Dear Mr. Chong: 
 
Thank you for having the courage to take the proper step of resigning from your 
government position in response to Mr. Harper's decision to recognize Quebec as 
a nation within Canada. 
 
Mr. Harper is a smart politician but I loved your response when you said, "I 
believe in this great country of ours and I believe in one nation, undivided, 
called Canada, based on civic and not ethnic nationalism."  Mr. Harper may have 
temporarily outflanked Bloc Quebecois, and the Conservatives may even win a few 
seats in Quebec, but the price for political success is too high. 
 
I am an American who only recently started to really have his respect for the 
Canadians restored when they made the Conservatives the majority party in 
Parliament.  Unfortunately, Mr. Harper may have put party before Canada.  I 
wonder what Mr. Mulroney would have done? 
 
Sir, you have my respect! 
 

Abuse of Language

Hugh Hewitt, radio talk-show host and blogger (and blog-promoter) extraordinaire, has a habit of asking journalists he is interviewing for their political affiliation. He believes that, however subliminally, it affects how reporters report. Of course, only a few of the liberal Democrat-leaning reporters will declare their party affiliation or who they voted for. They claim that they are able to report objectively regardless of who they personally favor politically. They go through their entire lives publicly masquerading as political eunuchs. Of course, their friends and close acquaintances know. And, the unwashed masses, even the not-so-smart ones who may be stuck in Iraq, are able to figure out that they voted for Gore and Kerry.

Just for the record, I’m proud to claim to be a conservative and I’d be untruthful if I didn’t also claim to be a Republican, although there’s a lot less pride in that claim.

Unlike a Larry King or a Christiane Amanpour or even a non-journalist like Jay Leno, I am willing to acknowledge my politics. You know what I am. Do you know what Dan Rather and Katie Couric are? You probably do but not because they were candid and forthcoming but because the vast American public is not as stupid as they would like us to be. But do you know what a particular AP or Reuters reporter is? Well, frankly, you don’t and they collectively influence our thinking a whole lot more than yours truly does.

About the need to know reporters’ political affiliation, Hugh Hewitt, of course, is right (no pun intended). The bias of left-leaning journalists comes through, often in the most subtle yet insidious of ways. I’ll point out just one. The use of the word, “conservative.”

A pet peeve with us conservatives is how the term is used to encompass types of people who we do not relate to or who we would never associate with. Often, these people are closer ideologically to the liberals than us. I’m not trying to imply that the liberals are any more willing to be associated with them than we are. So, why does the press constantly associate us with these “conservatives” in this manner?

Much though I’d like to suggest a weakness in their vocabulary, these are professional writers who must understand the English language enough not to inadvertently make this mistake repeatedly. Look at the following examples (I don’t have exact cites but they can be found easily enough):

* The remnants of the Nazis and their sympathizers in post-war Germany used to be referred to as “conservatives.”

* The wahabis and salafis of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic world are often referred to as “conservatives.” Interesting, that a media that cannot find the terms “Islamic radicalism” or “Islamic jihadism” or “Islamic fascism” or just plain “Islamism” in its lexicon finds the term “conservative” fitting to those followers of Mohammed who preach murder and forcible conversion.

“Desperate to escape domestic violence, forced marriage and hardship, scores of women across Afghanistan each year are committing suicide by fire. While some gains have been made since the fall of the Taliban five years ago, life remains bleak for many Afghan women in the conservative and violence-plagued country, and suicide is a common escape.”

OK! I’ve had it! Ms. Tang, who generally writes in precise English for the AP on Far-Eastern issues, is not going to get a pass from me on her misappropriation of this word. She had a choice of words but she went for the easy slur on modern-day conservatives. I’m willing to challenge her political credentials because I don’t know any conservative who would refer to these cultural retards as “conservative.” I fully expect her to say that her political leanings are none of anyone’s business so long as she does not let them creep into her writing. But, it does and it has!

Now, if you believe that this vulgar abuse of the term is just a mistake or a non-derogatory use of the word, let me ask you how many times you’ve seen the term “liberal” used in a similarly inappropriate fashion. For example, have you heard of the “liberal” application of corrosive acid by Saddam Hussein to his antagonists, or the “liberal” length of the sentences meted out to Chinese dissidents or the “liberal” use of fossil fuels in the factories of India? Of course, not. The liberals in the media would never use a word they have respect for in such a way.

Freedom of Speech vs. Freedom to Disapprove

Reuters (11/10/06) reported the story of the student trustees at Orange Coast College barring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at their meetings:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Student leaders at a California college have touched off a furor by banning the Pledge of Allegiance at their meetings, saying they see no reason to publicly swear loyalty to God and the U.S. government..........The move was led by three recently elected student trustees, who ran for office wearing revolutionary-style berets and said they do not believe in publicly swearing an oath to the American flag and government at their school. One student trustee voted against the measure, which does not apply to other student groups or campus meetings........."That ('under God') part is sort of offensive to me," student trustee Jason Ball, who proposed the ban, told Reuters. "I am an atheist and a socialist, and if you know your history, you know that 'under God' was inserted during the McCarthy era and was directly designed to destroy my ideology."

Orange Coast College describes itself on its website as:

Orange Coast College, located in Costa Mesa just minutes from Southern California’s beautiful beaches, was founded in 1948 with an opening day enrollment of 500 students. In the years since, it has grown into one of the nation’s largest -- and finest -- community colleges, enrolling more than 28,000 students each semester. Featuring exceptional facilities and the latest in computer and high-tech equipment, OCC offers more than 130 academic and career programs, including one of the nation’s largest and most acclaimed public nautical programs. Nearly half the students on campus are enrolled in one of OCC's career and technical programs.

Furthermore, Orange Coast College ranks first out of Orange County's nine community colleges in the number of students it transfers to the University of California and California State University systems. Over the past decade, nearly 16,000 OCC students have transferred to UC and CSU campuses. Additionally, many Orange Coast students go on to transfer to private colleges and universities within California and across the nation.

Orange Coast College offers fall, spring, and summer classes. The fall and spring semesters are 16 weeks in length. Fall classes begin in August,with late-starting classes commencing in September and October. Spring classes begin in January, with late starting classes commencing in February and March. OCC's summer session offers six and eight-week classes which begin in June.

The college is fully accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges.

Oh, to be 18 again and be able to attend classes at Orange Coast College.  I profess that I don't know much about California community colleges but I always thought they were extensions of high schools for the spoiled youth of California.  Two years of surf and fun before getting serious and going to a four-year college.  Again, I profess that I don't know much about the California higher ed system but I think you do two years of community college and then typically do another four years at a four-year college to get an undergraduate degree.  Oh, to be young again and in California.

Reuters reports that:

The right to a public higher education comes from the generosity of the taxpayers and financial and other support from the private citizens in the community.  No one can abridge the right of the radical students to their free speech.  But, the taxpayers and the community can start questioning the reckless use of their money by Orange Coast College.  At the very least, we can expect the college's administrators to express their disappointment with the actions of the student trustees in no uncertain terms.

The Two Americas

America isn’t divided into two countries along the lines that John Edwards claimed during the 2004 Presidential election campaign.  Rich vs. poor was, pardon me, a poor way to divide America although it was rich in demagoguery.  Yes, the Democrats have a fair number in their party who are poor but they also have many of the richest in their midst.  They don’t have a stranglehold on the common man either, given the numbers of rich entertainers, athletes or trial attorneys they count in their fold, or the number of highly-educated college professors, school teachers, and journalists who appear to me to mindlessly follow the party line.  Even the ultra-rich Gates, Buffett and Soros are Democrats, if they were to be honest about their sympathies.

The Republicans have more than their fair share of rich business people but I wouldn’t try dividing the country by rich vs. poor because it ends up being a tie (or just a slight advantage for one side or the other at best).  The two Americas are divisible along other lines – although John Edwards couldn’t make a cheap political slogan out of the way the country is truly split.

The first America is made up of people who live their lives every day understanding that their rights and success derive in large part from the grace of God.  They value their freedoms under God and, difficult as it may be, they are willing to bow to the rights of others.  They see their freedoms disappear every day, not in a supposed abridgement of constitutional rights during a time of war, but in vanishing rights such as the right to hunt or to smoke in public or, even, in semi-private, for that matter.  They are willing to fight for their hard-earned rights.  They are also not willing to sit idly by while their religious freedoms are taken away today – by so-called civil libertarians – and down-the-road – by Islamist terrorism and outright conversion.

The other America also nominally subscribes to an almighty God but they are able to relegate His role in their lives to fit a series of minor gods.  These are the gods of welfarism, equality of outcomes, abortion-on-demand, environmental intolerance, and moral relativism.  This multi-deism ultimately leads them to passivity toward those who would harm us.  For example, they are willing to see America as a bigger threat to the world than the Islamic fascists or Chinese imperialism.  And, giving them the benefit of the doubt, when they don’t see it exactly that way, they are comfortable voting for those who do see it that way or are willing to lead the country in the direction of appeasement and surrender.  The problem with the lesser gods is that they contort the internal differences to such an extent that they are unable to see the external threat.  To them the threat of global warming is greater than the threat from global Islamism.  They are able to accept the religion of global warming without scientific skepticism.  They are further able to explain the cause of global warming as a man-induced phenomenon, a result of American corporate and personal excesses, when they’re being charitable to George Bush.  Otherwise, didn’t it all begin with the demon W?  Doesn’t the real threat to the world come from an increase in the temperature of the ice caps rather than some imagined threat from Muslims-gone-haywire?

The reason that we should focus on the threat to our civilization as the first America does is that all our values are derived from that civilization.  Our religious, our moral, our political, our social, our cultural values all come from that civilization.  It is impossible for the first America to comprehend life in a civilization that rejects all our values.  The other America obviously doesn’t think of it in those terms because if they did they’d likely find themselves in the first America.  In fact, as many have pointed out, the other America would find themselves quickly devoid of the ability to worship at the altar of the array of lesser gods in case they were subjected to Islamic or Communist Chinese hegemony.

Abortion would be impossible under Islamic law and would be state-directed under Chinese law, particularly if the fetus was on its way to becoming a baby girl.  The excesses of environmentalism would not be opposed on rational grounds as it is today by the first America but it would be rejected without debate or recourse to rejoinder.  And, the right to believe in moral relativism would die an early death because morality would be an irrelevant concept and the state or the mullahs would force uniformity of thought and action.  The right to believe in moral relativism (even though the first America rejects it as a valid code of moral conduct) is a right derived from our civilization and does not exist in religious or statist totalitarianism.  The irony is that it is the other America, with so much at risk, that is willing to be an unwitting victim of this impending totalitarianism. But, why?

For one, the other America may simply not believe the threat from external forces.  If that were true, it would clearly justify the other America’s continued focus on their minor gods.  Their sense of an absence of a threat would obviously account for their lack of a sense of need to refocus on a threat cooked up by Bush and the neo-cons.  The problem with that rationale is that 9/11 and the succession of terrorist activities both before and after 9/11 have made the threat clear enough.  The threat is only increasing with the passage of time as the Islamists seize on the weakness of the West.  Another possibility is that the other America doesn’t see the threat as developing to the point that it would jeopardize our very civilization and existence.  The problem with that outlook is that the threat to our way of life is more scientifically provable than the threat of global warming and the other America is entirely willing to buy into the latter.  A further possibility is that the other America believes that it is easier to avoid the confrontation by simply ignoring it.  Maybe, it’ll go away if we’re just nice to them.  Also, why waste our efforts on a “generational” war that may last more than one generation.  Life’s too sweet and comfortable to mess up with the reality of a war.  And, again, what if we were to give up a little of our wealth and power?  Wouldn’t that make it all nice-nice?  Finally, it is possible that the other America simply cannot see beyond its irrational current hatred of Bush and the first America.

Regardless of the reasons for this willingness to defend our civilization from the external threat, this unfortunate division of America is more real and damning to its future.  For in a democratic political structure, the first America will pay the price – an extremely severe one – for the errors of the other America.