Word Play

Liberal Bias vs Conservative Bigotry

   Bias equals slant or angle, and defines a way of looking at things. Tailors use all three terms to describe how they do their work. To say some cloth is "cut on the bias" simply means it was trimmed at an angle to its pattern.
   No judgment is involved. Nor is it relevant.
   Bigotry, in contrast, is very judgmental.
   Political liberals are not as judgmental. They accept an opponent's views as  an expression of their opinions, whether they agree with those comments or not. This is not always true, of course, but it's worth setting up as a starting point for comparing the two political sides.
   Conservatives are often very judgmental about their opponent's viewpoints, and do not accept them as having any legitimacy.
   That's an extreme, of course, since not all conservatives subscribe to that attitude.
   However, many of their supporters -- the narrow minded ones -- do, and they resort to violence against those who disagree.
   In sum, all bigots are biased, but not all those who have biases are bigots.
   All this comes to mind after hearing Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis say he wants to "destroy leftism," as if anyone who disagrees with him should be severely punished. Some followers will take his comments to mean physical punishment.
   Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

Surprise! (Not)

   Late Saturday evening, Congress and the President said they agreed on a budget for the new fiscal year, just in time to avoid defaulting on payments for health benefits, government salaries and pensions for millions of Americans.
   Now they can brag about how hard they all worked on holiday weekend nights to prevent a government shutdown.
   Never mind that this could have been resolved many weeks ago. But that would prevent politicians from bragging about their hard work in the final few hours.
   Heaven forfend.
   What would society be without its quota of bragging politicians?

Democracy in Danger

   "What kind of government have you given us, Mister Franklin? A  republic or a monarchy?" the lady asked.

   "A republic, if you can keep it," Benjamin replied.

   Today, America has a problem.
   Those who consider themselves the chosen few believe it is their duty to control government for the many.
   Chosen by whom is unclear. Nonetheless, they claim that obligation.
   Historically, a democracy was a society where all citizens had a direct role in government. That may have worked reasonably well in a very small nation -- ancient Athens, for example -- but size quickly led to a system where voters chose a few to run the government while most other citizens worked their farms or other trades.
   The problem comes when those few are far outnumbered by other citizens but they refuse to accept any disagreement, and insist their way is the right way, claiming an endorsement by some higher spiritual power as proof.
   Call it righteousness.
   There are in America today a righteous few who insist they are entitled to run the government a certain way that they claim is explained to them by some Higher Power.
   Except that many others, with equal rights to vote for representatives in government, maintain that the Higher Power cited said nothing to them, or in any case it is not relevant whether or if said Higher Power intervened in current society.
   Either way, the United States Constitution stipulates that religion is not relevant to choosing elected representatives, and especially that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
   Anybody who claims they can ignore that phrase and establish a specific way to honor such Higher Power is violating the Constitution.
   As the Marx Brothers might have phrased it, "Who are you going to believe, the Constitution or some Higher Power?"
   The two cannot be mixed.
   The republic, as established in 1789, seems to be working reasonably well. Changing it threatens to cancel the unity of American states.

Budget Bigots

   Every day, members of Congress talk about the importance of finalizing the national budget.
   Talk, talk, talk.
   Each day gets closer to the time when the current budget will expire and government programs will run out of money to support military pay, civilian income, and many other financial programs that people rely on to survive.
   Except members of Congress.
   Their pay continues, even as their staff salaries do not.
   Along the way, politicians talk about how hard they're working to organize and approve a budget.
   Talk, talk, talk.
   Meanwhile, their paychecks remain steady, even as they say they must eliminate or reduce programs meant to help ordinary Americans.
   Clearly, that means members of Congress are "extra-ordinary." Which can also mean "beyond reality." This may explain why they feel entitled to ignore laws, especially those about their own personal income.
   Will this change? It might. But that depends partly on the ballot box, and whether voters decide they want someone to change the system.
   On the other hand, candidates who are elected on their promise to change the system ... usually don't.

Racist Wokism

   Denial is a dangerous disease, and wokism has come to mean blind racism.
   Wokists mock those who warn of racism in American society. But many of these mockers also support policies that contribute to the spread of racism.
   This enables bigotry to spread, since those who could minimize its spread fail in their humanitarian duty. By maximizing its mockery of the word "woke," they encourage its existence and growth.
   Simplistic? Yes, but a major goal of these essays is to translate political gobbledygook to everyday language.
   Or as someone once said, "He must be brilliant; I didn't understand a word he said."
   This is the purpose of the guideline, "If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do."
   Politicians are notorious for following this guideline, and a major purpose of this blog is to translate incomprehensible polysyllabic verbosity into easily understandable short words.
   There, I said it twice.
   Many academics and politicians, however, prefer to use long words borrowed from Latin, Greek or French rather than plain Anglo-Saxon. In turn, this is why people urge others to "say that again, only this time in plain English."
   Back to the point of this essay: By borrowing a word and mocking its relevance -- in this case, the word is "woke" -- critics deny racism exists.
   Denial is a dangerous disease.

Social Welfare

   The Great Depression struck America nearly a century ago, putting millions of people out of work without the benefit of government-funded social assistance.
   Private organizations did what they could to help those in need after families were abandoned to the hazards of trying to survive without employment. But that was not enough.
   Moreover, the collapse of the economy struck worldwide, but since people in some other countries had even fewer opportunities for employment and survival, they moved to America and took whatever jobs might be available.
   Even so, that was before the stock market crash of 1929 and the greater collapse that followed in the early 1930s.
   As a result, the federal government set up agencies and programs to help workers and reduce the problems that caused economic downturns. For decades, those policies helped.
   Nevertheless, many business leaders and their political allies want to eliminate government intervention, citing the doctrine of "free enterprise," based on the argument that an economy can only be fully when there is no government intervention, including programs that help those in need of help at the expense of corporate profit.
   We now see efforts in Congress to reduce or eliminate government sponsored programs such as those that provide aid for those out of work, old age pensions and health benefits for the sick and those unable to work.
   All these on the premise that socialism is evil. But is social welfare evil? That is the question.
   Amid all this, health care has become an industry, with private companies minimizing hospital staff and reducing wage output as a way to increase profit.
   As a result of being overworked and underpaid, many nurses and other health care professionals leave.
   Among the corporate owners, profits are more important than health care.
   In short, private enterprise is important. Greed is not.

Socialite vs Socialist

All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.  -- "Animal Farm," by George Orwell.

   Society, social, socialite, socialist, socialism, Social Security.
   Socialites are good; socialists are ungood.
   Why is one to be honored by society, and the others condemned?
   Socialites insist on their right to profit from their investments, business or social, at the expense of those they deem "lower" on the social scale.
  Socialists say all are created equal, and should be treated fairly by those who have more money, whether earned or inherited.
   The above is not true of all members of either social class, but it's a good place to start, along with the reality that both terms come from the same root. Even so, many believe socialites are good because they support themselves, while those who cannot are somehow inferior creatures because they need help.
   The labor movement began because workers were not being treated fairly by management, those who believed they were higher on the social scale and therefore should be obeyed by those they deemed their lessers.
   Never mind that America was founded on the principle that all men are created equal. For some, however, that did not include certain others who were not really men, but of some other species. Nor did it include women.
   Are we making progress? Some, but there are still many who believe certain groups are less deserving of fair treatment because they are not really equal.