Political Correctness, is it destroying our country?

Political correctness, is it destroying our country?
(Again thank you Denea for the suggestion, and sorry so long to get a new post out, my carpal tunnel has been slowing me down.)

Some people would rather lose their left testicle or breast in order not to be politically incorrect. I have struggled with this issue myself. There are people I really like, and the idea of them thinking less of me for an opinion I have at the time is disheartening. A good example is the fact that I had a place to blog for 3 years now and yet my first one was just over a month ago. I have been one of those who occasionally allows others to set the tone instead of expressing my views, unless asked for my opinion or in situations that are clearly meant for discussion.

Part of it has been politeness. If you invite me into your home, it’s a bit rude to “take the stage” and express my views all over the place, no doubt making a mess in the process. Strangely though, I embrace it when others do it, I personally don‘t find it rude at all. Now if you invite me into your home and ask how I feel about the healthcare system, you’ll certainly get my 2 cents. However, in the area of public debate, being politically correct is definitely lowering the bar for political discussion.

One is forced to keep the real feelings on issues quiet in order not to be labeled. Fear of a label, or of being perceived as unpatriotic, is crippling our political discussion. The sad part is that speaking out is what makes us Americans. To not speak out is strictly unpatriotic to the highest degree.

Then of course you have people like Mitt Romney who portray themselves as saints, yet upon dropping out of the race he lets his true feeling show by saying that if you vote Democrat you are supporting the terrorists and destroying our country, along with other ridiculous statements. He suggested that America doesn’t have enough God, while the terrorists have too much God. What a dick and a hypocrite with no real grasp on the situation at hand. I do like his suggestion that his staying in the race was bad for America, even if his reasoning behind it was bullshit.

A patriot is defined as a proud supporter or defender of his/her country and/or his/her way of life. There is nothing about Government in there, though people often confuse the two. In order to support a country in a democratic society, one must take an active role in the administration and policies of the government controlling said county, which includes speaking out against said government if it is acting contrary to the welfare of the country. Basically, if the government is screwing the pooch, it’s your job to break out the water hose and save the pooch.

Blind support of the government is the absolute opposite of patriotism, reading the documents that define our country state this very specifically. As Jay Leno said at the end of a “Jay Walking” episode where many people could not identify the main frontrunners for president, “you get the government you deserve“. Like it or not, we are responsible for the halfwit in the Whitehouse now. Voting is a good start, but not nearly enough when that kind of situation presents itself. Ever wonder what the last 8 years would have been like had Gore taken his rightful post?

Another issue plaguing our political system is pigeon holing, or the act of labeling someone pro this or that. The problem is that the question itself is unfair. Take a sensitive subject like abortion. Are you pro life or pro choice? Either you’re a baby killer or rights killer. There’s no good answer to that question. Do you support our president or do you hate our country? My answer to both questions is neither…but if I were a politician that’s where the sound bite would end and the message would be lost on the masses. You then come across as indecisive and unstable, not leadership material.

There are a lot of political issues plaguing our country, and having to be PC is one of them, along with misdirection, spin, and straight out lying. So is there a place for political correctness?

Yes, in most situations. We do it everyday, as we should. Walking up to your gay neighbor and asking if taking it up the ass is worth burning in hell for is just wrong in so many ways. Tact is important, and should not be disregarded in an attempt to thumb your nose at political correctness. Not taking into consideration things that may offend others is socially irresponsible.

Part of the problem is globalization. Studies have suggested that the optimum size for any community is roughly 150 people. We’ve been that way for tens of thousands of years, or 6000 if you’re a Republican fundamentalist.

Before “civilization”, people lived in fairly small villages that typically split after reaching about 200 people. The morays and social ethics were well defined and offense was rarely an issue other than the foreign visitor unfamiliar with the customs. Now that we are global, there are very few things that transfer smoothly on a global scale. Somewhere, someone is pissed about what you are saying or doing. A piece sign could be an obscene gesture.

So there is no way to be politically correct all of the time. The importance rests with humility, respect, and a willingness to learn. I couldn’t think of anything this administration lacks more, aside from honesty and a soul. Being politically correct also affords you a larger and more receptive audience when you do speak, as you are not considered an insensitive loud mouth. You earn respect with tactful consideration. If I were to say all blondes were morons, not only would I be wrong, I would lose the respect of most blondes, regardless of what little favor I may curry with brunettes and red heads.

I suppose the biggest issue lies with the media. FOX is probably the biggest threat to our society, with a few exceptions I’m sure. The spin they broadcast and the tones of their discussions are down right scary, not just ignorant and ridiculous. To wrap it up in one simple thought, Fox hired Carl Rove! I can’t imagine a more blatant disregard for ethics.

Politicians are, as you would expect, the epitome of this problem. Obama sparked so much debate by not wearing an American flag pin. He did his best to explain, in a politically correct fashion, that actions are what define your patriotism, not the amount of “flare” on your lapel. Which is a good point, even if softened up for the public.

I would imagine if public opinion weren’t so compartmentalized, he may have said that Bush has cheapened what our flag stands for. Furthermore, decking out your clothes, home, and car has almost disgustingly been identified with the so called “patriotic right“, the same right that would vote away our very right to vote due to pure and unbridled ignorance to the issues. The same people who claim to support the troops by pushing war, while supporting those who weaken and overextend our military. It’s not wanting to identify with those who have been so clearly duped. I’m just speculating that’s what he might say...I have no idea how he really feels about it.

Personally, I never imagined a time where waiving our flag might not be a good thing, but old W has managed to do it. Would you waive a Halliburton flag? How about a Blackwater bumper sticker? Probably not, since you might disagree what they stand for. Now I can say that because I’m a relative nobody. You could never fit any of that crap into a sound bite with a positive spin. Since much of the political discussion hinges on sound bytes, being honest or out there has to be either idiot proof or mainstream. Otherwise shut up or loose the election.

So, our political process has been dumbed down to the lowest denominator, the uninformed voters who vote based on sound bites. I was deeply troubled when someone very close to me thought Obama was horrible, since he would not salute our flag and took his oath on the Koran, neither of which is true. It was a rumor that spread faster than the truth. Our political process suffers immensely as a result. You don’t hear Democrats explaining that their position on religion is that you are free to believe anything you want, and others should have the same rights to do so without prejudice. Other religions should be understood, not shunned. Sometimes all that heard is that democrats support religions other than Christianity, so they must be anti God. The spin process is out of control.

Trying to explain that living in fear is not the way to go somehow means you’re soft on terrorism? WTF? And since when is global opinion not important so long as you‘re being tough on terror? Lack of concern for global opinion creates terrorism! If you want someone to hate you, just treat them in an insignificant manner and they will go to great lengths to prove otherwise.

As a true example of how incredibly off base public opinion is, candidates were initially shunned for saying they wouldn’t use nuclear weapons on a terrorist base. What kind of sick, deranged, incredibly stupid person would ever believe a nuclear weapon is an answer to anything remotely close to our current situation? One who has no idea of what that would entail, that’s who. Even the right answers are wrong these days, since the sound byte was “Obama afraid to use nuclear weapons”.

I’ve used Obama as an example here, but it translates across the board and political lines. The ultimate truth hear is that media is a big problem, but it is out of hand because of us, the consumer. If we were collectively more intelligent about our news sources and our knowledge about current issues, shows that produce the spin and sound bites would be off the air in no time. I personally can’t stomach much more than 3 minutes of Fox news. If others knew enough to know they were being mislead, they would likely also choose not to watch.

So is political correctness killing our country? No, I don’t think it is. I think irresponsible media and an uninformed public at large is killing our country, making suppression of relevant issues by way of political correctness commonplace. I think if the public were better informed and the media not so eager to twist words, walls would come down and a greater political discussion could take place.

Information and truth are bought and sold like anything else, though it is done through advertising and ratings rather than swiping your card when you turn on the TV or open a newspaper. We need to be wise consumers of our information, “buying” it from sources we can rely on, and complaining and threatening to go somewhere else when the information is false or misleading. We need to look skeptically at the information we use to add to our general knowledge. We need to avoid those who would sell us bad information, since information comes without a warranty, and there is little recourse. Ever wish you could get a refund on the initial information sold to you on the Iraq War? And I doubt you would continue to eat somewhere that has repeatedly sold tainted food, so why tolerate tainted information?

Demand better information, become better informed, and then political correctness as a problem will cease to be a major issue. If we all paid attention to our government, our government would have little choice other than to improve. The sad part is that most of us would rather not bother with the whole thing and let others deal with it.

We get the government we deserve.

Please comment, and don’t be afraid to speak your mind!

The poor health of our welfare system.

This is regarding welfare abuse and how to reduce the occurrences of abuse to a more acceptable level. This post is on a subject suggested by Denea. Keep the ideas coming.

Some say drug testing should be mandatory for welfare recipients. Haven’t met a person who disagrees yet, but I’m sure they’re out there. This subjects speaks to a larger issue, which is welfare abuse. My take is that welfare is a broken system and the people who shoulder the burden are looking for ways to reduce the burden on the general public, which is understandable and reasonable. The solution is grey and diverse as you have different reasons for going on welfare. I think a resolute pass/fail qualification system could be disastrous in terms of spikes in crime rates by those who are disqualified. There are many reasons to do such testing, however one must be careful that the “solution” does not create additional problems, or at least problems that outweigh the benefits.

Having been on both sides of the fence, I know a thing or two about the system, at least in AZ, but I did grow up in CA. For those who don’t know, I have been disabled for 5 years. During the first 6 months to a year, or more if social security denies you, you are “on your own” both financially and medically. Had it not been for public assistance, I’d have lost my house and perhaps even worse without medical care. Though some may argue this point, I’m one of the reasons welfare is good, to help those who truly need it, when they need it. I needed it for about 7 months, then Social Security took over. So it serves a good purpose. Had I been subjected to a piss test I’d have passed, with the understanding that the drugs in my system were prescribed.

It’s those who abuse the system that piss the rest of us off. The guy buying groceries with food stamps with more gold on than Run DMC. The woman reproducing in order to receive more benefits. Those who choose to trade their assistance for weed, meth, or otherwise. Those who just don’t want to work even though they are perfectly able. This is costing us millions, but we’d rather have it there in case we need it for some reason. And what do we do about those abusing the system? Enforcement is good, though the cost of it is another one of those trade off’s that I discussed earlier.

We live in a hybrid society, a fact not often acknowledged. We gave the communists crap, yet we are both Capitalist and Socialist, a fact some are afraid to admit. (Public school is a socialist based system) Quite frankly that is the only way it can work. We’ve seen Communism fail, mainly because of the extreme nature. There has to be a balance. A reason to strive, not just exist. So where is the balance? We are getting close to it, and it will ebb and flow with each administration, but the true balance will be struck when assistance does not mean poverty, nor will it be something people rely on for long periods of time. When it is solely for transition, we will have our balance.

And that leaves us where? With dealing with the current issue of abuse of the system. I think making a piss test a regular thing for all is an expensive idea regardless of how much money it could save, primarily due to the backlash. Had we dumped our current tax law on the US citizens of 1890 (we had no substantial taxes then), there would have been a revolt! However, a more reasonable system which strongly discourages abuse could work very well. Randomized drug testing would reduce the cost of such a system, and weed out enough people to scare the rest straight, like the hangings in the old west did. Highly publicized revocation of benefits could have a strong positive impact. And if one fails a random test, they can dispute it. They have to pay for another test in 3 weeks, and if they pass then they will have to pay for and pass tests every three weeks for 4 months and then every 3 months after that in order to keep their benefits. This is for those who do get scared straight after a minor indiscretion.

A tip line (with reward) for abuse could be employed to expose the more obvious abuses. If you’re going to abuse the system, best not flaunt it or someone will report you. They would then collect a reward (say $200) for exposing welfare fraud. This could create a cottage industry for those willing to do the research and expose abuses. This would also create a way to clean up crack houses and meth labs, if the suspects are on welfare. It puts “some” enforcement in the hands of the public, allowing those who care about the community to play a part in cleaning it up. A positive report of welfare fraud, drug abuse, or illegal activity while on welfare could save the state tens of thousands a year in welfare, making a $200 reward reasonable. Allowing the tipster to remain anonymous is an important part of the equation.

I also think there should be a monetary discouragement for those who choose to reproduce while on welfare. As it is, “welfare mommies” are encouraged to reproduce since they get more assistance. While true it doesn’t pan out for them as well as they initially calculated, it still costs more money all together. A system that freezes benefit eligibility would be ideal, so long as birth control is made available. For example if you had 2 kids and were 3 months pregnant, your eligibility would be frozen at 3 kids. If you decide to have a fourth, the burden is on you, not the state. If you go off of welfare for a period of 2 years or more, and then need it again then eligibility is reassessed. If you go off for only 6 months and come back pregnant, your benefit would still be frozen, as it was poor planning to get pregnant so soon after going off of welfare.

A repayment penalty for all benefits paid would also discourage abuse. If you are found guilty of welfare fraud, repayment should be mandatory. Being in the system as someone who defrauds the system would make you ineligible for public assistance anywhere in the country unless full restitution had been made. Fingerprinting should also be mandatory to receive benefits in order to verify identity, if it isn‘t already.

Promoting both smart family planning and wise fiscal planning is the goal. Think about the kids. Think about the future. More kids will not make things better. Drugs will not help you cope. Abusing the system will cause you to lose your benefits and have to repay the state for all of the benefits paid. My neighbors will report me if I make them think I’m screwing the system that they pay for. If these things run through your mind, you are less likely to abuse the system.
Providing education to gain better employment is another benefit with 2 advantages. One, getting off welfare sooner by way of encouragement and method for better earning potential away from the system. Two, further encouraging those who receive benefits not to abuse them since they would also lose any education benefits that may potentially change their lives.

The key to all of this is that those who really need it will play by the rules and the rest will be weeded out in one way or the other. Additionally, you have to educate people off of welfare. Educate them to give them more earning power, and also educate them out of obesity. Nutrition is another flaw in the system, not just welfare but nationally. Those who are obese aren’t necessarily eating junk food as normally defined, but junk food that is quietly detrimental and causing more hunger.

Eating Jiff instead of natural “stir and refrigerate” peanut butter sends cholesterol out of control, causes cancer, heart disease, and contributes to obesity. The same holds true if you eat margarine instead of real butter. Anything with high fructose corn syrup will cause a myriad of issues, most notably diabetes and increased hunger. If more people were aware of these things, knew about the alternatives, and had more reasons to care, corrections could be made improving health and the ability for self sustainability.

Some sort of extra benefit to lose weight would also be useful. Every pound you lose would add 5 dollars to your benefit for that month or something like that, with the catch that if you gain it back, you pay it back. This would be a volunteer plan. Sounds expensive, but the healthcare costs would decrease do to co-morbidities resolving themselves and needing less treatment and medicine. Things like cholesterol, blood pressure, heart disease, and general health tend to improve with weight loss. It might cost $1000 dollars if someone loses 200 pounds, but they are more employable and as a result less prone to need ongoing assistance. Providing and promoting gastric bypass/ Laparoscopic gastric banding would also pay off in the end, particularly Lap-Band since it’s the most economically viable and healthiest option, with the benefit of reversibility in the event of intolerance. Giving people a really good reason to get in better shape, aside from the incredibly obvious reasons, would further improve chances for self sustainability, which is the name of the game.

That’s my short answer anyway. If you’ve gotten this far, I can say with fair certainty that you do not have ADD. I welcome comments and questions, as this is an imperfect plan with room for improvement and expansion, however I feel it has potential. Who knows, maybe it might just turn into something positive and functional. Whole solutions are important, rarely does one mechanism fix the whole machine.

Gays in the military? Good, bad, or just damn fabulous?

Gays in the military. Thank you to Denea’s husband Sam for this one. Please feel free to submit a topic for me if you haven’t already.

Please read at least most of this, otherwise you may be confused.

Gays in the military is a problem because, according to some, the unit cohesion could be compromised. For example, if a father and son were in the same unit, biased decisions might be made based on their relationship. A gay relationship in a unit could cause soldiers to veer away from the “cog in the machine” mentality to a more individualized one, causing potential actions contrary to military objectives.

That is the best “reasonable” argument I can find on the reason gay people should not be allowed into the military, or at least not to serve openly, whatever that may mean. I doubt we will be seeing any pink M-16s anytime soon. This issue would have a lot more traction if it weren’t an issue among straight men as well.

You can’t tell me that if you became great friends with someone in your unit, you wouldn’t keep an eye on him and his safety as a general matter of concern for a friend. The only way that differs from a sexual relationship (militarily speaking) is that additional parts of the body are involved. The initial, and arguably dangerous thought, has already taken it’s toll. If you care for someone, it doesn’t matter to what degree, you are going to look out for them.

Seems a strange argument, however, that we need to have men in the trenches that don’t give enough of a crap about each other that they focus only on the mission while disregarding his fellow soldier’s welfare in the process. If I’m not mistaken, aside from basic training, soldiers are taught to think on their feet for the ever changing landscapes of today’s (and tomorrow’s) battlefield. I think leaving a man behind is also bad juju, if I‘m not mistaken. I’ve never served, and I would hope someone will correct me if I am off base.

I would imagine that having someone looking out for you, regardless of the motivations, would be a universally good thing. I would also imagine that caring for those in your unit makes you that much more motivated to keep them alive. To look at it from another angle, would you want to be in a unit with people you could care less about? I wouldn’t.

I really don’t care for political motivations when it comes to the military. The military is there to do a job, and anything that might compromise it’s ability to do that job should be avoided. Drill sergeants should be able to insult your mother and beat the shit out of you, its an important part of conditioning. You need to become a killing machine, stripped to the bone and rebuilt. It worked for Jeffery Dahlmer, and he was gay. Though maybe he shouldn’t have gotten through the screening process? But he was a killing machine for sure.

Had you asked me, back when I was afraid of the whole “gay” issue, I’d have likely had problems with the notion of gay people serving. Ridiculous thoughts of, “Would they be able to throw a punch?“, or “I wouldn’t want them trying to have sex with me all the time…” would have likely been my response. But as I grew up, and got to know some normal people that happened to be gay, I realized they are just normal people with a wide range of attributes, just like everyone else.

Sure, there are gay guys I wouldn’t want by my side if I were in a brawl, but those guys wouldn’t be likely to even attempt to serve; or make it through boot camp for that matter. Those guys come in the straight variety too. I guess that’s the kicker. Why would you want to stop anyone who is willing to fight for our country, so long as they are physically and mentally able? We could use a boost in recruitment, yet we keep a sizeable segment of willing and able candidates out when they already have a proven track record of serving with distinction.

Some could argue that being gay disqualifies them mentally, as though being gay means you’re “sex crazy and retard strong“. That’s fear and bigotry talking, with rationality having taken the train a long time ago. The truth is that we have a system in our military to determine worthiness to serve. Physical and mental assessments, along with boot camp, will keep the unworthy out.
To further pacify the homophobes, we should make their sexual preference fair game in boot camp. As if it’s a choice anyway. Very few straight guys get excited about shoe shopping, and the ones who do are suspect. By all means, let them serve, but take off the politically correct “kid gloves” and abuse them like any other potential soldier. If they can make it through boot camp under those conditions, then by God they deserve to fight for our freedom. We should be so grateful that they would even consider the notion with the lack of respect they get.

One other reason that gays in the military is a problem is that it is an “out card“. However, this is an issue of bad policy. If “don’t ask don’t tell” were replaced by “serve openly if you feel like it so long as you can make it through boot camp”,(title needs work) there would no longer be the issue of invested time and money lost because a person is now openly gay or otherwise “outed“. This isn’t a gay issue alone, however it is unique to those who are gay and serve. I’m almost certain someone who was not gay has tried to use sexual orientation as an out card, like on the TV show Mash. Eliminate the “out card“, eliminate the issue.

If I were to hear a single military purpose that truly identified being gay as an issue unique to gays alone, I might change my tune. I’ve even heard that giving the green light to homosexuality will weaken our military on the issue of intimidation. I doubt it. If someone has a gun to your head, do you question their sexuality? I’m guessing that firepower is firepower when it comes down to it.

Though my opinions may seem strong on the issue, I am very open to any logical, military reasons that openly gay people should not serve. I honestly can’t find any, but if they exist I‘d like to be made aware of them so I can consider them in my ultimate opinion of the matter.

Thanks for reading, and be sure to tell me what you think.

Claim your power, change the world.

Thoughts are a result of chemical reactions in the brain. But the result of thoughts can be measured physically in numerous ways. The great pyramids, the great wall of China, your cup of coffee as you read this very sentence. All were simply a thought before they became reality. Thoughts also put them into reality where as before they were simply an idea. Understanding this can get us where we want to go.


We are a society, now global, that has made it to the moon and harnessed the power of the atom itself. Our progress has slowed a bit, and while it can be attributed to various things, like financial and social issues, there is no good reason we shouldn’t be much further along than we are.


So the purpose of this blog is to help solve problems, spur creativity among those who have it, and aid in overcoming the hurdles that defy the success of a project or idea. Whether it is a political idea, social problem solving, transportation, climate change, or just something that could make peoples’ lives a little better somehow, I’d like to hear about it and help if I can.


This site will likely be most useful for social issues, as those solutions are rarely trademarked. I want thoughts and ideas for new issues to tackle. Ever find yourself saying, “I wish they would just…”? Well, tell me and lets get the idea out there. This is your chance to be heard, and I will discuss the ideas in a “pros and cons” way that will be fair for most. No matter what you do, you can’t please everyone.


This will also be a place to discuss problems and ideas. Some of the topics I will be posting, as suggested by my readers, will be welfare issues, gays in the military, political correctness as a problem, and other issues of merit. This is not the entire scope of what I will be discussing, as just about anything goes. If physicist (or theorist) needs help cracking the space-time continuum, I’ll take a crack at it. Who knows, it just might work, thoughts are very powerful things.


So, what bugs you, what intrigues you, what just flat pisses you off? I’m not here to make fun of anyone, or make anyone look stupid. I need to put my grey matter to good use, and if I can help people in the process, then I feel it is a worthy cause. With the now global reach of thought, just about anything can be resolved or created, so long as we truly want it.


Thanks for reading. Please comment with thoughts and suggestions, and I will answer accordingly.