Sunday, December 16, 2007

Words Mean Something

Yes, I am a jerk and everyone that knows me, knows that little factoid. One of the ways that my jerkdom shows itself is that I have a real dislike of people using words in the wrong manner to mean something completely different. Example: Progressive. The Far-Left political ideology has hijacked this word much like they did the word liberal. The actual meaning of "Progressive" in today's usage means "regressive." Hey y'all, let's do things like WE suggested in the 1960's! Remember, the 60's were ALMOST fifty years ago, don't you think that "Progressives" could come up with "PROGRESSIVE" ideas? "Hey, we have to do away with cars, because humans and their SUV's are ruining the planet." Is this idea Progressive? Yeah, to someone that never had the damn wheel.

Define: Regressive. 1. going back; subsiding; characterized by regression 2. opposing progress; returning to a former less advanced state

In today's political climate dictated (decided upon as by an authority) by the traditional media, the words Conservative and Liberal have been swapped from their actual historical definition.

Abraham Lincoln was a Liberal. Adolf Hitler was a Conservative. These terms at those times meant the exact opposite of what they mean now. In today's political climate of changing word definitions, Abraham Lincoln would be conservative and Hitler would be liberal. Much in the same vein, Marxism or Fascism would define today's liberalism perfectly. You can dispute that notion all that you want, but all you have to do is listen to the "Progressive" candidates for President and you can make the perfect parallels to Fascism. Government-run healthcare, minimum wage, guaranteed wage, et al, are ALL Fascist or Socialist ideals, which have been PROVEN to fail. These ideas are blatantly REGRESSIVE. You can say different, but you are only kidding yourself or worse still, lying. (lying, by the way, means the deliberate act of deviating from the truth)

Today, while reading the world news to check on the political climate where Bean is, I ran across the same perversion of word definitions. Much has been said from the political conservatives (today's) about the improper use of the word "insurgent." Yes, you can choose to call the people that are blowing innocents up for religious reasons "insurgents" but that is a perversion of the actual definition.

Define: insurgent. 1. A member of a political party who rebels against established leadership 2. in opposition to a civil authority or government 3. a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority

In no way, does the term "insurgent" remotely describe someone who dresses in civilian clothing and attacks civilians. Let's try another word.

Define: terrorist. 1. one who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant 2. use should be restricted specifically to references to people and nongovernmental organizations planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets 3. a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

Wow! Do our traditional media outlets even possess a dictionary or does their use of the word "insurgent" have a more clandestine meaning? I would choose the latter. The vast MAJORITY of our major media outlets are decidedly left-bent and they cheer for the government control of our lives, while at the same time deriding our government as Fascist. I am not making a blanket statement regarding the media, I am stating fact and pointing out that these two ideas are mutually exclusive. Fascist IS government control. Which is it that you want? No fascism or government control? Those two ideas cannot exist together.

Oh, and Reuters, you suck big-time. Almost as much as Helen Thomas.