http://bully-kasper.blogspot.com/
The recent media furor over Rev Jesse Jackson=92s use of the infamous
=93N=94 word has brought about much discussion but most of it missed the
bigger issues at play. Namely, the dependence of the left on symbolism
over substance and logic when it comes to most political arguments. In
fairness, all political groups use symbolism but nowhere near the
addiction levels of the left. For example people will argue you can
not use this word unless you are from that group. Why ? Are they
somehow more entitled? Are we not a country of free thought and
ideas ? It is valid to say it may be more hurtful from someone outside
your group using it; but, to argue that no one else but you can use
it, is not valid or consistent under our traditional system of free
thoughts and equity under the law. Then again most liberal arguments
take this stand . For example, in all most any discussion you watch on
TV or hear on the radio involving a black liberal, the argument =93you
are not black so you can=91t say=94 or one of its derivatives will
invariably be made at some point in the discussion . At best this is
an ad hominem emotional argument for it presupposes that for not being
whatever, you are unable to have a valid argument about the topic.
Validity of an argument is not dependant upon one=92s skin color.
Of course, why is it that the left has put themselves into such a
state? Because liberalism is based on flawed principles and since they
have few if any true economic or social successes, they must appeal to
ones' emotional being rather than their logical being- =93It=92s for the
children=94; =93We must show people we care=94; =93We want to help you=94
e=
tc.
Which also explains the constant pitting of one group against another
to really get the emotions going- rich vs. poor; black vs. white etc.
Of course, they should get credit for staying true to leftist form.
=46rom the early days of Vladimir Lenin right up to this years
Democratic convention, we will hear the same political talk of
=93protecting the people=94. I suppose one social success the liberals can
try to claim is the level of social taboo on the =93N=94 word. I won=92t
even write it for fear of some type of reprisal. Indeed, pejoratives
for other groups come no where close. When Ann Landers referred to the
Pope as a Pollack I don=92t recall any paper referring to it as the
=93P=94
word or for that matter when Rev. Jesse Jackson referred to New York
city as =93Hymietown.=94, no one spoke of the =93H=94 word. Being from one
=
of
these two groups, I feel slighted. Is my group not worthy of the
single letter description ?
|
