Last Post On Meaning of Liberal (Part 3 of a series)

Okay, so I'm closing this series of posts on the topic of language, media and the meaning of 'liberal' -- and, by extension, 'conservative.' This subject needs to come to a point where I can leave it for a good...long...time. Aaah, now let the headiness commence.

First, on language, media, political implications of the 'liberal' meme, political implications of the 'conservative' meme, blah blah blah. Mainstream Media (MSM) types like Blitzer, Hume (I know, why do so many millions watch FoxNews and call it legitimate NEWS???), Stephanopoulos, Russert and Couric; and right-wing media (RWM)types like Hannity, O'Reilly (ick - FoxNews again), Drudge, Coulter and Malkin form a sort of critical mass in the collective (un-?)consciousness, and all misuse the term 'liberal' to describe the political left, both noun (person) and adjective (quality of political philosophy); and 'conservative' to describe same on the political right. Okay. Please don't be pissed off at how mechanical this sounds, I have Asperger's Syndrome and tend towards the literal at times, bear with me. Still, I have a problem getting branded a 'liberal' as something derogatory, this pisses me off. It has (maybe not so much now, with Pelosi et. al. flexing some muscle) become a linguistic sword of Damocles coming down too often on politicians of the lefty sort (Democrats). And, for too long, same politicians have run away from the 'liberal' brand and looked ridiculous, and ended up losing elections anyway. At the same time, 'conservative' is looked upon positively, more distinguished, serious, mature, polite, statesman-like, whatever: 'He's a true conservative on this issue, therefore he is the serious candidate, someone you can trust...She is JUST TOO LIBERAL on that issue, she can't be trusted.' That sort of thing, what you hear over and over again come election time.

Let me try to end this somehow by asking...How? How did this come to be? And Why? Why are politicians running away from the L-word? Was it the Sixties? Is it just out of expedience? I suppose, in the end, as some have pointed out to me -- who the fuck cares? Words are things that can mean one thing to one person at one moment, and something else to someone else in the next, and on and on. We do our best to communicate with whomever it is we need to communicate. And we choose certain words we feel will resonate the most with the group to whom we are communicating. I'd like to hear one of the Democratic candidates (it is almost axiomatic it will not happen on the Re-thug-lican side), when asked during a primary debate -- as happened to John Kerry -- if he or she considers himself or herself a liberal, to just say, yeah, what's it to ya, 95% percent of Americans are, and this is why... That would be great. That's all. Just fucking do it, stop hemming and hawing, and be truthful. One could counter with something like, 'Oh, you mean providing armor for the troops in Iraq, making sure they are well-rested and that new troops are well-trained before sending them over -- is that what YOU would call liberal? Because I would.'

And so would I.

End scene and...fade to black.

Blacksburg: We Have No Right To Be Shocked

How many times does this need to happen before we wake up? I'm so pissed off at headlines shouting Evil! Maniac! Sicko! (read NYPost, FoxNews, + other various Murdochian amphibian outlets) describing this guy Cho. Oh, pleeeease! Yeah, he was pathetic, miserable and a sociopath, I get it. Oh yeah, he was also a young male. Ooooh, that was not supposed to happen! Fucking fuck of all fuckosity, just stop the moralizing blather about how heinous this was, because we've seen it before, way too many times.

For Christ's sake, it's about our pathetic lack of any sensible gun laws -- and I'm just talking state level, never mind anything on the federal level! We just let a ban on assault weapons expire, and for what? You can't even sue gun companies, or check records to see if suspected terrorists have bought guns. The stupid NRA is way too organized and has stopped way too many common-sense measures from becoming law. Politicians have cowed to them like sheep and the result is 30,000 gun homicides per year in this country. This is embarrassing let alone shameful. In Virginia, you can buy a gun with no questions asked once you turn twelve -- TWELVE! Does not the Brady Law apply here? Someone educate me.

In 2004 not one major Democratic candidate brought up gun control as an issue, and I was starting to believe we should just drop it in order to win some western mountain states like Montana. But no, as long as we look the other way when someone acts suspicious, as long as we only just denounce instead of look for ways to prevent gun violence, this will continue. And it will get worse. So, what I'm looking to see from Obama, Clinton, Edwards et. al. is sensible gun control proposals that go beyond Brady and actually address where all guns are sold, namely gun shows. Where, of course, there is a loophole to the Brady Law. We already know Decider-Monkey Bush will have no part in fixing this problem -- his "solution" is to arm everyone. As if that would solve the problem of protecting yourself in a split second against someone armed with a semi-automatic weapon already pointed at you. Fucking should-have-been-impeached-by-now idiot.

Should we be shocked? Yeah. Can we be, at this point? Memo to most major media: no, no, no! Get on with talk about gun control -- hint: we need it. The Second Amendment is BUNK!