confusedWell, here is the last post in this series on quotes out of context.  I would like to say I entirely understand the response I got, but I don’t. The best I can do is make some observations.

Most of the opposition’s comments in this series landed on the first post in the series. Why? Well, here are my guesses.

  • The post was a straightforward defense of Donald Trump.  There was no mention of H. Clinton. So H. Clinton’s supporters could attack Trump’s supposed narcissism without much fear they would have to defend H. Clinton.
  • The topic is fuzzy. Everyone knows Trump supporters would not stand by him if he started shooting people in the street, but it sounds awful to gun control freaks. Apparently, since sensitive souls can’t take such talk we must condemn it. Still, I wonder how such sensitive souls survive all the violence in the mass media.

Anyway, I would like to thank the commenters.

silenceofmind took the time to remind us that the news media’s bias has become dangerous to our republic.  He also pointed out that “one of THE Donald’s attributes that is so attractive is that he is completely unsullied by political correctness”.

novaDemocrat (AKA novascout) fomented confusion.  He described Trump’s utterance as useless braggadocio, even going so far as to say that people understood what Trump meant when they first heard the remark out of context. Shrug! He is entitled to his opinion.

Stephen thought Trump’s hyperbole imprudent.

But Prudence would dictate that you should not make such violent, hyperbolic statements to begin with.

Here is a list of examples of hyperbole. Here is an explanation of hyperbole as a literary device. People use hyperbole because exaggeration sometimes serves a purpose. If we let the news media deliberately misrepresent what people say to us, at some point we must blame ourselves for wilful ignorance.

Tony only made one comment (here), but it was a doozy. Here we get an elaborate explanation of how we choose our leaders the same way we choose our favorite soda pop and a hateful string of unsupported accusations against Trump. That comment simply disregarded the fact of news media bias.

One last observation, really a question. Has Trump manipulated the news media, or has the news media manipulated Trump? I don’t know.  There is little doubt that Trump’s willingness to express himself frankly and colorfully attracts media attention. However, frank, colorful statements are also easily distorted. So there is a trade-off.

The trade-off worked for Trump in the primaries. Will it work for him in the general election. Arguably, the news media wanted Trump to win the primaries. Given, for example, how a certain ten-year old video was held until October, that is sort of obvious. Nevertheless, Trump had to be aware the media would turn on him after the primaries.  So everything he said would eventually be used against him, and it has been. So how did he plan on dealing with it? Did he have a plan? I don’t know.

What about our plan? As voters, we want the best candidate to lead our country? However, we all have out own opinions about what that best candidate should look like.  That’s is why we have to vote, but voting doesn’t solve the problem of choosing the best candidate. We still have to learn about the candidates, and we still have to give the needs of our country some thought. That requires homework.

If we don’t do any homework, the news media will just tell us what to think. Everyone is biased, and that especially includes so-called objective journalists.  Therefore, if we want to learn about the candidates, we have to take the time to listen to them. That includes checking out their websites and listening to some of their campaign speeches. Otherwise, instead of voting based upon our own biases, we will be voting based upon the biases of our favorite talking heads.

Anyway, my future posts will focus on the issues.  Which of the candidates is more qualified? Which of the candidates has the best agenda.

BTW, here are the second and third posts.


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.


Nikolai Yezhov, standing to the left of Joseph Stalin, was shot in 1940. He was edited out of the photo by Soviet censors after his execution as a form of damnatio memoriae.[9] This policy was commonly applied to high-ranking executed political enemies during Stalin's reign. (from here)
Nikolai Yezhov, standing to the left of Joseph Stalin, was shot in 1940. He was edited out of the photo by Soviet censors after his execution as a form of damnatio memoriae. This policy was commonly applied to high-ranking executed political enemies during Stalin’s reign. (from here)
Some people spend more time complaining about how other people say something than they do listening. This is a phenomenon we especially associate with “political correctness”. Here is the standard definition.

politically correct adjective (abbreviation PC)

disapproving avoiding language or behavior that any particular group of people might feel is unkind or offensive:

The politically correct term “firefighter” is used instead of “fireman.”

Carried to an extreme, political correctness is a form of censorship.  Want an example? Then consider CASE STUDY OF A LIE: THE POST MODERN MUCKRAKER AT WORK: AN UPDATE. That post reviews the attempt by the news media and the H. Clinton’s presidential campaign to tar Trump as some kind of hater of combat veterans with PTSD.  What is ridiculous is that Trump did not say anything that should have offended anybody. Instead, the news media and Loose Lips Hillary decided to take offense on behalf veterans with PTSD.

Donald Trump responds to a question about PTSD at about 113 minutes into the video. Trump’s response obviously indicates that he is sympathetic to those with PTSD and willing to make helping the victims of PTSD a high priority. Nevertheless, the easily offended decided to take offense.

I got two comments on CASE STUDY OF A LIE: THE POST MODERN MUCKRAKER AT WORK: AN UPDATE that are indicative of the problem.

  • From Stephen (here).
  • From Tony (here).

Amazing, it appears that neither even bothered to listen to Trump. How do I know? I accidentally posted the wrong time where Trump responds to a question about PTSD. Neither had anything to say about the fact I had posted the wrong time. Neither had anything to say about context of Trump’s response to the question. All they wanted to talk about is the need to be sensitive to the feelings of people with PTSD. All they wanted to talk about was Trump’s supposed insensitivity.

What is sensitive about ignoring what people are trying to say and castigating them because you don’t like a few words? Is it more important to put our own words into someone else’s mouth than it is to listen?

To solve problems, we have to talk about them. To solve problems we must negotiate solutions. Because they are obsessed with putting their own words (and beliefs) into other people’s mouths, the politically correct risk being unable solve problems. If they are too busy trying to censor anyone who disagrees, the politically correct may even refuse to listen. That will just facilitate tyranny.


I got the following from Delegate Bob Marshall today.


Large majorities of Republicans in the US Congress support drafting women for combat based on their support of the House and Senate versions of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Acts.   There is still time to eliminate the provision to draft women from the final bill.

The Senate Committee NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) Report summary does not list the drafting of women for combat in the bill.  But, on page 11, it does acknowledge that:

”The NDAA includes a provision that amends the Military Selective Service Act to include women in the requirement to register for selective service, to the same extent men are currently required, beginning January 1, 2018. Because the Department of Defense has lifted the ban on women serving in ground combat units, the committee believes there is no further justification in limiting the duty to register under the Military Selective Service Act to men.”

The only Virginia Republican Congressman to vote against the NDAA was Morgan Griffith, while 237 House Republicans voted yes! Only four other Republicans voted no in the House, and only six of 54 Senate Republicans voted no.

Please ask Democrat Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, who supported NDAA passage, as well as your own Congressperson whether or not they publicly supported a position in favor of drafting women into military ground combat when they last ran for office.  

This is the first time in American history such a radical policy has been approved by Congress. Where was the groundswell for, or even the public debate for this misguided radical policy which mandates that men and women must register for the draft on identical terms?

The Senate bill (John McCain, R-AZ) provides that after January 1, 2018 female citizens or legal residents 18 and over “shall be subject to such terms, conditions, and limitations as are applicable under the provisions of this Act to similarly situated male registrants …[because of] … the continuing need for a mechanism to draft large numbers of replacement combat troops.”

How can pregnant women (married or not) or young mothers, aged 18-26 avoid being drafted for combat duty under such provisions?  This is not a matter of young women voluntarily enlisting in the military.  This would be a mandate upon every young woman aged 18-26 whether or not they had any intention of ever serving in combat.

The House and Senate must approve final versions of the 2017 NDAA bill.  Please contact Sen. Mark Warner, Sen. Tim Kaine and your own Congressperson today.  Firmly and with civility demand that they vote NO if provisions for drafting women are contained in the final NDAA bill, unless you are fine with having your daughters, granddaughters sisters and nieces conscripted into the military for front line ground combat!

I encourage you to contact Senators Kaine and Warner to voice your opinion on this issue.  You can contact each of them through their websites at the links or you can reach Senator Kaine at (202) 224-4024 and Senator Warner at (202)224-2023.    To find your Congressperson check out Who’s My Legislator.

Please let me know if you have any questions.  Thank you so much for your continuing support!


Delegate Bob Marshall

I have seen how the all-volunteer military operates. Therefore, I wonder why we need a draft. Draftees are people put into service whether they want to be or not. To keep them in their service, their masters don’t have to treat them well. Hence, I think any serious effort to return to a draft military would reveal that drafted soldiers are treated more poorly than volunteers (Has everyone forgotten Vietnam?). On the other hand, our volunteer military forces have demonstrated the capacity to fight both bravely and effectively. It is a civilian leaders who have failed.

At the same time, we have seen that even in a volunteer military it is too easy for men to abuse women. So why would we want to draft women?

What this effort tell me is that too many of our leaders don’t know what they are doing. They just want to look good so they can stay in office. So they do what seems popular to the news media. Yet if we ever institute a draft, drafting women will just create problems that will blow up in our faces.  The people in the news media don’t know anything about fighting a war.

Look at WWII. When they felt America was threatened, the Americans of the 1940’s fought bravely and effectively. Because they were so eager to fight their nation’s enemies, young men eagerly volunteered. Were some drafted? I suppose many were, but those who could not get in to the military were ashamed.  Hence, we effectively had a volunteer force. Yet hardly anyone seriously considered drafting women. Somebody had to stay at home. What needed to be done at home was just as important as what needed to be done at the front. And that involved much more than just rivets.

(from here)
(from here)

Yet a pretty girl flexing her muscles certainly draws attention and makes good copy. Imagine how cute she would look in Hollywood designed body armor waving a sexy assault weapon.