Problems and Solutions Self-check - Where is your mind, under this invisible glass ceiling?

To Photo Bucket - Thank you 1oilerfan, for the photo.

Word Wars-Word Police-Words Defined – When does constant apologies and word correctness become 'overstated,' 'overrated,' and 'overused?' Is everything being exploited as a proverbial crutch, for a new world society?

In the back of my mind, I know when the term being 'Politically Correct' and 'Political Correctness' became the new 'buzzwords.' On the other hand, exactly how far should this correctness be taken, before our right to 'speak' about what is on our minds and in our hearts, or to blurt out old phrases is made 'illegal?' Who is now making up the rules for all of society?

Everything, from the verbal use of 'colors, B.C., A.D., A.C, bastardized, to the word gay,' are once again taking on new meanings, forgetting all about their original definitions. Even while in college, in 2005, my Art instructor stated that it was politically incorrect to say that AD/AC as meaning After the Death of Christ, a term that has 'always' defined the number of years/centuries, since that time. "Why?" I asked. "Because people see that using the name of Christ as a reference to a given point in time is offensive; they don´t believe in him." Now, we have Rep. Lynn Jenkins apologizing for saying, "Great White Hope." I merely ask 'why'?

In a moment, we will take a look in Webster´s Dictionary, to define a couple of these older terms. However, let´s begin with the latest; an apology from Rep. Lynn Jenkins, of Kansas, who used this 'very old saying,' "Great white hope."

This term was first utilized in the early 1900´s, when there was a promotion on, in attempts to find a ´white boxer´ that could possibly defeat the heavy-weight boxing champion, Jack Johnson, who happened to be black. The term "Great white hope" can also mean 'a positive' hope, which was given the color white, of the positive, as shown on the I-Ching. The I-Ching displays the colors of black and white, or 'positive' white, and black, 'negative,' as actually being ONE because there is no duality. Even when used in electrical wiring, the positive wire is 'white,' the negative is ´black´ and the ground wire, in some cases, is ´yellow.´

Now, just because Rep. Jenkins used this saying in regards to the GOP´s future after the Democrats took control of the White House and Congress, it did NOT mean that she was attacking our current President, this administration or any African Americans. To even suggest it is ludicrous at best, and contains all the earmarks of not only losing our Freedom of Speech, within the U.S. Constitution, without creating a new Amendment, but it also appears as though the 'thought and word police' are not just around the corner, but have taken up residence.

Now I inquire, why have the citizens and the leaders of this country regressed no less than 50+ years 'back' in time, in their thinking, and relate everything said as being 'discriminatory?' Why are people pointing fingers of wrongdoing, instead of moving forward, with more positive and imperative issues?

What everyone must realize, and I do include 'all citizens' as well as the powers that be, is that political correctness has stepped way over the line and has gone too far. It 'is' now 'politically incorrect' to continually chastise everyone, whether or not they´re a person on the street, or a political figure. So, to verbalize my slang term, 'you´re not my mama.' The American populace is not child-like. Moreover, the use of color references does NOT mean an attack on the color of a person´s skin. These current mindsets are dating back to the time of Abraham Lincoln, when discrimination was rampant. For more than three decades this country and it's citizens have moved forward. However, it's begun 'back sliding' in more ways than one. As it appears now, it´s all just for the sake of using 'words' as an excuse for more stress applied to people, and more power and control, and to prosecute, reprimand and require apologies. Our parents beat you to it...sorry; and our slaps on the hand, across the face, or landing citizens in court for what they say is just simply out of the question.

There is also a very 'old' term called 'Yellow-belly,' which, when used as a 'slang term,' means that the person the expression is directed toward does 'not' have the nerve to move forward, and was mostly used while fighting wars. It also means that the person it´s directed to is no less than a coward. This term was also used heavily in the motion picture industry where, while a battle ensued, those who would leave the front lines and desert their post or other troops, and were considered 'yellow;' to cowardly retreat. It had nothing to do with anyone´s color.

With that said, I ask, are all of the slang terms, colors, or words with former 'primary' definitions that people have ever used to be deleted from society altogether? If so, why; and, when people use their intellect, why must they travel 50+ years back in time, to merely find a new excuse and inflict more pain, while at the same time causing additional societal turmoil? If this backsliding is necessary, then let´s just hide inside the abyss of earth, taking our fear to speak and dictionaries with us.

Certainly, many of these terms undoubtedly 'are misused,' and do 'inflict pain.' However, some of these expressions 'are,' to say the least, accurate in but a few situations.

I have read the U.S. Constitution, while in college getting my Law Enforcement degree, and 'political correctness' is NOT defined there, nor is it mentioned. Neither does it contain laws that state 'how' a person must speak, feel or think, except that we have the freedom to speak, and to bring to account the government officials, or to 'redress.' The Constitution does 'not' say, we cannot get angry with our children and put them in their place, when 'they speak out of turn or act badly.' They are, in every sense of the word 'children' and just as a growing tree, must be straightened out at a young age. Abuse? NO. Correction? Yes. However, it is NOT the business of the public at large, nor government, to hear and see what goes on in our families. This is why there is a roof over our heads, and walls erected for the houses we live in. When the telephone was invented, and there was a party line, there was the chance to snoop; but did that make it right? Answer: NO. It's time overdo, for the population to live freely, believe, say and act as they so choose when in their homes. Does the public get to hear the arguments in the confines of the government? How about at the Pentagon and all the other agencies? We pay for it; therefore everything is 'our' business.

With more investigation, there is brilliantly hidden terminology in the bills within Congress, which are setting off the deluge of current protests, about 'how' everyone speaks in this country, down to the last word uttered. These terms and words are being exploited and reported to media, and even to the President. Is there are a 'valid reason' to stick our leader with such childish issues as incorrect terminology? Now, there´s either an apology demanded or a lawsuit pending, for real money as compensation. Since when is a ´bill from Congress´ an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? I´ve never heard of such a thing, have you? If it is 'not' a Constitutional Amendment, then it is not a change of law, but merely a collective idea on paper, which could now be termed an Abuse of Power.

What a foolish 'waste of court time' this is, with lobbyist taking people in to our high courts, with their attorneys, requiring cash compensation for words uttered. I would think that our activists, legislators and congressional leaders have better things to do than to 'pick and choose' terminology that would be considered acceptable. That´s not what we pay them for, nor what we compensate our judicial system for. Not only that, but to stifle any descent from the entire American populace, which the Constitution gives us 'our right to complain' (redress) about issues or legislation we do 'not agree' with, makes absolutely no sense. Ask yourself then, what has happened to 'our America' and 'our rights?'

Now, as for other terms used, we´ll begin with 'gay,' only because there was a commercial on television last night, during a History Channel program, dealing with this issue. This ad took me by surprise. However, I DO admit that there IS a valid point here.

The setting was two young women shopping at a clothing store, and trying on pretty tops. As one gazed at herself in the mirror, checking out how she looked in that top, her friend stated, "That really looks gay." Then, another young woman comes up from behind the two shoppers and states that 'it is NOT right to use the term gay as it insinuates...'

This word is causing many societal problems and is being totally exploited by all concerned, from both sides of the fence. So, let´s look up the word ´gay´ in Webster´s Dictionary, 1995 edition.

Gay´ (ga) adj. 1. High-spirited; merry. 2. bright; colorful´ showy; 3. dissipated; loose. THEN, 4. homosexual. – n. a homosexual n. gayness.

Now here is The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 1974 edition. 'Gay' (´ga-long a) adj. 1. Merry; 2. Bright, lively; 3. brilliant in color; 4. given to social pleasures; also Licentious. 5. homosexual.

So, which does the reader see as being the ´primary´ words defining gay?

My only question would be is ´must people discontinue using this term´ no matter what, unless it pertains to the homosexual community? Answer: No, absolutely not. Just because the original meaning is dated, does 'not' mean it didn´t have an actual definition (e.g. 1800´s) before the homosexuals decided to adopt the use of this term for themselves. I do recall the 1950´s and 1960´s in which the homosexual´s were called 'queer,' which again has several meanings. Webster´s 1995 edition: Queer: (kwir) adj. 1. odd; strange; eccentric. 2. (Offensive) homosexual. v.t. (Informal), spoil; upset. n. (Slang) counterfeit money. queer 'ness, n.

I, cannot think of another phrase than gay, as suggesting the brightness and overall color and wonderful exhibits of talent, than those of the homosexual community. They ´are´ an extremely happy, gay and very loving part of our diverse society, and continually bestow their vibrant personalities in all walks of life, with a distinct clarity and essence of spirit. Even so, would it be right or politically correct to destroy the original meaning of the term, gay? Answer: No.

As far as the television ad is concerned, the 'valid point' is that too many people do use that term 'out of context. Where "that top looks really ditsy on you" would have been better, and more accepted, the way the term 'gay' that was used is not fair, unless, that is, if the other person says it as it pertains to it´s original definition. However, with a third, well hidden, word policing person only listening to part of the conversation, it is also 'unfair' to assume the term was used out of context. So then, ask yourself this question: Should I be involved with the 'word police?' Please, be honest with yourself. The term "Homo," most assuredly the absolute worst term I´ve heard, refers to homosexuals. Is this right? Answer: No, absolutely not. This is part of what is beautiful about our Constitution is that we still have the freedom to be ´who´ we want to be, and define ourselves as we so choose. Nevertheless, is it even ´morally correct´ or ´intellectually correct´ to continue to redefine everything, right down to the last word? Answer: No, absolutely not. Why? Because folks...we don´t have the luxury of ´time.´ In case readers haven´t noticed, this planet´s just about ´out of time.´ For this information, one must research.

To be frank, there isn´t a group, citizen, organization or government that can literally ´steal´ a word from the dictionary, adopt it as 'their own expression,' and then make it an illegal term for others to use in any other context as defined by a Copyright publication, Webster´s Dictionary, strictly for discriminatory purposes. How unintellectual and illogical is that?

Let´s now take a look at people cussing, especially in public. How ridiculous and demeaning is this? Using profanity such as the name Jesus Christ and telling God to damn something, in vein, is widely accepted by those that are 'not' Christians, and even some that are, as being acceptable to say, anywhere, anytime. Yet, are the Christian Churches lobbying legislators and congress to have the names ´outlawed´ as part of a persons cursing vocabulary because it offends Christians? Answer: NO. Please, people...use real world thinking here and come outside of the box. What about the term, ´white trash,´ as we are called? Did the white population lobby congress to have people brought up on charges or made to apologize when that term is used? Answer: NO. So, now we come to Anti-Semitic, saying things against the Jewish population. Is this a problem? Answer: Yes, and now because there was an apology made for something that was ´not´ the fault of Americans, during WWII, we must apologize for everything. Now I repeat the question: Has anyone apologized to the Christians for being ANTI Christian? Answer: NO. Has it been demanded by activists and lobbyists, to demand apologies? Answer: NO. However, should the legislation of the ´fairness doctrine´ continue for citizens and radio or television? Answer: NO. If this should happen, it will put us alone on the map along side of China media and speech standards. Is this something you would deem as being correct? This is a serious question that requires consideration and an answer.

Webster´s 1995 Definitions: Bas'tard-ize (Iz") v.t. 1. make a bastard of. 2. adurate; debase; bastard; (bas'tard) n. and illegitimate child. --adj. 1. of illegitimate birth. 2. spurious; impure. The abbreviations of A.D., which means Anno Domini; Active Duty. A.C., before Christ and athletic club. B.C. British Columbia and Before Christ. Black; black market, Negro, black belt, black death, black humor, black light, black mar´ket-err, Black Muslim, Black Nationalism, Black Power and the list continues under the definition of ´black,´ and using every term for the color black, along with the definition of ´the absence of color.´ Yet, when we say black in any negative context, no matter what we refer to, we are all but terminated. As I stated; this country and it´s people have gone back more than 50+ years in their thinking.

This is where I say that governments, around the world, have proceeded to take steps to control everything we say and do. Is this Politically Correct? Answer: Most certainly not. Should government say that the homosexual community does not have a right to marry? No, as this is a personal choice. Should religious communities state 'who can marry and who cannot?' What 'is' religion anymore? It is most certainly falling away.

Planned Parenthood is ´telling´ everyone to cut back on the population. Thousands of other sources state we are over-populated. There are people living on less than $2.00 a day and dying of hunger; our natural resources are drying up. Our oceans, lakes, rivers and streams are polluted and we need to find solutions about 'how to live with a light carbon footprint,' not lessons or rules about 'what we can say.' Yet, here are people having issues about every word spoken, which is 'not' the most important crisis we´re facing. There are more urgent matters that must be addressed, and hopefully this will begin now, and that everyone, including government and lobbyist forget about policing every word of Americans, and BEGIN policing this planet, to find solutions.

We can start paying closer attention to our earth, and the dilemmas we are currently facing. If you feel you desperately need to police something, get some exercise and volunteer for the State, County, City or Town you live in, and police the ground. Pick up trash, especially cans and bottles laying on the curb-sides. Let´s concentrate on moving forward with technology, to ensure the future of our children, by finding green energy, cleaning up the planet´s waters, ground, trees and air, and stop worrying so much about what people say, or the way they say it. There is a desperate need to stop policing everyone else´s words to the point that they carry disdain in their hearts. That´s 'not' the power to moving forward, and it´s moving us horribly backward.

There was a saying, when I was young. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but 'words' will never hurt me." Maybe we should try readopting that.

Moving forward is unconditional love for all people, all nations and to respect them for 'who and what' they are, instead of interfering with everyone´s 'free will,' which a human right, for 'all.'

Only a people, and government, which look at everything, everyone and every word spoken, while picking through it, merely to find reasons that something is wrong, are 'prejudice.' That, my friends, is what being prejudice is all about. Remember the things and people that were degraded...and now we have a defined language that doesn´t fit, and is supposedly prejudice. This world and its people are 'required' to do more important things than 'knit-pick.' Is that 'your' life's purpose on this planet?

It´s time to show everyone that we're all responsible citizens. Don't wait for someone else to do everything. We've all lived on this planet; therefore it's time to 'give back' that which we've taken. Let's focus on that.