What Do We Mean When We Say What We Say?

If you read these posts on a regular basis you have every reason to believe “The Sage” is totally consumed by politics and the continuing struggle between Progressive and Conservative ideologies. To some degree that’s true. I am intrigued by the Yin and Yang of our two party system and the broad spectrum of ideas and values the system has spawned. But not today. No politics. I have a different “issue” to rail about today; the issue of the inadequacy of the English language.

As an undergrad I was an English major and I must admit that even though I am a terrible typist and punctuation isn’t my strong suit, I am a committed grammar and vocabulary snob. And nothing irritates me more than the overuse of certain words to the point at which they’ve lost their original meaning or their ability to convey intent, depth, intensity or difference. Take the word “great” for instance.

The folks who compile Webster’s Dictionary tell us that “great” means, among other definitions, “remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree or extent.” Yet consider the use of the word ‘great’ when it comes to sports and sports announcers. In that context a routine backhanded snag by a third baseman going to the hole and then making a long throw to first is hailed as a “great play.” The commonplace 15 yard reception by a wide-out going across the middle and reaching above his head to make the grab is acclaimed as a “great catch” and is usually accompanied by the exclamation that the quarterback made a “great throw.” And, the three-point shot launched from just beyond the line never touching the rim as it drops cleanly through the net is, expectedly, described by every basketball color-man these days as “great.” So, if all these routine sports feats are great what word do we use to describe the feats that are truly “remarkable or outstanding”? I simply don’t know. That's what I mean by the inadequacy of our language.

Then there is the problem of the word “love”. Wow, talk about words that are overused to the point of confusion and lack of clarity, intensity and depth, the word “love” leads the list. Another look at Webster’s lets us know that love is generally intended to mean “an intense affection for another person. . .” Yet somehow in our modern world we love our dog. We love football or baseball or hockey. We love Thai food. We love our kids, our sibs, our parents and grandparents. We love God and God loves us. We love the color red or blue or green. We love Oreos, chocolate ice cream and a really good donut. We love old Scotch and fresh beer. We love our friends. We love our jobs and our officemates. We love our cars and our homes. We love roses. We love the seashore and the ski slopes. And, yes, we even love politics.

In fact, there’s hardly anything we don’t “love” anymore. But if we love all these things –some significant, some not– what term do we reserve for that person for whom we have an “intense affection”? How do we tell them that affection is different yet greater than the affection we have for our dog, or our kids or- - - Oreos? What do we say to the one individual in our lives who excites, energizes and inspires us? What do we say to the person who is the intense focus of that affection? What do we say to the only person who fills the hole in our soul and heals us? Somehow, “I love you” just seems to lack depth and intensity and doesn’t convey the difference between adoring someone and simply liking them. But until a better word comes along, “love” will have to do. So, when you say "I love you" to that person who invades your dreams and is the face on all your fantasies – make sure you say it with the depth and intensity that cannot be mistaken for something less.


ALL POLITE DEBATE AND VARYING POINTS OF VIEW ARE ENCOURAGED AND WELCOMED. PLEASE USE THE “COMMENT” LINK BELOW TO OFFER YOUR THOUGHTS.

A Lesson Learned From Ted Kennedy

The year is 1982. Ronald Reagan is in the second year of his first term as President of the United States. Terrell Bell, a Utah Republican and a Mormon, is the Secretary of Education. Charles Manatt, a Los Angeles lawyer and life long Democrat is the Chairman of the DNC. The National Council of La Raza, "the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States", is in its 14th year of existence. Ted Kennedy is two years into his 4th term as a US Senator from Massachusetts. “The Sage” is married to his first wife, a naturalized US citizen born in Havana, Cuba, and the two of us are enjoying high-profile national reputations in our chosen careers; she in education and I in banking. We each make frequent trips to DC as “citizen lobbyists” on behalf of our professions.

In late summer of 1982 Terrell Bell at the urging of his Under Secretary of Education, Jesse Soriano, nominates my (then) wife to be the Vice-Chair of a prestigious national education organization. It is a White House appointment and, if confirmed, she will be sworn in at a ceremony in the Rose Garden of the White House. The appointment looks like it should be a slam-dunk for a 34 year old Cuban-American woman who, along with her mother, had fled Castro’s wrath just 21 years prior. And it was “on track for confirmation” until “La Raza” got wind of the nomination and began a two pronged campaign; one to pressure Secretary Bell and the other to personally harass my wife. Her “lack of qualification” according to “La Raza” really boiled down to the fact that she was a Cuban and not a “chicana” (a person of Mexican descent). She was the “wrong kind of Hispanic” they complained. She took it personally. I knew it was politics at its nastiest and had to be dealt with politically.

I had met Charles Manatt, the founder of the prestigious LA firm of Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, several years before while doing some consulting work for a bank in which he was involved as a shareholder and Director. We worked well together and resolved the bank’s issues quickly and without regulatory intervention. A pragmatic and practical man, Chuck Manatt has always known that you need “friends in both camps” in order to play the game of politics effectively; a lesson I too had learned early on. As a result he was only too glad to see me and my spouse on short notice during a hastily arranged trip to DC. We met in his office at the DNC- -the office Howard Dean occupies today- -and told him the situation as quickly and as succinctly as possible noting the incidents of harassment and personal attacks. Manatt knew immediately who among the senior party members had the clout to rein in "La Raza". He picked up the phone and in 30 seconds Ted Kennedy was on the speakerphone.

Manatt explained the situation stating that I, "even though a Republican," was a friend he could "rely on and trust". And after some polite conversation Senator Kennedy finally asked me straight out who my “friends” were. I knew what that question meant in that town and had enough sense to name one Democrat, US Representative Les AuCoin and one Republican, Senator Bob Packwood. Both were actually friends of mine and friends with Kennedy as well. (Rumor had it that Kennedy and Packwood attended the same AA meetings in DC). Kennedy promised to help and after 15 minutes the call was over.

Two days later she got a personal apology from the Chairman of “La Raza” who was stunned that she had enough “clout” to get Senator Kennedy to intervene. Her nomination sailed through without further objection from any Hispanic organizations.

Why is "The Sage” telling you this? Because it illustrates three important points:

1. The hypocrisy of La Raza when they claim to represent the interests of all Hispanics. (The topic of a future post.)

2. The way “politics” works in the US, and

3. The uncanny ability of Ted Kennedy to know when to do a political favor and create an “I.O.U” (Which he and Manatt called in from me- - big time- - 2 years later during an Oregon gubernatorial race.)

I also tell you this to let you know that as a Conservative I was diametrically opposed to almost all of Ted Kennedy’s political beliefs. In fact, I didn't agree with his politics about 99% of the time but, I did admire his unwaivering comittment to his beliefs and to working behind the scenes to get things done. And while there were times he made me extremely angry I know- -and firmly believe- - that if a real political dichotomy is to continue to exist in our beloved nation there will always need to be a voice like Ted Kennedy’s, if for no other reason than to keep Conservatives from losing focus on our own values and becoming complacent. There is no Democrat at present who can immediately fill his shoes and be that voice. It sould be interesting to see who will "grow" into it.


ALL POLITE DEBATE AND VARYING POINTS OF VIEW ARE ENCOURAGED AND WELCOMED. PLEASE USE THE “COMMENT” LINK BELOW TO OFFER YOUR THOUGHTS.

Who Will the Left Seek to Silence Next?

“The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”

This quote from Act 3 Scene 2 of Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” has been associated throughout history with many people who, after doing a lifetime of good, are most often remembered for the one or two things they may have done wrong. Most recently Don Imus comes to mind. Imus, an irreverent radio and TV talk show host with conservative leanings, made one politically incorrect comment about the Rutgers Women’s Basketball Team and was fired by CBS after intense pressure from the Left. The fact that Imus had for years self-funded a working cowboy ranch for cancer-stricken children, supported numerous other charities and was noted for helping folks who were just simply down on their luck meant nothing. The only thing that mattered to the Left- -Liberals and Progressives- -was the one intemperate comment he made and the opportunity to silence a dissenting voice, not his good acts and deeds. And, if the Left has its way the next victim of their organized silencing campaign will be John Mackey the CEO of “Whole Foods, Inc” the small grocery chain known for selling organic and natural foods. Mackey’s “evil”? Criticizing ‘ObamaCare’ in an August 11, 2009 editorial in the Wall Street Journal was Mackey’s ‘crime’.
See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html


At a time when the Left keeps asking critics of ObamaCare to come up with a better plan Mackey did just that. In the editorial Mackey carefully outlined 8 reforms that if enacted, he argued, will “greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone.” But in so doing Mackey called for equalization of tax laws regarding healthcare deductibility, repeal of state laws preventing insurance companies from doing business across state lines and tort reform- -reining in the large jury awards that add to the cost of health care. The fact that Mackey is correct matters little to the Left. The only thing that matters to Liberals and Progressives is that Mackey is out of lockstep with the Democrat Party line and is, therefore, a political heretic worthy of being figuratively burned at the stake. “Boycott!” they screamed by the thousands on Facebook and Twitter and the picket lines went up at Whole Foods Markets in Washington DC, Maryland, New York and Texas. Forget the good he and the company he heads may have done. And there is a lot of good to talk about.

In addition to its commitment to selling organic and natural foods, the company under Mackey’s leadership has empowered individual stores to buy from local farmers and growers thus helping local economies and helping to assure freshness of the meats and vegetables sold in each store. Under Mackey’s tenure the company adopted a policy of paying 100% of the health care premiums for all employees working 30 hours or more a week- -about 90% of the company. In addition the company provides up to $1,800 a year into “Personal Wellness Accounts” for each employee to spend as they choose for their own healthcare. Sounds like an egalitarian dream doesn’t it.

Yet all the Left cares about is that Mackey dared to question BHO’s plan for health care reform. Mark Federici, a spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) said, “Mackey’s views are totally at odds with those of the company- -he has to go!” Then playwright and noted Progressive, Mark Rosenthal, who was one of the instigators of the boycott said this: “I read the article and it stunned me, the hubris of this man who made his millions selling his products to Progressives in America based on an image of caring for the community.” Talk about ‘hubris’ here are two guys who appear to be pretty damn smug when it comes to Mackey and the company he founded in 1980.

It’s Mackey’s company built on Mackey’s vision and Mackey’s core values. Yet somehow the UFCW has a better sense of the company’s views than Mackey himself does? Outrageous! And Rosenthal marginalizing Mackey’s good works by making reference to an “image of caring” as though he intuitively knows that Mackey is a fraud? Arrogant beyond belief. But, this is nothing new. It’s what we’ve come to expect from Liberals and Progressives.

We expect the folks on the Left to do their best to stifle free speech and dissent. The ACLU has done its best to gag the “religious right” under the dictum of “separation of church and state”. Now they are taking aim at silencing Conservative talk radio by use of the so-called ‘fairness doctrine’. And while I think Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are over-the-top wind bags they have just as much right to be on the air and say whatever they want as Rachel Maddow, Ron Kuby or Keith Olberman. But not according to the Left for whom free speech is only free if you espouse liberal and progressive ideologies. Anything other than that is “hate-speech” as they see it. And that’s what this attack on Mackey and Whole Foods is all about. It’s the opening salvo of the next battle front- - -stifling the opinions of Corporate America. It’s about keeping entrepreneurs from speaking out for more free enterprise and less intrusive government.

A cousin of mine whom I respect and admire said this week in a Facebook post that he thought “brands should remain a-political”. I love my cousin but he couldn’t be more wrong. If the religious right is stifled and Conservative talk radio is silenced who will be left to speak out against big government and socialism? If Corporate America is bullied into political correctness who will be left to champion free markets, open competition and yes- - -capitalism? No one.

As I’ve said before the problem Conservatives have with Liberals and Progressives is that they all seem to think they are morally and intellectually superior. Or to paraphrase a famous quote from James Carville, “It’s the smugness, stupid.” But here are my questions to you all. What’s so morally superior about trying to stifle legitimate dissent and others’ rights of free speech? And what’s so intellectually superior about blindly following the party line without question or examination? And once folks like John Mackey are harassed out of business, how will you earn your paychecks or do you expect to live on the government dole? If you can tell me without being smug or arrogant, I’d like to know.


ALL POLITE DEBATE AND VARYING POINTS OF VIEW ARE ENCOURAGED AND WELCOMED. PLEASE USE THE “COMMENT” LINK BELOW TO OFFER YOUR THOUGHTS.

What Does HR 3200 REALLY Say?

This past week’s dust-ups at various “Town Hall” meetings dealing with the subject of healthcare have done nothing to advance public discourse with each side accusing the other of being mean spirited and each side invoking the specter of Nazism and brown-shirted thugs. I’m convinced that a huge part of the problem is that very few- -on either side- -have actually read HR 3200 relying instead on third-party analyses coming from people and organizations with vested interests and axes to grind. So, for what it’s worth your friend “The Sage”, who has actually READ the bill, has a few observations that may add some understanding to this subject.

The US population is just over 300 million. That number includes the often cited 12 million un-documented workers. According to a recent government report about 60% of us or 180 million people are covered by private healthcare plans offered by employers. Another 25% of us or 75 million people are covered by Medicare or Medicaid and the remaining 15% or 45 million people- -including those here illegally- -are not covered at all. Now if ObamaCare was simply a plan to cover those 45 million people alone we probably wouldn’t be hearing all the screaming and shouting coming from both camps. But it isn’t. In a nutshell here’s how it works and here’s what’s causing so much of the angst.

· HR 3200 doesn't create a new program per se but expands and amends the Social Security Act, which includes Medicare and Medicaid, beyond the 75 million or so people now covered, to include the 45 million people not covered- - -including 12 million or more illegals.
· If private medical coverage through an insurance company represents the "Gold" standard of coverage and Medicare represents the "Silver" standard of coverage, ObamaCare represents the "Bronze" or maybe Tin standard of care.
· Current Medicare recipients and boomers who will be retiring in the next few years who, for the most part have paid the maximum amount each working year into the system and have an expectation of getting the "Silver" standard of coverage, will now be reduced to the "Bronze" standard in order save enough money to help pay for those coming into the plan who may have never paid a dime in payroll taxes. This is what the Congressional Budget Office meant when it reported that one third of the $1.5 trillion cost of ObamaCare would be paid for by cuts to Medicare and this is what has ‘boomers’- -those born between 1946 and 1964- -turning out in large numbers and screaming to be heard and understood. THIS MUST BE FIXED.
· If Gen X (born between 1965 and 1980) and Gen Y folks (born between 1981 and 1995) are covered with a "Gold" standard plan by their employer and lose their job they will be forced to go to the "Bronze" plan and even if rehired will not be able to go back to a "Gold" plan. Over time, as the attrition from private plans continues, the end result could be a single-payer, completely nationalized healthcare system. Gen Xers should be in revolt over this. Even that ultra-liberal, Barney Frank, realizes this is not a desirable outcome and has spoken out against it. THIS, TOO, MUST BE FIXED.
· A huge concern, that should have the American Bar Association AND the ACLU up in arms, is the fact that under the proposed bill (Section 1651, pages 734 and 735) the provisions of HIPAA are all but negated by the fact that the DOJ will be given access to our previously 'private' medical records. And while the intent of the bill is to allow the AG to prosecute frauds and cheats, it does not specifically prevent the AG from using medical information to prosecute someone for an alleged crime NOT related to the healthcare system. What this means is that if the DOJ has you in their sights for prosecution of an alleged crime they can access information known previously only to you and your doctor and use it against you. So much for “doctor/patient privilege”. This is a serious Constitutional issue and must not be allowed to stand.

But, many of the aspects of the plan, especially those related to reducing fraud are quite good and should NOT be opposed by healthcare providers. If you are a healthcare provider or biller expecting to take payments from the government there’s no reason you shouldn’t prove that you are qualified to provide the care and services for which you are billing and that those billings are not fraudulent.

The medical community is also up in arms about the establishment under the bill of a “National Health Services Corp”. The idea behind this is that med school grads who attained their education through tax-payer funded government loans should spend some time working in community health centers in return for a reduction in the amount of their loans. I’m OK with this. After all, if auto companies and banks who have taken tax-payer money have to meet certain government conditions why should the medical community be exempt?

Overall, no one seriously doubts that our current system is deeply flawed and needs some overhaul. But when taken in its entirety HR 3200 creates more problems and social unrest than it cures. Besides, if ObamaCare is so good why aren’t the 535 members of Congress lining up to enroll? Perhaps James Madison, the “Father of the US Constitution” put it best when he said:

“The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.”


ALL POLITE DEBATE AND VARYING POINTS OF VIEW ARE ENCOURAGED AND WELCOMED. PLEASE USE THE “COMMENT” LINK BELOW TO OFFER YOUR THOUGHTS.

Why Conservatives Must Fight the Good Fight

There isn’t a day that goes by without someone sending me an e-mail detailing the latest “progressive” decision made or idea put forth by BHO’s administration. And almost daily I get involved in chats, IMs, e-mails or Facebook threads with committed, Gen-X liberals. Most weeks, I find these happenings mildly to moderately annoying and almost not worth mentioning. But this week, for some unexplainable reason, the inbound communications were just plain outrageous and couldn’t be ignored. Here is a synopsis of them.

• Judge Sonia Sotomayor, during her confirmation hearings, characterized Roe-v-Wade as “settled law,” but when questioned about gun ownership, said she would have an “open mind” in ruling on that issue. What an outrage! Roe-v-Wade is “settled law” and the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is not "settled law" ?*** Disgraceful!
  
• According to the Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare will cost $1.5 trillion dollars, is not revenue neutral and does nothing to reduce the cost of delivering health care in the US. In a similar report the House Ways and Means Committee reached the same conclusion. * Scandalous!
  
• BHO’s Department of Justice (DOJ) ruled the State of Georgia can no longer demand proof of citizenship before issuing someone a Voter Registration card. The DOJ further ruled in favor of “community organizers” such as ACORN in saying the State can’t even demand proof of the applicant’s existence. ** Heinous!
  
• Under ObamaCare, all persons not otherwise covered by a “private” plan MUST enroll in the government plan or face a ‘penalty’ equal to 2.5% of their income. * Preposterous!
  
• BHO was on the verge of appointing his 33rd “Czar” this week, a process that has no publicly announced job descriptions, qualification requirements, vetting standards, or selection criteria. And in many cases, the authority of these ‘Czars’ supercedes that of the BHO appointed Cabinet member for whom they supposedly work. *** So much for ‘transparency.’ Ridiculous!
  
• About one third of ObamaCare—$500 billion dollars—will be paid for by cuts to Medicare (the program covering folks over 65 years old) in order to deliver services to (among others) almost 10 million illegal aliens. * And the committed Gen-X liberals are OK with taking away from their own parents and grandparents in order to provide for people who are in this country illegally. * Shameful!
  
• During a Facebook conversation this week involving a good number of well educated, committed, liberal Gen-Xers a statement was made by one of them that Bush-Cheney had ‘run all over the Constitution” and had taken away their rights. When challenged by The Sage to give specific examples to back up their claims, not one—I repeat, not one of them—could or would do so. The thread ran another 18 hours or so with a dozen or more additional comments, but without one shred of factual data to back their claim—just more of the same rhetoric and “Kool-Aid-Komments.’ How did we raise a whole generation of “know nothings”? Atrocious!
  
• Under ObamaCare, all businesses with an annual payroll of $250, 000 or more will be mandated to provide health care benefits to all their employees or face a penalty of 8% of their gross payroll.* Monstrous!
  
  If you are a more centrist Liberal and a BHO supporter reading this, you might want to re-consider your stance with regard to the concerns of Conservatives. But, if you are a far left Liberal reading this and a blind supporter of BHO under all circumstances and find nothing shocking, outrageous or immoral about any of the above then YOU are the problem and also the reason Conservatives must continue to fight the good fight.
  
  And, for the record, the points above marked with one asterisk ( that’s a * for you Gen-Xers) are straight from the reports recently released by the Congressional Budget Office, The House Ways and Means Committee ( do some research on your own to find out what their role is), and the Associated Press. The incident marked with 2 asterisks comes straight from the website of the Office of Secretary of State for the State of Georgia. The comments with 3 asterisks come from various print media news sources.

FINDING HIS GUINEVERE

The “Sports” section of this morning’s Tampa Tribune prominently featured an article with this headline: “McNair eulogized as hero”. For those of you who may have been on another planet for the past week, Steve McNair was a 36 year-old, retired NFL quarterback with Hall-of-Fame credentials who was shot and killed by his 20 year old girlfriend who then shot herself in the head. McNair was also a husband and a father of four children. And, there are reports he had at least one other young girlfriend with whom he kept active company.

As I read the story of prominent sports figures giving testimonial to what a good man McNair was I couldn’t help but think about Mark Sanford, the 49 year old Governor of South Carolina, who was also recently caught up in the scandal of an extramarital affair with a 43 year old, divorced, Argentine woman. Like McNair, Sanford is married and a father of young children. But unlike McNair no prominent figures are tripping over themselves to tell the world what a good man Mark Sanford is and the print media isn’t hailing him as a “hero”. Instead Sanford has been portrayed as a love-sick fool chasing after a woman- -his “soul-mate”- - who looks strikingly like his wife Jenny who at 47 is only 4 years older than his mistress who, in turn, is only 6 years younger than Sanford himself. According to the media, only an idiot would risk his career, reputation, family and livelihood for a woman who’s only six years younger and looks a lot like his wife. However, by the standards of US journalists- -to the extent they have any standards at all- - to be called a “hero” you have to be involved with a woman only slightly more than half your age and with a “bangin’ bod” to boot. Yet, of the reputations that will live on after these two guys- -both of whom have been accused of betraying their families- - I think I’d rather have Sanford’s than McNair’s.

Mark and Jenny Sanford meet every definition of a power couple. Until now he was characterized as a handsome, smart and effective politician whose star was on the rise thanks in no small part to his wife, a pretty heiress and investment banker, who personally financed his first two successful campaigns. They made it to the Governor’s Mansion in South Carolina and by all accounts had a good chance of making it to the White House some day. But like so many “power marriages” somewhere along the line the Sanford marriage, I suspect, became all about the power and influence being gained and one or both of them forgot how to nurture the other. Unfortunately, in this case, I think it may have been Jenny Sanford who forgot that role.

We men are strange creatures. We are genetically engineered to provide for and protect the ones we love- -especially our mates. This role is hard-wired in the “Y” chromosome and irretrievably imbedded in our DNA. But just as deeply imbedded is our need for validation and intimacy. We need to frequently be told we are the biggest, strongest, sexiest man in the realm. We need to be compensated with the intimacy of a companion, confidante, friend, helpmate, kindred soul, lover, and partner. And when that doesn’t happen, just like the Knights of the middle ages, we go on a “quest” to find one. We, like Sir Lancelot, go searching for our Guinevere*. The one woman who will help heal and complete us. The one woman who will be our confidante, friend and lover.


The fact that Sanford’s self-described “soul-mate”, is only 4 years younger than Jenny Sanford and looks so much like her tells me the Governor was not- -like McNair- - out to prove his manhood and satisfy his ego through the conquest of some hard-bodied 20 year old but rather that Mark Sanford was on a quest to find his Guinevere and he found her in Maria Belen Chapur.

So given the choice of being remembered as a flawed athletic “hero” or being remembered as a man searching for his Guinevere, I’ll take the role of Lancelot without hesitation. And, if they’re being honest, I think most men would do the same. Perhaps everyone out there in a "power relationship" should consider this a cautionary tale.


* Find the tale of Lancelot and Guinevere at: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/sherwoodtimes/guinever.htm

ALL POLITE DEBATE AND VARYING POINTS OF VIEW ARE ENCOURAGED AND WELCOMED. PLEASE USE THE “COMMENT” LINK BELOW TO OFFER YOUR THOUGHTS.

The Trouble With Liberals

I just can’t help ragging on Liberals. True, there are those Liberals among my family and friends who are people I dearly love and who I’m pretty sure love me. (At least up ‘til this post.) But, the rest I find annoying, shallow, arrogant and obsequious ideologues. You know the type of Liberals I mean- - -the Al Franken, John Stewart, Bill Maher, Janine Garofalo, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Wesley Clark, Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Moyers, Caroline Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Edwards, Keith Olberman, Gavin Newsom, George Soros, Seymour Hersh, Rob Reiner, Arianna Huffington, Molly Ivins, Bill Clinton, George Stephanopoulos, Harry Reid, Jerry Brown and Janet Napolitano types, to name just a few. If you read what they write, watch their TV programs, see their movies, parse their speeches and scrutinize their behaviors it doesn’t take long to figure out these people are all bothersome and arrogantly think they are inherently “better” than Conservatives.

Have you ever heard any of the folks mentioned above ever imply that “Conservative” is anything other than another name for a red-necked, Bible thumping, racist, sexist, hate mongering, planet polluting, greed worshipping, pedophilic, dim-witted oaf? Think I’m wrong? Read the comments made by the readers of The Huffington Post on a daily basis for a week and you’ll see far worse vitriol than this hurled at Conservatives by those peace-loving, let’s all get along, we are the world, hold hands and sing Kumbaya, Liberals.

Now just in case there are any Liberals still reading this, let me point out a few of the specific things that Conservatives find irksome about you.

You seem to have a lot of terms that have only one, very strict, definition. Take “Racism” for example. You appear to think it strictly means “white men taking advantage of people of color.” To you it can’t possibly be a two-way-street even though the Supreme Court thinks otherwise. Or “Sexism” which, when I hear you speak, seems to be a problem every time a woman gets passed over for a promotion or appointment that went to man - -regardless of the circumstances. To you it is unfathomable that a woman may simply have been lacking in base skills or credentials because the Feminists have told you so and they wouldn’t lie.

Then there are the self described “Intellectuals”- - the true arrogants among you- - the Liberal teachers and professors that dominate the faculties of most high schools and colleges in the US and science labs everywhere. If only the rest of us were as enlightened as you are the world would be a better place. You are quick to spread liberal ideology and theory and quick to embrace the science of the day. Yet, you attempt to shut off all debate by proclaiming the latest theory to be “settled science”. Let me give you one astounding example of how arrogant you can be when it comes to this sort of debate.

When we finally got computers with enough power to handle the complex calculations involved in deconstructing the human genome it was widely reported as “settled science” that humans and chimps share 97% of their DNA. Let me repeat the implication of that statement: except for a 3% variance, humans and chimps would be the same. Now folks let me see if I’ve got this right. Except for a scant 3% differential in our shared DNA chimps would be; doing math, devising languages, writing poetry, making movies, inventing new devices, designing space craft, constructing bridges, erecting buildings, performing complex surgeries, playing football, cooking gourmet meals, penning self-help books, piloting airplanes, driving cars, feeding the poor among themselves and keeping up with their friends on Facebook- -is that correct? Does that make sense to you? Does that “smell” right to you? Is that where the debate ends? Did it ever occur to you that your computer models could be wrong? Did you ever think that perhaps DNA is not the ultimate building block, that it might be something smaller yet with a much greater base which would explain why no one in their lucid mind would observe that a chimp is 97% the same as a human. Oh yeah, I forgot. It’s “settled science”.

So, dear Liberals are you beginning to get the idea why so many folks don’t like you? It’s because you think- - -no, you believe- -that you are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else, especially Conservatives. Take a close look at the 30 names I mentioned in the first paragraph- - noted Liberals all. Does that seem like a morally and intellectually superior group to you? If it does then you are a true-believer. Enjoy your Kool-Aid.



ALL POLITE DEBATE AND VARYING POINTS OF VIEW ARE ENCOURAGED AND WELCOMED. PLEASE USE THE “COMMENT” LINK BELOW TO OFFER YOUR THOUGHTS