The New Seven Dirty Words that must be avoided to engage in proper dialogue in the 21st century.
A few years back George Carlin identified seven words that could not be spoken in public or polite circles. Two identified parts of a woman’s body; two described biological acts; one described the male-female reproductive process, and two were twentieth-century euphemisms that both ended in the word fragment “sucker.”
By today’s standards, many of these words seem pretty tame. Sure, you’ll still get your mouth washed out if your Mom overhears you using them, but a couple of them have become almost mainstream. One was even incorporated into a somewhat famous political button distributed at the 1984 Democrat convention hailing the selection of “Fritz” Mondale and the unique anatomical features of his running mate, Geraldine Ferraro.
As for the others, I’ve heard the two biological/scatological references in business meetings as well as polite conversation, usually emanating from my mouth, but volunteered by others as well. Only three of the seven words still have any real social stigma attached to them; that is, when used in mixed company. I can’t speak for women, but put a group of guys together in the locker room or watching a ball game, and all seven of the words can be heard with unrelenting frequency.
To be true to Carlin’s main point, it wasn’t so much that these words couldn’t be uttered without condemnation. Rather, it was that they couldn’t be broadcast on TV. Today, however, with the advent of cable and Direct TV, my television set receives them just fine. These aren’t the public airwaves, though, where some standards are still maintained. However, thanks to Bill Clinton, while we cannot speak the four-letter word on TV that connotes sexual reproduction, we can certainly name the male appendage that contributes to this process.
While the seven still have a certain stigma attached to them, as a society we’ve certainly “evolved” in our thinking to allow just as meaningful substitutes. The nickname for the man who invented the first practical flushing toilet is now commonly used on broadcast TV as a substitute for the word George Carlin originally identified in his forbidden seven. Moreover, we no longer need to say “PO’d”; the full phrase can be uttered. And, equally descriptive substitutes have been found for the remaining words Carlin highlighted.
So it is we come to the first few years of the twenty-first century. Today, the controversy is no longer over whether an occasional profanity might slip into conversation broadcast over the public airwaves. Sure, the FCC will fine you if you make an egregious slip. But after a long, drawn-out appeal process which boosts your ratings in the interim as people flock to that show to see what all the fuss is about, the FCC will come off its initially high penalty and substitute a proverbial slap on the wrist instead. In a worst case scenario, even if the fine remains high, all that extra advertising revenue from an increased market share will more than compensate for any penalty.
But, occasional verbal lapses aside (along with its close cousin, the unintended wardrobe malfunction), there are several very real things that cannot be said today over the public airwaves — or for that matter, even in polite conversation — without risking immediate condemnation. Uttering any one of these words in an improper context will bring down the wrath of the keepers of public virtue who troll the airwaves and blogosphere alike, looking to censor anyone who strays from the path of accepted public speech whose definition comes to us courtesy of the Looney Left, the Democrat Party, ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and the rest of the arbiters of public dialogue.
And so it is with great trepidation that I highlight the New Seven Dirty Words that must be avoided when engaging in proper dialogue in the 21st century.
1. Wrong. As in, “You are wrong.” This is a narrow, judgmental, bigoted swipe at people who have their own equally-valid definitions of morality (or choose not to have any morality at all). Just who are you anyway to say what is right or wrong? It’s not like there’s some Book out there, or God-given universal moral code, that would help decide this. We don’t need any God-based, or scripture-based morality to tell us what is right or wrong when we have human consensus (as embodied in the United Nations) to handle these matters for us.
2. Patriotism. As in, “I disagree with your policies,” which of course to a Democrat or the MSM means, “I question your patriotism.” Point out that a certain candidate for president was in error about the surge in Iraq, and this is nothing more than an obvious smokescreen to question his love for our country. Patriotism is the last refuge of the uncritical thinker who cannot understand that putting your country’s needs ahead of your own is just a ploy to elect more Republican politicians, except of course for JFK; but that was a long time ago and doesn’t count since you’re questioning my patriotism by raising the issue.
3. Jesus Christ. Or, the more generic term God. Everyone knows that God can’t exist because science can’t prove He does. And besides, the Constitution forbids any mention of God. Period, end of discussion. (Well, I’m sure that’s what the founders really meant when they said that the State shall establish no official religion.) Invoking the name of Jesus Christ or God to support/defend your choices or actions is anathema to the common sense of public decency, and cannot be tolerated.
However, as a side note, it is okay to speak openly and freely about Allah, and to use public funds to provide separate facilities or washing areas for people who follow that religion. Fanatical, pissed off (see, “PO’d” is no longer required) practitioners of this faith tend to kill apostates and non-believers by cutting off their heads with a rusty saw. By contrast, when Christians get mad, they just pray for your salvation. The politically correct may be hypocritical, but they aren’t stupid when it comes to understanding the consequences of opposing Christianity and insulting Mohammed, Allah be Praised please don’t hurt me.
4. Human Being. As in, it’s not a “choice” or an “undifferentiated tissue mass.” It’s a “human being.” The undifferentiated tissue mass may have grown in a few weeks to resemble a human being, but it can’t live life on its own . . . yet. So it’s not really a child . . . yet. And calling it one would just hurt the feelings of the mother who just killed it. (Note to file: Update my living will so the grandkids don’t automatically ship me off to the organ-donor farm if I’m temporarily unconscious and can’t feed myself, or need a respirator to breathe because I have a serious case of pneumonia. Killing me off may be logically seen as a post-natal abortion because I can’t eat or breathe on my own, but I may not be quite ready to go . . . yet.)
5. Win. As in, “We need to win the war before we withdraw our troops.” When you have winners you have losers as well, and it isn’t nice to be the only one on top. That’s why it’s especially important today that the USA, as the world’s only true superpower, not bully other people like Saddam Hussein. Sure he was a tyrant who slaughtered innocent people, broke the treaty that ended the first Gulf war, shot at our airplanes and did other nasty things to us and our allies. But we have the United Nations to handle matters like that. If 14 resolutions won’t do the trick, then pass number 15. Just look how well Russia is responding today to international pressure to leave Georgia!
Finally, just imagine what the world would think of us — particularly other Middle Eastern despots — if the US didn’t leave Iraq until the war was won. Think how unfair that would be to countries like Iran and Syria who have their own national interests that would be held in check.
6. Proof. As in, “exactly what proof do you have that man is responsible for global warming?” Some things are just too important to wait around proving the idea correct. We all knew in the 1970s that the earth was entering a new Ice Age, and we needed to immediately pump more CO2 into the atmosphere to warm it. Today, we all know that the earth is actually warming, even though it’s been getting somewhat cooler the last few years. We need to reduce our collective carbon footprints (or pay indulgences to one of Al Gore’s companies to continue living a first world lifestyle while everyone else sacrifices).
The earth has gone through natural climate changes for billions of years, but we know that man is solely responsible for the trend we think we see since the late 1800s. Just don’t ask anyone to prove it. Where “scientific consensus” exists, proof is unnecessary. Or worse, subversive to the best interests of the planet as Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore define it.
7. Hussein. As in, “Barack Hussein Obama.” Sure it’s his middle name. And sure you could ridicule “George Herbert Walker Bush” as an out of touch politician with a patrician-sounding name, or make fun of Republican candidate for president Pierre DuPont a few years back when he wanted to be called “Pete” instead of his legal name “Pierre.” But if Barack X. Obama doesn’t want anyone to use his middle name, then that’s where the line gets drawn. If Barack wanted us to use his middle name, he would have given us all permission to do so. Not to say that Obama isn’t proud of his middle name or wants to distance himself from it. He’d openly embrace “Hussein” if it wasn’t for all you redneck blue collar Democrats who would read something into the name that isn’t there.
If you’re really uncertain about any of this, just ask Bill Clinton or Bob Kerry to explain it to you. Or just drop the middle name all together, and call him B.O.
You are now armed with the proper arsenal of words to make you a good global citizen in the 21st century.
Phillip, sorry for the extended angry rant. Living up to my username in my first post here, I suppose. Mea Culpa.
Seriously. Seriously!!!!!!!!! SERiously. SerIOUSLY. Phil, I just can’t make it work. Help!
MM: Purge your mind of all thoughts. Dig down into your primal emotions. Feel something deeply, then say the first thing that comes to your mind. It’s kind of like breaking wind. You really haven’t done anything of substance, but you have made your presence known.
And when you do, use lots of CAPITAL LETTERS and multiple exclamation points.
SERIOUSLY!!!!!
Shutting…. down…. mind. Logic… fading. Feeeeeling. Liberals…. making sense.
Yeessssss, global warming… man’s fault. Abortion….. good. More taxes…. good. Conservatives…. bad. Smaller government, oowwww… SMALLER GOVERNMENT… thoughts entering mind…. SMALLER GOVERNMENT….. good! God and religion…. GOOD, of course! Rush Limbaugh… good!
Sorry, Phil. I tried.
MM: I never said it made sense. I only said that’s the way to think like a liberal. [I considered saying “reason like a liberal”, but rejected that phrase since reason connotes a higher level brain function than mere id-based thought.]
One suggestion. Eat some beans next time you try it. The symbolic breaking of wind may need to be accompanied by actual sound effects and their associated olfactory distress. The combination of sound and scent could help distract the cognitive functions enough to allow random thoughts to form. However, under no circumstances allow any “conviction-based philosophy” to seep into that process. If you actually think about what you say before you say it, liberalism won’t work.
Anyway, that’s the best advice I can give you. I tried the liberal mind-meld with Harry in my Looney Liberal Chronicles, and it took me a week to recover. Journey into the depths of the liberal thought process is not for the faint hearted.
And, it goes without saying that the process cannot be sustained without either suffering permanent neurological trauma, or starting with a diminished mental capacity. I mean, how else can you explain people like EF or Madonna?
Take care, Phil
“Sthuper, Sthuper Stherious, guyths.”
Wow, great exchanges, though one can easily recognize which side comes battle-ready. Awesome essay, Dr. Jackson.
Last Angry Man: It never ceases to amaze me that the things liberals profess to hate the most (stereotyping, censorship. Limitations on free speech, blacklisting [think Hollywood] etc. are the very things they instinctively practice. Irony is lost on the ironic.
There have been some libs who want to engage in a legitimate debate. Unfortunately, these libs don’t seem to use the internet much, which has been dominated by loons with aggrandized self-titles and hyperbolic reasoning abilities. And, like economicfreedom admitted, they’re never really serious about what they say anyway.
So, when these folks pop up, it’s time to have some fun with them. You start by letting them talk, and talk, and talk some more. It doesn’t take long for their insanity to manifest itself (with or without EXCESSIVE CAPITALIZATIONS or multiple explanation points!!!!!!!).
Dialogue with a lib doesn’t produce any meaningful exchanges. But it can be a lot of fun to watch them hyperventilate and go nuts!
“Dr. KillVote”
Isn’t that a bit third grade for a posting on a website with pretensions at “intellectual conservatism,” Mountain Man? And to think Mr. Jackson called ME sophomoric!
Being gainfully employed, I don’t have the time or patience to play in your sandbox all day, but if you really want some rebuttal, here are one or two:
- Re the screw conservation thing: “but your remark is blatantly misrepresentative of Bush specifically and conservatives generally”
Remember this golden nugget from Cheney, uttered with a sneer? “Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy…”
- “but we have never conquered or taken significant control of oil belonging to others other than to prevent it falling into the hands of aggressors who would have blocked the sale of oil to those it wishes to humble”
Wow, how many qualifiers can you place on a statement? That is about as good as “”The days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe — those days are gone.” Have you forgotten the fifties, when we ousted the democratically elected prime minister of Iran because he threatened to nationalize their oil, and replaced him with the Shah? Look how well that turned out!
- “In the Religious Left theology Caesar was a saint, and only the mean-spirited would complain that the beneficiaries of his largess were all in Rome.” Have you been smoking something, Ark Ashamed of Bill? It takes someone ruthless like Cheney to approve of Caesar, buying off the populace and senate so he can dictate as he likes. Not really on the liberal agenda.
- “The U.S. military was in political disarray in the early 1970s right along with the rest of the country, but it was not in a state of physical or organizational un-readiness.” I respectfully disagree, and it is increasingly so now.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/01/marine_stretched_080114w/
And this from Melvin Laird at foreignaffairs.org:
“As with Vietnam, the Iraq war is revealing chinks in our fiscal armor. Only after the Vietnam War ended did its drain on the U.S. economy become apparent. During the war, our military readiness to fight other conflicts was precarious. Billions of dollars were drained away from other missions to support the war. It became a juggling act to support our forces around the world.”
Regarding your reference to your previous posting (rant, more accurately), “Has the Left Become Completely Deranged?,” Mr. Jackson, I considered responding to it, but it was so fantastical and devoid of fact that it didn’t seem worth my time. Again, lots of words to say, in essence, “Liberals are stupid and I don’t like them.”
“Dialogue with a lib doesn’t produce any meaningful exchanges. But it can be a lot of fun to watch them hyperventilate and go nuts!”
Who is hyperventilating? This is fun!
“Regarding your reference to your previous posting (rant, more accurately), ‘Has the Left Become Completely Deranged?,’ Mr. Jackson, I considered responding to it, but it was so fantastical and devoid of fact that it didn’t seem worth my time.”
And as if to prove my point, the guy who needs to give himself his own academic credentials reappears to tell us that he has a lot of information to refute everything I say, but like economicfreedom just can’t actually find the time (or ability) to do it.
But he really has a great response. Really.
And seriously.
“…but it was so fantastical and devoid of fact that it didn’t seem worth my time…” A categorical dismissal is anti-intellectual. Pick one or two points and show us where Phil is wrong.
Oh, and see if you can do it without mentioning Cheney, Halliburton, homophobes, or drug companies.
The rest of your rant is off-topic, irrelevant, and devoid of substance. But I did like the Cheney quote, “Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy…” He was and is totally correct. The other quote I could not locate, so I must assume that you must have copied off of dailykos or some other “reputable” leftist website.
As far as my screen name, I have never mocked yours. It is a sign of immaturity to call people names. You have done this ever since you arrived, and have not offered a single substantial response to any point made. That is why you are no longer taken seriously here and viewed as a hateful little boy. At least, that’s where the evidence points.
I’m glad you are gainfully employed. Thank a rich guy who was willing to give you a job.
I will agree with one thing Dr. K said. It’s not nice to make fun of his “Kilovolt” pseudonym. This guy went to a lot of trouble to make himself appear intellectual by giving himself an advanced degree of his own making, and mocking “Kilovolt” makes a mockery of the mockery of giving yourself your own advanced degree.
That’s just too many mockeries in one name.
Seriously.
Hey MM: Notice how this guy who objects to having anyone not address him as “Dr. Kilovolt” because that’s the degree he invented for himself will only refer to me as “Mr. Jackson”, not “Dr. Jackson”, even though I actually have a Ph.D.?
In other words, we must all respect his fictitious degree, but he sees no reason to acknowledge my real degree. Kind of an interesting metaphor for liberalism if you think about it. Ignore real accomplishments, and dwell only on the world you create for yourself.
“Kind of an interesting metaphor for liberalism if you think about it. Ignore real accomplishments, and dwell only on the world you create for yourself.”
I live in a terribly Blue State, and I see this all of the time. I refer to it as “an artificially contrived fantasy word that works after a fashion, only because so many have bought into it.”
An example of the quoted portion above: I was once walking down the street, and a guy was walking along smoking. This woman walked by, and as she did, she mock-coughed a few times, and said to him angrily, “Stop poisoning me!”
She walked a few more feet, got into her very large, gas-guzzling vehicle, and drove less than two blocks, where she got out and went to shop.
Two blocks. “Stop poisoning me.” Does anyone else here see the glaring hypocrisy in this interaction?
This is what I have come to expect from them. Intellectual dishonesty coupled with angry inappropriate radicalism. Smug radicalism at that.
LAM: Fortunately, I live in a very Red State, but I travel to NY and CA a lot, so I know exactly what you mean. They feel compelled to tell you how to live your life, but will accept no criticism of theirs.
I once had a woman actually walk out of her own house because I said that her statement “any CEO can run any company” was, well, “stupid” (as if the CEO of Petco could step in tomorrow and run Microsoft). This was preceded by a 10 minute diatribe on her part where I was told that anyone who supported Bush was a [insert string of personalized expletives here]. She just couldn’t believe that I actually had the audacity to call her idea “stupid”, and asked my wife if I was verbally abusive at home. Her poor husband just cringed when I laughed because he and everyone there had just witnessed the boorish personal insults she hurled against me for holding a different political opinion than hers. The woman, to this day, has no idea of the disconnect between her words and actions.
These people live in a world where thoughts replace deeds, good intentions mean more than actual accomplishments, where any questioning of their policies is a mean-spirited attack on their patriotism, and where they can simultaneously call you “retarded” or genetically deficient in one sentence, then lambast you for saying their ideas are “stupid”.
“Stupid” is a descriptive assessment of a statement, position or belief system. “Retarded” et.al is just a smear. But this kind of nuance is lost on the looney left, as this comment section and the reaction to the other articles I have written more than demonstrates.
Dr. Phillip Ellis Jackson, in the online world I tend to refer to people by their chosen pseudonyms. I was calling you Mr. Jackson for short, intending to be polite — no slight to your obviously impressive academic achievements intended. I’ll call you anything you want, and honor your honorific, but it won’t make you right.
To take a page from your book on repetition of refuted statements, I have already said that I do not claim to be a doctor. So why are you so obsessed with my clearly fictional pseudonym? “Notice how this guy who objects to having anyone not address him as “Dr. Kilovolt…” Where did I say that? It was the “KillVote” thing at issue, and I wasn’t insulted by it so much as pointing out how childish it was for a post on a site called “Intellectual Conservative.”
Regarding self-aggrandizement, you don’t think you are being overly modest on your “About the Author” page, do you?
“Jackson uses his extraordinary background, which reaches into the highest levels of business, academic life and government, to create unique, realistic stories.” You are just chock full of superlatives for yourself.
Grammar check: “While a graduate student he taught university classes and was a research assistant to several internationally-renown faculty members.” I think you meant “internationally-renowned,” the adjective form, not the noun form.
“These people live in a world where thoughts replace deeds, good intentions mean more than actual accomplishments, where any questioning of their policies is a mean-spirited attack on their patriotism, and where they can simultaneously call you “retarded” or genetically deficient in one sentence, then lambast you for saying their ideas are “stupid”.”
Indeed.
I work with Homeless Veterans, a difficult profession at best. I have been walking down the street and been lambasted about my lack of service and understanding about the Homeless by young, liberal college students, because I would not donate money on the spot, right now!
I must admit, it was terribly satisfying to wait them out, smiling, as they excoriated me, and then simply reply, “I work with the homeless. Please get your facts straight next time before you harangue me.”
And believe it or not, they *still* kept on after me, because I was an ungenerous bastard who wouldn’t donate money. Surely I of all people must understand…
Monomania in any form is not pleasant to experience.
Regarding your reference to your previous posting (rant, more accurately), “Has the Left Become Completely Deranged?,” Mr. Jackson, … Again, lots of words to say, in essence, “Liberals are stupid and I don’t like them.” [comment by Dr. kilovolt]
Dr. Kilovolt needs to brush up on his pathologies as derangement syndrome can exist with or without stupidity.
Dr K is happy to oblige our fun by providing even more fodder. Have you noticed that he has not addressed a single point raised, except for the supposed abuse of his screen name?
And then comes the obligatory grammar correction, which is the last refuge of a person who needs to feel superior as his dignity slips away…
LAG, I’m really beginning to like you. For a “a registered Independent, a Centrist who leans mildly to the Right,” you seem to have a good take on conservatism as well as the folly of the Left. Good work and welcome.
MM: Thanks for the Kudos. Glad to be here (I lurked and read for about a year first).
As they say, “Familiarity Breeds Contempt.” Well, I am there, right about now. The current election cycle has put me over the top, and I realize that it’s time for me to take a personal political stand, and wear that banner openly. Centrism worked before 9/11, but it’s moribund now. We don’t live in reasonable times.
I’m a Veteran (hence my current profession, a natural fit, I suppose), but find myself being harassed by Liberals here about Iraq, as if they have a clue about what they’re talking about. It makes no difference to them; they are “In the know,” and I couldn’t possibly be. Imagine that.
“Notice how this guy who objects to having anyone not address him as “Dr. Kilovolt…” Where did I say that?” It was the “KillVote” thing at issue …”
*** Yes. And I referred specifically to “Kilovolt” in my comments. I continue to address you as “Dr.” in all my correspondence to you or referencing you, despite the silliness of wanting to adopt a title that reflects academic accomplishment as in honor of whoever it was you said you wanted to honor. You could just as easily have adopted “Kilovolt” as your pseudonym without the “Dr.” and accomplished the same objective. But you wanted the honorific title. I did the same thing to some idiot on the Right who insisted on calling himself “Sir William”, or whatever the name was. It’s one thing to pick a pseudonym, it’s another to offer up a pretentious self-aggrandizement of an actual degree when you are discussing issues where an education matters. So as long as you continue to use it, I’ll continue to point out the silliness of calling yourself a “Dr.”.
“Regarding self-aggrandizement, you don’t think you are being overly modest on your “About the Author” page, do you? “Jackson uses his extraordinary background, which reaches into the highest levels of business, academic life and government, to create unique, realistic stories.” You are just chock full of superlatives for yourself.”
*** I’ll certainly have a discussion with my publicist who wrote this. Let’s see what’s overstated. Is it an ordinary background to earn a Ph.D. from one of the finest universities in the world (The University of Chicago was ranked #3 behind Harvard and Yale in political science in 1981 when I graduated). I’ve run three companies and my partners and I have sold them for millions of dollars, allowing me to retire in my early 50s. I think that counts for a high level of business accomplishments. I was the key staff person for the final negotiation of the NAFTA treaty, worked for the largest government affairs company in DC for 3 years reporting to Bob Beckel and Jody Powell, was speechwriter for a successful congressional campaign, received presidential awards for private sector programs I created from two presidents (meeting them in the White House), and was SVP of government affairs for a trade association for 11 years. I think that qualifies as out of the ordinary in government life.
As for creating “creating unique, realistic stories”, here are some of the reviews I received for my books:
1. “A post-apocalyptic/time-travel/political-thriller… Timeshift is a novel quite unlike it anything you’ve read before. Phillip Ellis Jackson is definitely a unique new voice in science fiction!”
2. “Timeshift puts a spin on the subject of time travel. … The author’s strongest points are in his ideas and plotting. What happens within the book’s technological framework is always intriguing. The chess-like developments of the plot itself are also comfortably paced, and indeed such elements click into place throughout. … I must also confess that I got an unexpected chill down my back at one of the story’s major plot developments. There is some promise for this new writer.”
3. Timeshift is a very crisply written novel, a true page turner that takes you breathlessly to its end, almost like falling into the racing swirl of Timeshift’s Beta Light machine. If anyone is looking for a good read for sunning at the beach, or for a long flight, pick up this fine sci-fi thriller. It will definitely keep you engrossed and entertained, right down to the last page.”
4. “The Timeshift Trilogy is a great mix between science, technology and life-like characters. We have become fans of Phillip Jackson as a ‘story teller’, just as we know many of those who read these books will too.”
5. “It takes a fine craftsman and storyteller to remove us from the work-a-day world and propel us into a fantastic story that includes a United States split in two like the late Roman Empire, as well as a machine that can view the past the way we might watch a VCR. What makes the book a fascinating read has little to do with these strange, almost foreign, notions, but has everything to do with what has always been the hallmark of good fiction, an interesting plot and good character development. Mr. Jackson is good at developing characters quickly. Even the minor characters generally rise to three dimensions and have mixed motivations and even mixed loyalties. Timeshift is a fascinating sci-fi thriller that will keep you turning the pages—cover to cover.”
6. “This [Between Two Worlds] is the first fictional book on the Civil War that I have added to my website. Phillip Jackson brings to the Civil War something other than the run of the mill informational repetoir we have come to expect. He brings a breath of fresh air to us looking to expand our interest in the American Civil War. Take this book on your vacation to the beach; carry it up to your private study and close the door for some personal time with his book’s characters.”
7.“Timeshift and Between Two Worlds are wonderful science fiction. Truly outstanding! If you enjoy time travel books, then these books are for you. Timeshift and Between Two Worlds will definitely keep you entertained, right on down to the very last page. I can’t wait for book 3. Take a leap into the Beta Light and see what I mean.”
8. “The scenes and characters [in Timeshift] just seem to flow right into your head and the whole thing makes as much sense as if you were living it right along with the characters…. I actually read it twice in the last six weeks and what I’ve read of the second book is even better.”
I could go on, but you get the point.
Now exactly what has been over-exaggerated in “Jackson uses his extraordinary background, which reaches into the highest levels of business, academic life and government, to create unique, realistic stories.”?
Tell you what. Let’s compare what I’ve done with my life with what a typical, well-accomplished person has done with theirs, and see if this is all that unique and extraordinary. Since you brought up the subject, let’s use you as an example. Tell us all about what you’ve done, and put these descriptions of me to shame as uncalled for boasting.
Again, the difference between liberals and conservatives is that we brag about what we’ve actually done, while you guys just invent fancy titles for yourselves.
“Grammar check: ‘While a graduate student he taught university classes and was a research assistant to several internationally-renown faculty members.’ I think you meant “internationally-renowned,” the adjective form, not the noun form.”
No. In real academic circles, the phrase is as it was written “renown”, not “renowned”, as this press release from http://www.capital.edu/16875/ illustrates: “Internationally Renown Physicist and Best-Selling Author Lawrence Krauss to Speak at Capital University March 31 “ This is why you need to do more than a Google search which gives you an alternative spelling used in other situations to form your judgments.
Real “Dr.’s” know stuff like this.
LAG is right…We do not live in reasonable times.
A story much like LAG’s you-gotta-give-cash-to-the-homeless-or-you-are-a-hearless-**#%$rd …
During the Live Aid concert, I was watching C-Span one day and James Shikwati, noted Kenyan economist said something like “Stop the aid, West. You are killing us!” He spoke about fledgling pharmaceutical companies in Africa being decimated by floods of free meds from the West, keeping Africa in a cycle of dependency because what business can compete with FREE?? Right after that, I went to church and there was a nun giving a sermon raising money for free pharamaceuticals for Africa. She has raised a prodigious amount of money around the US and was about to flood Africa once again with free meds.
I mentioned Shikwati’s point to several people who defended the program saying, “Well, we have to do something!”
I repeated Skikwati’s concerns and lined out why what they were doing might be worse than nothing. They persisted that charity was always compassionate. At some point, it just seemed to me that it was all about them and feeling good about themselves and having the best intentions.
At the end of the day, the biggest problem with liberal thought is that so often, it looks only at the benefits of an action without full consideration of the costs.
Truly, these are not reasonable times.
“At the end of the day, the biggest problem with liberal thought is that so often, it looks only at the benefits of an action without full consideration of the costs.”
JB, yes, true.
I have often been perturbed by the Democrat penchant for accusing their opponents of “attempting some Social Engineering scheme,” when that is, in fact, exactly what they constantly do. Their entire endgame scenario of the US as they’d like it is one vast social engineering experiment, the end result of which they cannot possibly know, results of which they will force us all to live through.
Frightening.
Dr. KiloVolt
You said of me: ” “Dr. KillVote” Isn’t that a bit third grade for a posting on a website with pretensions at “intellectual conservatism,”
You are right. It was. But somehow I just couldn’t resist having a little fun with the presumptuousness of a “Dr.” who is not and an identity effacing nom de plume as “third grade” comicbook heroish as “Dr. KiloVolt” who complains of incivility even as he lobs insults. In any case, I figured with a moniker like that you’d have a sense of humor and enjoy my gentle wordplay on your chosen handle (come on, admit it was just a little clever, slight change of letters and KiloVolt magically morphs into KillVote). Sounds like one of Spiderman’s nemeses, don’t you think ‘DOCTOR KILOVOLT!’. Does that come in spandex and with a decoder ring?
Yet, as a dig, my faux pas pales next to the many you’ve laced these pages with. So, should I be apologetic simply for holding up the mirror? How about you lay off the 3rd grade tit-for-tat and see if we can do this more to your liking. You know, “Choose Civility” (like it says on the silly liberal bumper sticker that’s all the rage just now – as in ‘I am but you aren’t, so there!’) A few weeks ago, I observed one such sticker on a BMW roaring past, shoving and honking as it merged into traffic. The car nearly clipped my ancient gas guzzling SUV so I honked to advise I already occupied the space she was determined to fill only to be rewarded with a much extended middle finger. The car also sported a Hillary sticker, so I’ll let you surmise her political persuassion from that and her corresponding civility. I did not exchange incivility for incivility with her, though I admit I did not think overly kind thoughts either. I just chalked it up to one more looney liberal, and let it go.
By the way, “Intellectual Conservative” is not a presumption, it is a bar-setting placed high enough to encourage thoughtful discourse. The operators could have called in ‘Knuckle-Dragging Conservative’ (much to the delight of sterotype-painting liberals), but that would have kind of defeated the purpose; don’t you agree? That, at least, is the general idea, but it doesn’t preclude having a little fun when appropriate and we’re always open to bringing it down to whatever level party-crashing brawlers feel more comfortable.
“No. In real academic circles, the phrase is as it was written “renown”, not “renowned”, as this press release from http://www.capital.edu/16875/ illustrates: “Internationally Renown Physicist and Best-Selling Author Lawrence Krauss to Speak at Capital University March 31 “”
I stand corrected, Sir Jackson. Not being party to the Ph.D. cocktail circuit, I was unfamiliar with the form. I will add that I have seen citations both ways, and that if I am ever as famous as you, I will bill my self as being “…of international renown.” Regarding your bio, I certainly don’t dispute any of the facts or the undoubted quality of your fiction. However, the presence of just one or two too many superlatives in the text (top, internationally-renown, successful, nationally-recognized, prestigious, extraordinary) makes it clear that there is a sizeable ego involved. Why are you slumming it here with us proles and allowing someone so insignificant as me to goad you so badly?
Apologies to all, including and especially Dr. Jackson, for my last post. I got a bit carried away and only then read Bob Stapler’s comment. It is my intent to be cheeky and poke holes in windbags when appropriate, but not to be mean spirited about it. Honestly, Phillip, I am sorry about that.
Regarding your BMW anecdote, believe me, the irony was not lost on my when I, the tree hugger, placed a “Darwin” fish sticker (the kind that mocks the Jesus fish stickers) on my Chevy Tahoe SUV gas pig (a second car, not driven much, but I digress).
I am willing to admit when I am factually wrong, but a lot of what is discussed here comes down to interpretation and point of view, liberal vs. conservative, which as with matters such as religion, is a debate that neither side can win.
“During the Live Aid concert, I was watching C-Span one day and James Shikwati, noted Kenyan economist said something like “Stop the aid, West. You are killing us!”" Depending on the kinds of aid we are talking about, jb, I agree.
“At the end of the day, the biggest problem with liberal thought is that so often, it looks only at the benefits of an action without full consideration of the costs.” On this point I could say exactly the same thing about conservative thought. If in the case of liberals you mean governmental and philanthropic action, then in the case of conservatives I mean the actions of individuals.
Liberals are about “us,” and we mean well, while conservatives are about “me,” and frequently this means everybody else is on their own. Does anyone here dispute this? My favorite illustration of this is the dual essays, A Day in the Life of Joe Conservative, and A Day in the Life of a True Conservative.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:A_Day_In_The_Life_of_Joe_Conservative
Reactions, anyone?
…Ray
aka Dr. Kilovolt
PS If you really want to know the origins of Dr. Kilovolt, (which has no pretensions of academic achievement, rest assured) it is not just a pseudonym, but also a stage name intended to be humorous. Point your browser here:
http://batmo.com/graeme/#who
“I stand corrected, Sir Jackson. Not being party to the Ph.D. cocktail circuit, I was unfamiliar with the form.”
*** Yes, I know. Not knowing what you’re talking about hasn’t stopped you before, so I didn’t really expect it to stop you now. And to remind you, the title I earned — not bestowed upon myself — is “Dr.”.
For a guy who condemns people for not respecting your self-defined title of “Dr.”, you’re very quick now to disrespect my real accomplishment. So, like economicfreedom, we conclude that you’re not really serious about what you say, and therefore are not to be taken seriously.
“I will add that I have seen citations both ways …”
*** Then if you had, you’d have known that the way I originally wrote it on my website was not grammatically incorrect as you stated. Now that you’ve been shown to be a fool who makes absolute statements about things he knows nothing about, you want to pretend that you really knew I was correct in using the term “renown” all along. You made a mistake by saying that I made a mistake, and now you want to weasel out of it by pretending you knew it was correct all along. This is really pathetic.
“ … and that if I am ever as famous as you, I will bill my self as being “…of international renown.”
*** I don’t believe we’ll ever have to face that situation.
“Regarding your bio, I certainly don’t dispute any of the facts or the undoubted quality of your fiction. However, the presence of just one or two too many superlatives in the text (top, internationally-renown, successful, nationally-recognized, prestigious, extraordinary) makes it clear that there is a sizeable ego involved.”
*** Sigh. Do you actually ever think about what you write before you write it? The U of C. is a “top” university. No one disputes that. “Internationally-renown” referred to the faculty I worked under at the U of C, who are indeed leaders in their fields. I think my partners and I selling our businesses for a few million bucks and me retiring in my fifties qualifies me as “successful”. Again, there aren’t any people who wouldn’t claim that the U of C isn’t “prestigious”. And finally, as for my “extraordinary” fiction writing (which was the subject of the website), I gave you some of the actual reviews, which you yourself have said are of “undoubted quality”.
As Babe Ruth once said, it ain’t bragging if you can do it. I’m sorry that in showcasing what I’ve actually accomplished with my life it makes you feel “not famous”. But don’t blame me for having real accomplishments I can point to when yours are lacking, by your own admission.
“Why are you slumming it here with us proles and allowing someone so insignificant as me to goad you so badly?”
*** Some of the folks at this website have the finest analytical minds I’ve come across in a long time. I even wrote an essay about that a couple of years ago. I enjoy the intellectual discussions I have with Bob Stapler, Mountain Man, Sedona and others (with whom I disagree at times), and with people like Raymond Ingles (who I disagree strongly with, but respect his scholarship enough to have authored competing papers on Morality about a year ago).
The only people who aren’t respected are insufferable fools who make emphatic statements about things they don’t understand, or don’t have the time to study an issue before making absolute pronouncements about things (or lie about knowing something they clearly didn’t know), or who complain about having their pseudonym disrespected — but then deliberately disrespect an actual academic accomplishment because they don’t have a real Ph.D. themselves.
We keep these people around, and keep them talking, for their entertainment value, as I’ve said here and repeatedly showcased in my Looney Liberal Chronicles. The fact that they don’t even know why we want them to keep writing and embarrassing themselves is just an added bonus.
Ray:
I wrote my response before your second comment appeared. Apology accepted, and the matter is dropped.
We’re always looking for respectful debate from all sides. I hope you’ll continue to participate.
Right now, though, I’m tuning into the DNC convention, so that’s all I have for tonight.
Phil
“Liberals are about ‘us,’ and we mean well, while conservatives are about ‘me,’ and frequently this means everybody else is on their own. Does anyone here dispute this?”
*** I don’t think this is an accurate way to characterize conservatives. I can tell you from personal experience — and I know a lot of other conservatives who behave the same way — that I give a lot of my money to charitable causes. I’ve given no less than 5% and more often 10% of my disposable income away annually. And only a portion of this is tax deductable, by the way, so this isn’t some back-handed way a “rich guy” lessens his tax burden. So all this is on top of a confiscatory tax rate that I pay, thanks to my hard work over the last 30 years to become successful enough for the government to take 40% of my money.
By contrast, I can point to a lot of liberals who are equally generous in supporting worthy causes — as long as it’s public tax money that’s being used.
Looking at another issue, supporting life and not “choice” is not a “me/conservative” issue either. “Me” says abort the child and preserve my lifestyle. “Us” (which you attribute to Liberals) would say save the child, and if the parents don’t want to raise it, then society must assume that burden. Liberals want to focus on a woman’s man-made “right” to choose, as extrapolated from man’s law (the constitution). Their focus is on what an individual person does/doesn’t want to do or is permitted to do under the law (“me”). Conservatives look beyond one person to consider that two lives are involved. We don’t believe that an innocent life should be terminated so a person can protect their individual standard of living, or not be burdened with the “anguish” of raising a child, or the “guilt” of giving it up for adoption. I’ve written extensively about this in “What Kind of Car would Jesus Drive to take his Girlfriend to an Abortion Clinic?”, and “The True Nature of Human Morality”.
Pick a third example — welfare. Conservatives are opposed to programs that do nothing but sustain a person’s dependency on government, but have actively supported programs that can help people who want to use their abilities to succeed. Conservatives demand that a program demonstrate its success, not simply its good intentions. By contrast, I can tell you that having worked for a large Democratic firm in Washington for 3 years, the last thing liberals want to see is their voting base no longer need the government programs they hand out to help keep them in power. There’s some great books on political machines in the 19th and 20th centuries, from Tammany Hall to modern day Chicago, that reinforce this point.
The point is in responding to your original statement, anyone can create a cartoon version of the “other side” and react to that. The fact is there are different kinds of liberals and conservatives. I lampoon the Looney Left for their idiocy and hypocrisy, which they all too often reinforce for me using their own words and analysis. But a quick look under my name in the IC archives will show you that I’m just as quick to excoriate the Fringe Right for their idiocy about race, “kith and kin-based natural social orders,” and other such bilge.
I don’t care whether the stupidity is “liberal” or “conservative”. If people want to discuss an issue intelligently, we can have a debate. I believe the earth is millions of years old, and that Jesus Christ is not literally God. Many people here believe the opposite, and yet we’ve had some fine, respectful discussions on this seminal issue. Debate is possible if both sides approach it as a debate. When debate isn’t possible, I lampoon the other side to showcase their silliness.
I lampoon the Looney Left for things they actually say and do: 9/11 was an inside job; the Iraq war is “illegal” (even though it was authorized by Congress), Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 election; Obama stole the 2008 nomination from Hillary (Democrats never lose elections), every “mistake” is a “lie”, etc.. I haven’t accused liberals of wanting to overthrow the US government, poisoning our water system, etc. I don’t make stuff up about them — I react to their own words and actions.
And this, I believe, is what truly separates the present-day Right and Left. We criticize and isolate our nuts, exposing them for what they are. I’ve yet to see a Liberal website take on the looney left. Instead, the looney left has become the voice of modern day liberalism (Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Moveon.org, Democratic Underground, etc.
If in the case of liberals you mean governmental and philanthropic action…[Comment by Ray, aka Dr.Kilovolt]
To me, liberals are not about governmental AND philanthropic action…They are about government “philanthropy.” From every study that I have seen, liberals are not as generous with their time or their own money, though I have personally known many compassionate liberals.
This notion that liberals are more compassionate than conservatives by virtue of their promotion of big government is one of the most degraded pernicious, even silly – ideas to have seeped out of the sewers.
Incidentally, I can think of no more compassionate societal input than providing opportunities and protecting the freedom of the individual to participate in the opportunities.
However, this brings me to something I have been twizzling over…In internet dialogue, liberals invariably accuse conservatives of being heartless towards the poor. Invariably, this accusation follows a hyperbolic claim by a liberal such as “foreclosures are only due to greed on the part of greedy mortgage companies” When the conservative simply notes that 97% of Americans pay their mortgage every month and thus personal responsibility certainly plays a role” the liberal goes ballistic, accusing the conservative of blaming the victim.
The liberal seldom sees that the diatribe is lobbed at the vacuous comments that liberals so often make. Any real harshness is lobbed at ideas that are seen as flawed and tragically costly, not at those who truly cannot help themselves.
BTW, I consider myself a classical liberal and spent 25 years in the Middle East helping to provide jobs for poverty striken individuals. We funded our efforts, which included starting a restaurant, with 20-30% of our gross income. It was hard, but watching individuals seizing opportunities like manna from heaven was extraordinary.
Currently, I find myself ensconced in a low income hood and can only say that the idiocy of our policy is gobsmacking. I see the degradation reflected on a daily basis.
To think that it is possible to remove the costs of behavior without harm is misguided at best and far too often corrupt.
BTW, George Will had a great statement today; “For conservatives, seeing is believing; for liberals, believing is seeing.”
[Comment by jb] “To me, liberals are not about governmental AND philanthropic action…They are about government “philanthropy.” From every study that I have seen, liberals are not as generous with their time or their own money, though I have personally known many compassionate liberals.
This notion that liberals are more compassionate than conservatives by virtue of their promotion of big government is one of the most degraded pernicious, even silly – ideas to have seeped out of the sewers.”
I can backstop your statement: For a time, I worked in Arlington, VA for a renowned social-service Non-Profit. One minor part of my job was tracking and reporting on donor trends. Compared to the rest of the nation, the Washington DC / Beltway area was utterly abysmal in the realm of monetary charitable donations to worthy causes.
jb, LAM and others — I co-founded the national marketing agency for The American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, Easter Seals, and a few other non profits. We raised about a half billion dollars for them.
Interesting how self-centered Conservatives seem to gravitate towards helping the less fortunate with programs that involve a lot of hard work and personal sacrifice, rather than simply demanding that the government use other people’s money (taxes) to “help the poor and disadvantaged”.
Phil, LAM [sorry about the LAG], Bob, MM,et al;
On an anecdotal level, I have seen the following intensely ironic scenario played out:
Many committed lefties in my acquaintance cannot abide/tolerate dysfunctional behavior in those around them, whether family members or co-workers. Meanwhile, when I sought funding or volunteer labor for our efforts, it was invariably the church folks who responded with overwhelming generosity. While I was apolitical for those years overseas, in retrospect, it occurs to me that there was a distinct divergence between the words-translated-into-actions of the liberals and conservatives in my midst. Odd, that….
A personal observation of my own: Liberals will tell people what to do; Conservatives will make things happen, and help you do it. Quite different mindsets.
LAM,
The funny thing about your observation is the known fact that liberals detest and abhor authority. Meanwhile, they would tell us what to eat, what to wear, what to drive, even what kind of garbage can to get….the list is endless. Living in a liberal city is akin to traipsing through fascism on the edges.
Yes, DK, we dispute every word of it. Liberals are not more “about us” any more than are conservatives are all “about me”. That is pure liberal-propaganda. Although your wiki-essays are cute, they are typical liberal pigeon-holing of conservatives. They give way too much credit to liberals and the liberal agenda for all that has happened in the last 100 years. Although liberals sometimes goad others to make changes, most of the changes they force on us are costly and unnecessary, and frequently do damage than good.
“http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Essay:A_Day_In_The_Life_of_Joe_Conservative
Reactions, anyone?”
I have a reaction. It’s a strawman. It assumes that only evironmentalists care about the evironment, only unions care about employee benefits, only leftists care about safe food, safe work places, etc, ad nauseum. In other words, it plays into every stereotype, every myth, every apocryphal story promolgated by the Left about conservatives.
Here is the pre-eminent, quintessential issue, and that is that lefists base their entire world view on a caricature of their ideological opponents. All of their assumptions, all of their rejoinders, all of their commentary about conservatives, all of it is based on falsehoods.
Self-delusion is the wellspring of fanaticism.
WOW, longest set of comments I have read on any article so far. The underlying tenor of the conversation seemed to drift a bit due to difficulties on reading the English language by some of the contributors.
The names chosen by some are even more interesting when you consider the connotations such as economicfreedom as a name for a liberal. Strikes me a little strange that those unable to grasp basic economics would propose an “excess profits” tax. Apparently they love the politician’s lifetime employment ploy called business taxes. What is the beauty of a business tax? The consumer pays it not the business (unless the business is losing money), then the consumer complains about those businesses while the real cupprit the politician gets away free thanks to an uneducated electorate dumb enough to buy into a slogan like “Big Oil”.
By the way I have a Reddy Killowatt pin. Does that qualify me as a liberal?
OOPS a couple of typos above culprit and an on instead of in. TSK TSK rotten conservatives can’t spell.
Haha hoo hoo! You hypocrites don’t stop cracking me up!
Look who’s back … the guy who doesn’t want to be taken seriously. And isn’t.
Bam! Economicfreedom just refuted everything everyone had to say in just 10 words! Wow, am I impressed.
Phil, we are in the presence of superior intellect. Bow down, sir, and join me at his feet.
MM: I think not. Can you imagine what those feet must smell like?
Remember, this is just a 15 year old kid whose mad because he can’t vote for Obama, and already told us that he’s not serious about anything he says (“I’m really just trying to get your goat”). There’s no reason to take anything he says seriously.
Hmm, 15 year old kids voting for Obama…
It would explain much about his campaign, wouldn’t it?!
Phillip,
Since when did mere technicalities like being underage stand in the way of a democrat voting (or drinking, sex, drugs, you name it). If illegal-aliens, extraterrestrials, fictional characters, hanging chads, and dead democrats can vote …
Bob. You have a point …
I’ve often thought that the reason Hollywood types are so antithetical to both religion and conservative politics is, “name two things that tell you that there are things you should best leave alone.” But what an affront! Being told that maybe, just maybe, there’s a range of things people find unacceptable or far too unorthodox.
I believe this pretty much carries over into the Democratic ruck (or, perhaps, Hollywood learned it from them). Conservative: “This is working just fine, leave it be.” Democrat: “No, I want to self-gratify myself even more, you evil person!”
Has anyone else ever noticed that? That a great deal of the Democrat Mantra is “Change, because I want to gratify myself,” “Change, because don’t you dare tell me ‘no,’” or perhaps, “Change, because you’re a . how dare you tell me I can’t ‘express’ myself?!”
Ah, crud, the board filtered out the brackets and enclosed quote (after the “you’re a…”)
It was, “Insert anti-democratic evil political philosophy here.”