Political Correctness Is On Par With Communism

There has to be a reason for it. It is unnatural. Perhaps it is to do with some of the modern foods people eat these days? Or something in the coffee? I hope it isn't anything to do with all the Chinese ingredients companies now add to so many of our foods today without telling us. If Chinese food has been killing the dogs in America and making people ill, as I read recently, I don't want to be eating it! Whatever it is I'm looking for, it needs to be found quickly for it is responsible for a pronounced lack of common sense in too many people. Some of these people shoulder enormous responsibilities, and we rely on them to use their common sense to keep us from harm. One such person is the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Anne Owers.

Leyhill Open Prison in Gloucestershire - it has no perimeter security fence whatsoever - has been ordered to house up to 50 very high risk criminals, including a "relatively large group of men" sex offenders. This is the prison where almost 400 inmates simply walked out between 1999 and 2006. During that time the inmates here were disappearing at the rate of more than one a week. Mostly they were those convicted of robbery and burglary offences, but alarmingly they also included 22 murderers and 7 rapists.

Anne has at least had the common sense to question the "appropriateness" of placing such higher-risk inmates in open jails, but still wallows around in a fudge of uncertainty. Like so many today, if it isn't written down somewhere exactly what to do, she appears to be at a loss. She talks of the guidance on whether such offenders should be in open prisons as being "unclear", and complains there are no clear rules on whether high risk prisoners should be put on normal resettlement programmes where they work in local colleges or companies. What? She needs guidance and rules for this? Has she no savvy?

I have to question why any person should need to be guided in order to know whether or not murderers and sexual offenders, some of them rapists, should be kept in open prisons where they can simply walk out. Even just a modicum of common sense will say: no, they must always be kept in secure accommodation - and yet strangely it has been the Prison Service's policy to send these offenders to Leyhill for years.

In my mind, whoever decides prison policy might well benefit from a trip to the convent in Lisieux where St. Thérèse, the Patron Saint of Common Sense, spent some years - and if they don't find any, perhaps they should stay there! Other than that they should be forced to take up residence with their families somewhere close to Leyhill - given time, I'm sure a few of the inmates would love to pop in on them to say thanks!

I hate having to bring it up yet again, it is becoming tedious, but it really does need to be kept in the news. Our appalling NHS has suffered a scathing attack by the Scottish newspaper the Daily Record under the front page headlines: Scotland's Killer Hospitals. The paper revealed that almost 1 in 10 patients pick up an infection in a Scottish hospital, and in one Glasgow hospital the rate is nearly 1 in 5. The hospital acquired infections (HAIs) kill more than 500 patients a year in Scotland alone and cost the NHS a staggering £183million.

In England and Wales, where HAIs are almost as prevalent, to add to this deplorable situation we now learn that more than 24,000 hospital patients were reportedly given the wrong treatment last year. In some cases this has led to serious injury and even death.

Our NHS really cannot be allowed to continue on in this state. It never used to be like this, so why is it now? All the money they are spending - wasting? - on various "health issues" in an attempt to take the focus off their own gross failings must cease immediately, and they must knuckle down and address the real health threat to the nation - themselves! That money needs to be spent in the hospitals cleaning them and teaching the staff and doctors basic hygiene standards. A 1 in 5 chance of catching an infection that might kill you, and if it doesn't it is still most unpleasant, has to be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

I have little doubt that someone still with some common sense left needs to be brought in to give those in the NHS the "guidance" and "direction" that so many people cannot seem to function without these days. The worrying factor is: people with common sense are becoming increasingly harder to find.

Britain has 4.2 million CCTV cameras, 1 for every 14 people - that's more than in the rest of Europe all put together! - and yet we still have some of the worst crime rates in Europe. Cameras are an easy "cop out" for politicians - it makes it look like they are addressing the problem - and whilst cameras have been invaluable recently in tracking the movements of terrorists, so we do need them, they are a long way from being the answer to preventing crime on our streets. Proof of this comes from the Holloway Road in London. With more than a hundred cameras along its two-mile length it is the most spied upon road in Britain, and yet last year, over a period of just 6 months, we're told 430 offences were committed there, including 29 serious assaults, 15 robberies and 32 burglaries.

What does common sense suggest to you? A few more police needed on the street? It's something worth a try, isn't it? But I doubt that they will get them - they'll probably install another couple of cameras, so pulling yet another copper off a street somewhere to stare at a screen.

So, where has all our common sense gone? Have we just lost it, or has it been stolen? Only those who have managed to retain at least some of theirs will know the answer to this one. Common sense has been stolen from us by those who forced us into political correctness. Wherever they encountered it, these people took it away from us. No-one is allowed the freedom now to analyse anything for themselves and come to their own sensible conclusions anymore - to use their own common sense - as we are told precisely how we must react to everything and every situation. We have become little more than a nation of zombies, unable to think for ourselves and just going through the motions of life like some bored repertory actors. However, with Gordon Brown's pledge to bring back competitive sport for our children, there is a slight glimmer of hope on the dark horizon. It needs to be grabbed and nurtured.

Common sense has always said to me that the winners are likely to be the best ones to do the job. Political correctness has for decades taken away competitiveness, so we have never really known who was best - we just guessed, or waited for a palm to be greased! School sports were banned in case those not good at them should feel inferior, and so too for a long time, and for the same reason, were many school examinations. Where common sense said everybody should have equal opportunities and achieve what they could from them, political correctness said everybody should be equal. The former is an admirable concept and is easily attainable; the latter is an utter impossibility, unless we are all dumbed down to the lowest possible denominator.

Political correctness is on par with communism: we are all equal, except we find some are far more equal than others - and they will be the ones who make up the rules. If you still have your common sense with you, it will be immediately apparent that, under this system, those least able to do a good job of making the rules are equally likely to be those doing just that job. Is it any wonder we are in such a state today?

Isn't it about time we threw out political correctness, and started using some common sense? Equal rights for everyone under the law - yes! But an equal (downtrodden) people, where one size fits all - no! We are all individuals. Our Creator made us that way, and no man has the right to change that!

Key political concepts

Pragmatic view of power

Origin of the word (Politcs comming from the latin: poly, meaning many, and tics, meaning blood sucking creatures)

Samuel Gompers' maxim, often paraphrased as,"Reward your friends and punish your enemies,"^[4] hints at two of the five types of power recognized by social psychologists: incentive power (the power to reward) and coercive power (the power to punish). Arguably the other three grow out of these two:

Legitimate power, the power of the policeman or the referee, is the power given to an individual by a recognized authority to enforce standards of behavior. Legitimate power is similar to coercive power in that unacceptable behavior is punished by fine or penalty.

Referent power is bestowed upon individuals by virtue of accomplishment or attitude. Fulfillment of the desire to feel similar to a celebrity or a hero is the reward for obedience. This is an example of incentive power as one rewards oneself.

Expert power springs from education or experience. Following the lead of an expert is often rewarded with success. Note that expert power is conditional to circumstances

Politics

Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.

Politics consists of "social relations involving authority or power" and refers to the regulation of a political unit, and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.

Political science (also political studies) is the study of political behavior and examines the acquisition and application of power. Related areas of study include political philosophy, which seeks a rationale for politics and an ethic of public behavior, and public administration, which examines the practices of governance.

The Dead Confirm Obama Benefit Details

The surviving members of the Grateful Dead have fleshed out the details regarding their upcoming benefit for the Presidential campaign of Senator Barack Obama. As previously reported, Bob Weir, Phil Lesh, Bill Kreutzmann and Mickey Hart will perform together for the first time since 2004 on October 13. The group has now confirmed that the benefit will take place at State College, PA’s Bryce Jordan Center, with the Allman Brothers Band and an undetermined opening act also set to appear. Confirming numerous reports, guitarist Warren Haynes and keyboardist Jeff Chimenti will augment the core members of The Dead.

Last February, Weir, Lesh and Hart performed together for the first time since 2004 at a Deadheads for Obama show held at San Francisco’s The Warfield. In May, Weir also joined Phil Lesh & Friends onstage as part of the closing of the Warfield celebration. At that performance, Weir helped Lesh and his band through “Cream Puff War,” “Morning Dew,” “New Minglewood Blues” and “Viola Lee Blues” as part of the group’s recreation of the Grateful Dead’s self-titled debut. Hart and Weir have also shared the stage a few times in recent memory, most notably in Golden Gate Park as part of the Green Music Festival.

Though reunion performances are scarce, the members of The Dead have played together a few times since 2004. In 2005, all the core surviving members of the Dead sans Phil Lesh shared the stage at the Comes a Time benefit. A year later, Weir, Hart and Kreutzmann collaborated with former Grateful Dead vocalist Donna Jean Godchaux-MacKay at Gathering of the Vibes and, in early 2007, the three musicians performed with Haynes and an assortment of guest musicians at an inauguration party for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. If the October 13 benefit goes well, The Dead is expected to tour in April and May of 2008.

Presidential Candidates '08 - Where They Stand

Without doubt it's important to vote in the upcoming 2008 U.S. presidential election, yet it's even more important to cast an informed vote. This means comparing presidential candidates in terms of where they stand on the issues – fortunately, this is something which is easy and simple to accomplish on the Web, if you know the best online resources.
One might hope that, this time around, the Internet will loosen up the decades-old stranglehold TV has had on the public consciousness where presidential voting is concerned. After all, do we really want the next president to be the candidate who makes the best TV impression during debates, Sunday morning talk shows, and randomly-reported sound bites?
No, of course not – it's the candidate's position on major issues that's really most important to us. But at the same time, keeping each of more than 15 candidates' positions on issues straight can be like trying to juggle four balls while balancing a banana on your nose – particularly since some of them have an unfortunate tendency to alter their position on certain issues in mid-campaign.
Television is fine as far as getting a sense of the “presidential-ness” of the candidates and a feel for their leadership qualities. But it's not so fine when you need to understand exactly where each one stands on the major issues of the day vis-a-vis the other candidates. This is where the Web can help, and it does the job quite well.
Issues Quiz
To begin, check out your current knowledge of the candidates' positions with this brief quiz --

Using a word processor or piece of paper, record what you think are the positions of some or all of the following candidates on each of several issues, then go to the Issues Grid (http://websearchguides.com/issues_grid.htm), prepared by PoliticalBase.com.
Suggested Candidates: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John Edwards, John McCain, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee
Corresponding to each candidate, indicate “for,” “against,” “strongly for,” or “strongly against” for each of the following issues:
1.Minimum Wage
2.No Child Left Behind Act
3.Iraq War Withdrawal
4.Affirmative Action
5.Universal Health Care
6.Legalized Abortion
7.Same Sex Marriage
8.Social Security Reform
9.Free Trade
So how did you score? If you're like most people, you didn't do too well, but this is definitely information you need to familiarize yourself with before casting your vote.
Of course, you need not totally agree with the Issues Grid developed by PoliticalBase.com. For example, the Issue Grid's representation of Clinton's and Edward's positions on “Social Security Reform.” as “strongly against” seems to me to need clarification. (Note that you can click on the issues in the left column for elaboration.) So I suggest that you review this Issues Grid with caution and look also at some of the other Internet resources discussed below.

NEW YORK TIMES ELECTION GUIDE (http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/index.html)
Probably one of the more objective and thorough e Internet sites for comparing presidential candidates is that of the NY Times. (Incidentally, a NY Times Online subscription is not needed to access the material.) On the home page you get the following info on each candidate:
Topic Page - (Books he/she authored; Books about him/her; Selected NY Times articles on candidate (e.g., there are almost 4000 listed on Clinton); Biography
Blog Posts from the Times' Politics Blog
Detailed Profile of the candidate
On the left sidebar, notice the heading “ISSUES.” At present the issues covered are: Abortion, Climate Change, Health Care, Immigration, Iraq and Iran. When you click on an issue you go to a page providing a general briefing on the issue, then specific position quotes on the issue from each candidate.
Of course all of the above can take you hours, maybe days, to plow through, unless you target specific info. If you're looking for quicker, easier overviews as a basis for comparing the presidential candidates, try the following comparison tool.

COMPARE CANDIDATES TOOL(http://thebostonchannel.com/compare-candidates/index.html)
WCVB-TV in Boston has come up with this “Compare the Candidates” site, and it's so good it may turn out to be all you need – at least, for making your initial decision. Start by scrolling down the page and select two candidates, one on the left side of the page and a second on the right. Let's say we pick Clinton and Giuliani. Presto, there are their photos, a link to their bios, and their policy positions (as construed by WCVB, anyway) on Foreign Affairs, Iraq, Homeland Security, Immigration, Economy, Education, Energy, Climate Change, Health, Social Security, Stem Cell Research, Same Sex Marriage, Abortion, and Gun Control.

Political Integrity: an Example out of Africa

We live in a cynical age where the values of truth, honesty and integrity seem to be in short supply. We are therefore always looking for examples of such values in action, especially with regard to politicians.

I would like to offer you such an example from Africa. You have probably never heard of this man, but for me he stands as a true model of integrity. It's not Nelson Mandela, but Mr. Mandela would certainly be proud to have his name mentioned in the same breath with him. His name is Julius Nyerere.

Julius Nyerere was the man who led then Tanganyika, today called Tanzania, to independence from Britain in 1961. Unlike many other independence movements, this one succeeded without a single drop of blood being shed.


I had the privilege of living two years in Tanzania shortly after independence. Being a city boy (I grew up in Los Angeles), for me Tanzania was quite a revelation. I virtually lived in a mud hut, suffered through a drought, saw leprosy, and contracted both malaria and dysentery. All of these things affected me. But getting to know Julius Nyerere as a political leader was truly a life-changing experience.


When Nyerere became head of state in 1961, he was so popular that he could easily have taken on the trappings of a king or potentate. But he did exactly the opposite. He chose to live very modestly, because that was his nature.


More importantly, he inspired confidence in everyone, and never betrayed that confidence, because that also was his nature. He of course had political enemies. They were often critical of his ideas and policies – but never the man. The worst I ever heard anyone say about him was, “President Nyerere is doing all the wrong things for all the right reasons.”


Julius Nyerere was a realist riding a wave of idealism.


For example, shortly after taking office, he cut the salaries of all government ministers by 20-50 percent, including his own. Although by world standards these ministers very poorly paid, by Tanzanian standards they were very rich. Nyerere argued that such a poor country simply could not afford to maintain its government in such a lavish style. Any minister who refused the cut was invited to leave the government, and a number of them did.


In the 1960s, the first thing a newly independent country wanted to do was set up a national airline and rush to industrialise. Nyerere was different. He concluded that Tanzania could not become truly industrialised for at least a century. So instead of devoting all its energies and limited resources to trying to build an industrial base, it made more sense to strengthen its agricultural base.


This meant reforming the schools. Instead of turning out potential clerks, shop assistants and middle managers for the cities, the goal should be to turn out scientific farmers. These would then go back to their villages to teach their compatriots, who were mainly subsistence farmers.


Advocating this was close to heresy. Most people felt that the purpose of going to school was precisely to escape from the backward rural villages. There was considerably opposition to Nyerere’s idea, but ultimately it was implemented.


As a Peace Corps teacher in a boarding school, I could immediately see the difference. Suddenly, we were required to start a school farm and to grow much of the food the students would be eating. The students didn’t take kindly to having to do manual labour, but eventually the protests subsided and farming became part of the daily routine.


At roughly the same time, Nyerere looked at Tanzania’s university students, who were the elite of the elite. It is important to understand that there were only about a thousand university students in the country out of a population of nearly 10 million because Tanzania had virtually no educational base. At the age of 6, less than half the children were in school. There was a severe examination to go from primary to secondary school, which nearly 85 percent failed because there just wasn't any place for them. So those who reached university were by definition the elite of the elite.


Nyerere noted that it took the total annual income of 78 Tanzanians to keep one university student in school for one year. To help cover the costs, he proposed that on graduation each student give two years to public service.


Once again, rebellion; the students went on strike. Once again, Nyerere stood his ground, declaring that as much as the country needed university graduates, it needed true Tanzanians more. He therefore closed the university for a year and sent the students back to their rural villages to rediscover their roots. Those who received good reports from their village headman were allowed to return the following year.


A neutralist during the Cold War, Nyerere was basically a man of peace. However, he could take military action when the situation called for it. For example, in 1978 he sent Tanzania troops into neighboring Uganda to oust the notorious dictator Idi Amin, who fled into exile.


When he retired as head of state in 1985, Nyerere took on the role of roving diplomat and peacemaker. Because he was so trusted, he was invited to mediate disputes all across the African continent. For instance, he was instrumental in bringing an end to the slaughter in Burundi in 1996. He also worked tirelessly to put an end to apartheid (racial segregation) in South Africa.


Nyerere didn’t look like the consummate leader he was. He was rather small and had a bushy little moustache that made him look like a chocolate Charlie Chaplain. But when he spoke and when he wrote, you knew that you were in the presence of someone special. He was affectionately known as “Mwalimu”, Swahili for teacher, which is what he was before going into politics. This was a sign of respect, not reverence.


I am not a very emotional person. But when Julius Nyerere died on October 14, 1999, I felt a sudden emptiness in me. It was as if something good had left the world. And it had.


Nyerere was a devout Catholic and in 2005 he was proposed for beatification. He is currently under consideration for canonization, which is one step away from sainthood. I don’t think I would put him on such a high pedestal. I didn’t necessarily agree with everything he did. But I never doubted that it was always for the best of reasons.


Every time I hear his name, I still feel the same emptiness I felt on the day he died. So if you are ever tempted to say that politics and integrity don’t mix, please remember Julius Nyerere. You will never find a better model of integrity, either in politics or in daily life.


Philip Yaffe is a former reporter/feature writer with The Wall Street Journal and a marketing communication consultant. He currently teaches a course in good writing and good speaking in Brussels, Belgium. His recently published book In the “I” of the Storm: the Simple Secrets of Writing & Speaking (Almost) like a Professional is available from Story Publishers in Ghent, Belgium (storypublishers.be) and Amazon (amazon.com).

There is No Business Like Political Show Business

Sen. Obama trotted out Oprah. Sen. Clinton put her family on display, including former President Bill, and she teared up in New Hampshire. These are just the warm ups for the main political show of election 2008.

Gov. Huckabee had Chuck Norris at his side at numerous events. The Chuck Norris appearance with Gov. Huckabee was not as extensively covered by media as were the Oprah and Clinton family events. Sen. Clinton's choking up on camera was shown over and over and over just prior to New Hampshire. It gave her the boost she needed from women voters to grab a close win after being upset by Sen. Obama in Iowa.

The campaign trail will increasingly be like going to the movies or watching the "tube" as Hollywood tries to take advantage of the lazy voters among us. Most recently, Boston Legal on A.B.C. took some strong swipes at the Bush administration and the Iraq war. They attacked the National Guard as well. This propaganda will be seen more and more on TV in the coming months.

Let's look at the Obama-Oprah and Clinton family events.

Sen. Obama proudly proclaimed that the turn out for one Obama-Oprah event was the biggest turnout for a political event ever for any candidate in this campaign. Yet, after Oprah gave a rousing speech, people began leaving the stadium in droves while Sen. Obama was making his speech. Obviously, star struck Oprah fans came to see their idol and could care less about Sen. Obama's views on the issues of this campaign.

To counter Oprah, Mrs. Clinton put family members on display as if to say - "Family values, not star power, are more important to me." Well, that should be the case in every election whether it's a Democrat, Republican, or Independent saying it. The truth, however, cannot be hidden from active voters. The love affair between the Clinton's and Hollywood is well documented. Hollywood money is being poured into the Clinton campaign, along with advice about how to influence star-struck voters.

The only bright spot in media thus far has been Charlie Gibson and A.B.C. News for putting on the live debates. The debates were largely balanced efforts to give voters some solid information from the candidates. In my opinion, the Republican debate was much more lively and revealing than was the Democrat debate. I was disappointed that Sen. Clinton's claim to offering "35 years of change", as qualification to be President, was not challenged by an opponent or media.

You may think that I am anti-Clinton, anti-Obama, or anti-Democrat. I really don't care about political party affiliation, male-female, or black-white-brown-yellow, or Christian-Mormon-atheist-agnostic.

While I am decidedly conservative, I do not lean toward the G.O.P. In fact, there are conservative Democrats and Independents, too. At this point, I haven't begun to decide whom I will vote for. To be honest, I am not impressed by any single candidate of either party. Likely, as it always does, it will come down to the lesser of two evils. But, I will vote because, if I do not vote, I will have no right to complain about my government.

So, what is my motive for this article?

I am antagonistic toward any group that attempts to manipulate the electorate by virtue of money or star power. These are the people we need to guard against and any candidate who makes deals with any special interest group should be crossed off our list of choices.

Think about it. Will Hollywood moguls and other power brokers not expect something in return for their support if their candidate wins? And, can the candidate ignore them once in office? No, not if he or she wants to be elected to a second term in the White House.

Hollywood's agenda is the most dangerous one for America. They want the government to leave Hollywood alone so they can promote their liberal agenda and make piles of money. They claim the rights of "free speech" and "artistic freedom". In fact, it's all about the money they make by appealing to the basest leanings in our human nature. The more unfettered are the movie moguls, the more tickets and DVD's are sold.

If Hollywood gets control of the White House and Congress, look for laws regulating them being watered down or repealed. Look for violent crime and drug use in the movies and on television becoming even more graphic because the movie and TV rating systems will be scrapped or watered down. The result will be a society that will increasingly believe there is no right or wrong and will no longer be hindered in satisfying the basest of desires at the expense of others.

Perhaps you think I have gone off the deep end and see a demon behind every bush. My answer to that is simple - "When in doubt, shout it out!" I would rather find that my fears are unfounded than have to admit I knew the truth and remained quiet.