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.


burglarI got the following from a friend in an email.

cannot-buy-rebel-flagSince chain emails (particularly those that are tongue in cheek) cannot be trusted, I did some research.

  • I tried to track down both a rebel flag and an ISIS flag on EBAY. As of now, EBAY seems to exclude both.
  • Not sure what ADT charges, but it cannot beat free.
  • The reference to burkas? Since that obviously refers to profiling….

So would it work? Well, if Hillary Clinton gets elected, I suppose this is what I might have to do after I retire. Got save money on a fixed income, but I will have to run the idea of wearing his and her burkas by my wife.