporters tend to identify people into diverse groups with social labels.  I disagree with this approach.  The danger of resorting to stereotypes is too great.  Besides, while knowing some general facts about someone may be helpful, I want to judge people as individuals.
I also cringe at the term “cultural diversity”.  Only one culture exists in one place at one time.  We may wish to label certain aspects of a culture as having their individual existence, but they are really only part of the fabric on the culture as a while.

Activist – Being active in a cause sounds great, doesn’t it?  It depends on what you’re active in.  Most of the people termed as activists tend to be active in causes that are contrary to the traditional views of our country and culture.  Yes, I’m saying I support the traditional views of our country and culture.  The difference is, I don’t think of myself as an activist for those positions, rather I stand as an advocate for them.

So now that I’ve made lots of folks upset by my views, I’ll add one more:

The US is not, and never has been, a democracy.  It is a republic comprised of 50 individual republics.  Yes, believe it or not, the US Constitution says that those entities wishing to be admitted as states must have a republican (notice I used a small “r”) form of government.  One can add adjectives to better define the type of republic we have, such as “representative” or “constitutional” but we are indeed a republic.

As a short-hand, the US has been called a democracy, for our representatives are elected democratically, but those representatives are free to use their own individual judgment when voting on how best to govern.   DeToqueville’s  work Democracy in America says it best.

The Real Villians

A follow-up point to ponder from the last post:

Have you ever noticed that in the vast majority of movies, TV shows and cartoons that the villain is a corporation?  Is it any wonder that lots of folks think corporations are the most evil things on the planet?

Now, I’m not going to apologize to Upton Sinclair or anyone else – corporations are as good or as bad as the systems in which they reside.  They are a reflection, not a driver.

The flip side is to look at the systems in which corporations (or their equivalents) reside in.  Truth is socialist governments themselves killed more than 80 million of their own citizens during the 20^th Century.  How many did Microsoft kill?  Or General Motors?  Or Conagra?

Bleak Views of the Future

Last week I went to see the latest Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises.  While I don’t think the movie was meant to be political, I kept sensing that I was watching the logical extension of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Beyond the dark feel of the movie, I started reflecting on a curious phenomenon: I’m going to speak in generalities here, but looking at Hollywood as an example, it seems that the more someone (or some group) looks to mankind to supply the answers for humanity’s future, the more likely that future will look bleak and uncertain.  And yet, as horrendous these outlooks are, the creators of these visions will insist that man can overcome anything.

Maybe the object is to show a future that is so bad that people will do anything to avert it or whether these people actually believe that kind of future is inevitable.  I think it is both: they believe it is inevitable but that mankind must still try any drastic action imaginable to at least try to stave off the worst.

Ironically, the Christian view of apocalypse is worse than almost any of these visions, yet Christians can remain optimistic because we believe that these horrors are a low point before the best of all endings – that Christ Himself returns to reign over the earth in person.