A friend recently recommended that I read the book 1984 by George Orwell and I was quite surprised at how much I liked it. I really didn’t like the ending of the book but up until that point I thought that it was a very good read. For whatever reason, I started to think about the concepts presenting in the book and was shocked at how much that they resembled real life.

I’m talking about the concepts of Thoughtcrime and Newspeak. For those unfamiliar with the book, Thoughtcrime is pretty much like it sounds: thoughts are deemed to be unexceptable by the standards of the “Party” or government and therefore labeled as crime. Newspeak is also like it sounds: it is the new language for all of Oceania, the country that Orwell invents for the purposes of the book (present day Western Hemisphere plus Great Britain). The language is based on English but its goal is to limit the freedom of speech for all that speak it, making a thoughtcrime impossible (because there aren’t words to describe another point of view).

So how do Thoughtcrime and Newspeak relate to real life. Certainly we have freedom of speech (and thought), right? Yes and no. We do to a point; Congress makes no law on what we can or can’t say (or think) but the court of public opinion does.

Keep a cautious eye on the five middle eastern men who board your airplane and you are having a political incorrect thought (Thoughtcrime). Or, calling a person a ‘Native American’ rather than an ‘Indian’ (Newspeak).

These are just a few of examples of the phenomenon called ‘Political Correctness’. Granted, the whole purpose of political correctness is to stop people from saying things that are mean or hurtful to a person on the basis of nationality, gender, religion, skin color, etc. I don’t think that it is a bad thing if people aren’t discriminative or hostile towards others – indeed lack of this would make the world a better place. But censoring a free person in this manner (all humans are supposed to be free) is worse than the actual “hate” that they would have said in the first place.

Getting back to the purpose of political correctness though; the whole idea is very much like Newspeak. Think, the purpose of Newspeak in the book was to make it literally impossible for somebody to think a thought that was contrary to what ‘Big Brother’ wanted that to think. Political correctness works the same way, attempting to remove words from our vocabulary that are potentially hurtful to others. If political correctness succeeds, people will have no way of insulting somebody on the basis of the aforementioned topics (not that they should, but it isn’t something that somebody should tell you not to do).

Do I think that the world will regress into the scenario described in 1984? No, the rest of the story seems utterly unrealistic to me. I just think that people would be more vocal if the their rights were taken away in the manner described by Orwell. That said, I would definitely consider this book a must read. Not only for the concepts I’ve talked about but for the other stuff as well. You’d be surprised at how many times other materials (books, movies, TV shows, even people) reference this book.

I firmly believe that all sorts of people will and should have all sorts of ideas, that they are entitled to those thoughts, and that discussing and debating them is essential to the freedom of our country.  I believe that Liberals and Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans really want the same thing (a free, healthy country) but want to go about it in a different way.  That’s acceptable; though debate, elections, and compromise we can find solutions that fit us all.

I don’t understand why Liberals try to win power by smearing Conservatives ideas and dismissing them as hateful, intolerant people.

If you don’t support Affirmative Action, it isn’t because you believe that there is a different or better way to handle things, it is because you don’t care about minorities.  You are as bad as the worst slave owner if you disagree with the liberal point of view.

If you don’t believe humans are causing Global Warming, you want the planet (and all of its inhabitants) to die.  You are just as bad biggest polluter; all you care about is yourself.

If you don’t believe socialized medicine is the best way to run the health care system, you hate poor people (and by extension minorities, since more minorities are poor).  You are just as bad as the richest, most evil CEO, who makes money off of people who aren’t as well off.  

Don’t believe in gay marriage?  Well then you are definitely homophobic, or a gay hater, or both.

Pro-Life?  You must hate women or you have it out for innocent women who are raped!  You also want to keep the status quo, that is the keeping the poor, poor.  

This line of thought is totally outrageous, no matter which way you come from.  Anyone can see that there might be some who have these opinions because of the reasons mentioned, but by no means does that represent the entire population.  For instance, I am against socialized medicine not because I want poor people to not recieve health care but because I don’t want the US Government to go bankrupt.

What happen to the freedom of expression and the freedom of opinion?  Why is that Liberals must silence critics by dismissing them as loonies?  All the stuff that true liberalism stood for (freedom of speech, equality, freedom in general) is being overturned by todays liberals who just are plain Communist.  But they want to be know as “Progressives” because they think that by stopping the free flow of ideas they are progressing.  More like oppressing and degressing.

I’ve kind of let my position on the Iraq war slip around a bit, because frankly, I’m not really sure where I stand. This note shouldn’t be considered a position but a thought. Here are my thoughts for today:

• The battles can be won by military might and genius, but the solution to a war is always political. This is why we left Vietnam, America didn’t have a political solution. What is our political solution to Iraq? Can Iraq really be compared to Vietnam because let’s face it, the North Vietnamese didn’t really want to follow us home?
• Which is a bigger draw for potential al-Qaeda membership, those American pigs are invaded the homeland of Iraqis or those American pigs don’t have the might to stand up to us? It’s simple, once people realize the world’s only super power can’t win a war they will be lining up to join; their goal suddenly becomes more accomplishable.
• Why hasn’t Iraq succeeded like Afghanistan succeeded? Both had evil dictators (Hussein for Iraq, the Taliban for Afghanistan) so why are the results so different? Afghans have succeeded because they have a sense of national identity where Iraqis are more concerned with their ethnic identity. The three factions in Iraq only want to be identified as Shia, Sunni or Kurd and not as Iraqi.
• Who can actually say the war is lost? Militarily we are succeeding; we are bringing in the terrorists everyday. It is the political aspect where we are failing. Which side of a war is more important, military success or political success? How can we succeed political when we can’t get Iraqis to develop a national identity?
• The phrase ‘The Emperor has No Clothes’ has been used by many to describe President Bush, but who really has no clothes, the people who deny the war isn’t going perfect or the people who deny that the war is necessary?
• Why did al-Qaeda chose to attack us in the first place? We even supported their cause against the Soviets (giving them all sorts of weapons they are now using against us). How can we change the hearts and minds from thinking killing innocents is ok to thinking that life is important? How can we convince them that stability is the way to move forward? How can we convince them to be civil?
• How would our motivations change if we were attacked again tomorrow? Would the war suddenly become justified again? Why are people so quick to forget that terrorism isn’t going to go away once we pull out, we weren’t in Iraq when were attacked on 9/11!
• Why do people think that our addiction to oil has anything to do with the hatred to Americans? We are pumping money into the Middle East by buying oil from there.
• Why do Extremists want to eradicate Israel and all Jews? What is the motivation by the Extremists to hate all Jews? Why do they want to eradicate anyone who disagrees with them? Why do they deny the Holocaust when their goal is to make an even bigger one?
• How do we keep the peace and keep our people safe? How do we win against an enemy that won’t reason? How do we beat people who take advantage of our freedoms and use them to destroy us? How can we move forward?
• Why can’t we move past the stupid notion 9/11 was caused by the Government? The simplest explanation is almost always the correct one (Occam’s razor).

“United We Stand, Divided We Fall”

The Definition of Conservative from the Princeton “WordNet” Dictionary:

• (Noun) conservative, conservativist (a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas)
• (Adjective) conservative (resistant to change)

People always try to pin the right saying that Conservatives want things to say the same. I wonder why, oh I know because that is what the word Conservative means. That is why I think that it is a mistake for Republican candidates to label themselves as conservative. Almost all “Conservative” candidates (all candidates really) have a plan for how they will change things when they get into office. So why should we mislead people, or otherwise let liberals mislead for us?

Republicans (not necessarily Republican candidates) typically want the federal government to have less control than than they do currently. They want less power for the top and more power to the people. That would certainly be a change from the way it is now.

That is why all people who label themselves “Conservatives” should seriously re-think calling themselves that. If you aren’t ok with the way the government is now (which many aren’t), then you aren’t a conservative.

Since not everyone has shown to understand what I am getting at here, please read my response to “Anonymus” for a deeper explanation.  Thank you!