Clinton testifying before the House Select Committee on Benghazi on October 22, 2015 (from here)
Clinton testifying before the House Select Committee on Benghazi on October 22, 2015 (from here)

The picture above is that of a “nasty woman”. The female of our species may be smaller, but few men go through life without ever beating a hasty retreat from an angry woman. In fact, Proverbs records such a retreat as an act of wisdom.

Proverbs 21:9 New King James Version (NKJV)

Better to dwell in a corner of a housetop,
Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.

Imagine Donald Trump’s anguish.  For three 90 minutes sessions he had to put up with a tongue lashing from Hillary Clinton. If he were married to her, he could have escaped to a luxurious rooftop at one of his mansions. Instead, he was trapped in close proximity with a nasty, cold blooded woman determine to verbally eviscerate him. It goes against every instinct and social convention for a man to take such abuse without heading for rooftops.

So how did the news media report the matter? Well, Trump slipped up. He stated the obvious and shared his misery: “Such a nasty woman”.

Well, Hillary Clinton is a woman. She certainly has made every effort to make sure we know it. And as Donald Trump observed, she debates like a “nasty woman”.

What can we do about it? Well, we might want to think long and hard about who is most responsible for making this presidential campaign something so unsuited for children to watch. Meanwhile, let’s all pity and pray for poor Bill Clinton. May he always be able to find a quiet rooftop.


Hillary Clinton's new home? (from here)
Hillary Clinton’s new home? (from here)

In A WORD TO REPLACE “POLITICALLY CORRECT”?, I suggested that we replace the phrase “politically correct” with “obsequious”. Here I will show how we might want to use the word “obsequious”.

At this post, WHY IS VOTING FOR HILLARY CLINTON MADNESS?, I got a comment from an unhappy Hillary Clinton supporter. Here it is.


When you get a second, poke your head up and outside of your dark little maze of echo chambers here Tom and into the light of the real world.

The Republican Party is in a full scale implosion. Instead of seeking unity, Trump and his rabidly outraged supporters are engaging in a circular firing squad with the establishment of their own party. The math has become almost inexorably on course to make this an Electoral College landslide for Clinton, and the popular vote does not look much better. Trump has no ground game. Republican chances of retaining their Senate majority and strong House majority are being dragged down along with the national tickets.

To move undecideds, Independents, and moderates from both political parties, and to even have a chance to win at this late date, Trump and Trump supporters would need to pivot away from talking about sex and sexism, a topic that has proved absolutely damning for Trump with decent people of any political persuasion, and yet all he and you want to do is talk about sex, sex, sex.

Please keep up the good work Tom. ☺️ (from here)

What follows is my response. Keep in mind that wherever you see some form the word “obsequious” I could just as easily have used some form of the phrase “politically correct”.

Tom’s Response

Well, I suppose I could just obsequiously defer to the infinite wisdom of the news media and give up. After all, news media has rigged the election — I mean “called” the election — so there is no possible way anyone but the most intelligent woman, the most experienced woman, the finest female foreign policy expert of the age can win.

Yeah, this is the year of the woman. There is nothing sexist about Hillary’s campaign. She has never pointed to her genitals and asked women to vote for her just because she is a woman. No, nothing so undignified. Such hypocrisy has nothing to do with Hillary’s campaign. So I suppose I should be politely obsequious and just submit to the pressure of news media tirades.

Still, I have a problem. When Democrats are so absurdly obsessed with the subjects (Here is a local example on the gender neutral bathroom issue => THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT),  I cannot figure out why Democrats keep insisting that Conservatives must obsequiously shut up. Conservatives have to stop talking about sex and sexism so Democrats can do all the talking?

Are Conservatives trying to alter the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions using the courts? No, but Democrats are, and what Democrats doing is voting for people who have no problem breaking their oaths of office.

Our officials are supposed to support and defend both the U.S Constitutions and their state constitutions, not amend them. Therefore, to obsequiously defer to Democrat demands for “sexual equality” (really just sexual fantasies), Conservatives have to go along with oath-breaking. I don’t think my conscience will support that, thank God.

Moreover, Democrats make this same demand for obsequious submission with respect every “social” issue. It is absurd. Isn’t everything Democrats want to spend gobs of money on a social program? Don’t Democrats break both Federal and state government budgets on health, education, and welfare programs, that is, social programs? Nevertheless, Democrats castigate Social Conservatives and laud Fiscal Conservatives, as if there was any such thing as someone who can be fiscally conservative without certain moral standards.

So no, I am not going to obsequiously give up. I will do my part to support Donald Trump and put Hillary in prison instead of  the White House.

PS – I already know Trump is not Conservative, but he is also not Hillary.


humor.pngWhat is the problem with “politically correct”? Well, that phrase is useful, but the meaning of that phrase has been somewhat distorted, and the origin of the phrase is not especially clear.  Consider the following and see for yourself.

So how is the term used today? The Wikipedia article goes into a large number of examples, include some from other nations. For the sake of brevity, here are a couple examples from the Reason article.

For some on the right, “P.C.” began to be a vague way to refer to anything left of center. “Un-P.C.,” meanwhile, became a phrase people used to pat themselves on the back, not just on the right but in the culture at large. By proclaiming yourself politically incorrect, you were announcing that you were a brave opponent of stultifying orthodoxies, even if your actual opinions were as vanilla as the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival.

On the left, some people embraced the term defensively (at Michigan, several student groups opened the 1991-92 school year by adopting the slogan “PC and Proud”), while others foreshadowed Taub by declaring political correctness a myth. More recently, it’s become common to claim that what conservatives call political correctness is really “just politeness.” (And indeed, if someone uneducated in the jargon of the week unwittingly uses the wrong language, he may receive the same reaction he’d get at a society dinner for using the wrong fork. But I don’t think that’s what they mean.) (from here)

So what word should we use instead? How about “obsequious”? Here is the etymology.

obsequious (adj.)
late 15c., “prompt to serve,” from Middle French obséquieux (15c.), from Latin obsequiosus “compliant, obedient,” from obsequium “compliance, dutiful service,” from obsequi “to accommodate oneself to the will of another,” from ob “after” (see ob-) + sequi “to follow” (see sequel). Pejorative sense of “fawning, sycophantic” had emerged by 1590s. Related: Obsequiously; obsequiousness (mid-15c.).
Consider that pejorative sense. Isn’t that the real problem that Conservatives have with political correctness? Don’t Liberal Democrats fawn over the government and our leaders?

Consider the definition.

obsequious [uh b-see-kwee-uh s] adjective

  1. characterized by or showing servile complaisance or deference; fawning:

    an obsequious bow.

  2. servilely compliant or deferential:

    obsequious servants.

  3. obedient; dutiful.

The first and second definitions are the relevant ones. That last one goes back to the word’s older definition. Like “politically correct”, the word’s meaning has flip-flopped; it has just taken longer. Funny how words do that, but it probably has to do with our pride and our hypocrisy. We don’t usually live up to the labels we apply to ourselvess.

Anyway, calling someone obsequious has two fringe benefits.

  • Most people don’t know what the word means.
  • It sounds even more awful than it is.

So please make certain that if you call someone obsequious you are not immediately within reach. Better yet, may I suggest that you label behavior and not people.


"The protectors of our industries". Cartoon showing Cyrus Field, Jay Gould, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and Russell Sage, seated on bags of "millions", on large heavy raft being carried by workers. (from here)
“The protectors of our industries”. Cartoon showing Cyrus Field, Jay Gould, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and Russell Sage, seated on bags of “millions”, on large heavy raft being carried by workers. (from here)

Were the gentlemen pictured above robber barons? I am not in a position to say. I just think that if we changed the names and faces that cartoon would be even more relevant today.

Frédéric Bastiat was a first-rate satirist of Crony Capitalism. Here is an example from Essays on Political Economy.

M. Prohibant (it was not I who gave him this name, but M. Charles Dupin) devoted his time and capital to converting the ore found on his land into iron. As nature had been more lavish towards the Belgians, they furnished the French with iron cheaper than M. Prohibant; which means, that all the French, or France, could obtain a given quantity of iron with less labour by buying it of the honest Flemings. Therefore, guided by their own interest, they did not fail to do so; and every day there might be seen a multitude of nail-smiths, blacksmiths, cartwrights, machinists, farriers, and labourers, going themselves, or sending intermediates, to supply themselves in Belgium. This displeased M. Prohibant exceedingly.

At first, it occurred to him to put an end to this abuse by his own efforts: it was the least he could do, for he was the only sufferer. “I will take my carbine,” said he; “I will put four pistols into my belt; I will fill my cartridge box; I will gird on my sword, and go thus equipped to the frontier. There, the first blacksmith, nail-smith, farrier, machinist, or locksmith, who presents himself to do his own business and not mine, I will kill, to teach him how to live.” At the moment of starting, M. Prohibant made a few reflections which calmed down his warlike ardour a little. He said to himself, “In the first place, it is not absolutely impossible that the purchasers of iron, my countrymen and enemies, should take the thing ill, and, instead of letting me kill them, should kill me instead; and then, even were I to call out all my servants, we should not be able to defend the passages. In short, this proceeding would cost me very dear, much more so than the result would be worth.”

M. Prohibant was on the point of resigning himself to his sad fate, that of being only as free as the rest of the world, when a ray of light darted across his brain. He recollected that at Paris there is a great manufactory of laws. “What is a law?” said he to himself. “It is a measure to which, when once it is decreed, be it good or bad, everybody is bound to conform. For the execution of the same a public force is organised, and to constitute the said public force, men and money are drawn from the whole nation. If, then, I could only get the great Parisian manufactory to pass a little law, ‘Belgian iron is prohibited,’ I should obtain the following results:–The Government would replace the few valets that I was going to send to the frontier by 20,000 of the sons of those refractory blacksmiths, farriers, artizans, machinists, locksmiths, nail-smiths, and labourers. Then to keep these 20,000 custom-house officers in health and good humour, it would distribute among them 25,000,000 of francs taken from these blacksmiths, nail-smiths, artizans, and labourers. They would guard the frontier much better; would cost me nothing; I should not be exposed to the brutality of the brokers; should sell the iron at my own price, and have the sweet satisfaction of seeing our great people shamefully mystified. That would teach them to proclaim themselves perpetually the harbingers and promoters of progress in Europe. Oh! it would be a capital joke, and deserves to be tried.”

So M. Prohibant went to the law manufactory. Another time, perhaps, I shall relate the story of his underhand dealings, but now I shall merely mention his visible proceedings. He brought the following consideration before the view of the legislating gentlemen.

“Belgian iron is sold in France at ten francs, which obliges me to sell mine at the same price. I should like to sell at fifteen, but cannot do so on account of this Belgian iron, which I wish was at the bottom of the Red Sea. I beg you will make a law that no more Belgian iron shall enter France. Immediately I raise my price five francs, and these are the consequences:–

“For every hundred-weight of iron that I shall deliver to the public, I shall receive fifteen francs instead of ten; I shall grow rich more rapidly, extend my traffic, and employ more workmen. My workmen and I shall spend much more freely, to the great advantage of our tradesmen for miles around. These latter, having more custom, will furnish more employment to trade, and activity on both sides will increase in the country. This fortunate piece of money, which you will drop into my strong-box, will, like a stone thrown into a lake, give birth to an infinite number of concentric circles.”

Charmed with his discourse, delighted to learn that it is so easy to promote, by legislating, the prosperity of a people, the law-makers voted the restriction. “Talk of labour and economy,” they said, “what is the use of these painful means of increasing the national wealth, when all that is wanted for this object is a decree?” (from here)

Was the law that M. Prohibant had passed to protect the profitability of his mines a bad law? Bastiat goes on to explain that it was. So if M. Prohibant’s idea strikes you as fine and excellent, please click on the link and read about the consequences of M. Prohibant’s law.

What is the lesson here? We like to blame others, but we have a republic. By themselves robber barons cannot gain the passage of restrictive trade legislation. By themselves they don’t have enough votes.

Consider.  Was M. Prohibant the only gainer from the law he proposed? Like M. Prohibant we each tend to think the laws we benefit from are good. It is the law that other people use to restrict us that we dislike. It is that self-interest that our leaders use to pit us against each other. It is that self interest that allows robber barons to buy our leaders. Instead of electing honorable men and women who refuse to be bought, we elect people who give us what we want.

What we need to do is consider the laws we want from the point of view of others. If what we want is intended only to help “me”, then we are not being neighborly. We are just being selfish.

Jesus gave us a challenging assignment.

John 15:12-14 New King James Version (NKJV)

12 This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. 14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.

How do we love one another as Jesus loved? We can debate that, but is it not safe to say we should not use the law to gain privileges from each other that we do not deserve?