Coming Up: Welcome to Post-Constitution America


You may be familiar with my great and successful efforts at turning America into “Post-Christian America.”  That was easy — most Americans were not really Christians anyway.  But my bigger goal, my most coveted prize, is to turn America “Post-Constitution.”

For all my non-American friends, bear with me.  But on July 4, at the risk of showing my cards to all, I will disclose my long-term designs on the United States of America.  I’ll give you a hint as to one of my strategies–it’s to turn the United States into the Divided States.



But what about that dang Constitution?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Tune in this Dependence Day, July 4, my friends.


28 Responses to “Coming Up: Welcome to Post-Constitution America”

  1. mazsamem7 Says:

    We await your plan, oh wicked one. Is there fire in the works? Pun intended.

  2. A century and a half ago, we WERE the Divided States, divided by those conservatives who desparately wanted to maintain the status quo. They too wailed and bemoaned the adulteration of the Constitution and the usurpation of their rights, including their “right” to “own” other Americans.

    Todays conservatives mouth their banalities with a higher degree of political correctness than was necessary back then; but, make no mistake: The underlying motivations are much the same. They would rather founder than change.

    Luckily for America, there was Abe Lincoln.

    Luckily for America, there is Barack Obama.

    The Constitution is in good hands.

    • et tu JMJ?? I always appreciate your comments, but this one has me baffled. Conservatives mouthing “political correctness”?? Not in the good ol’ DS of A, my friend. You must provide some support for that one. What is one politically correct position (banal or not) the conservatives mouth? And what, exactly, is the “motivation” you referring to? To maintain the status quo??? Really? Not in the DS of A, my friend. You confuse me.

  3. You did an admirable cut-and-paste job on my words but I can elaborate only on what I actually said.

    In fairness to you though, I did mix in some thoughts in reaction to yesterday’s(?) lament over our Government’s Judicial Branch’s upholding the work of President Barack H. Obama, Chief Executive of the Executive Branch. Does that clear up the confusion?

    I don’t understand the “et tu” business. Assuming it’s iterative of the Bard, then you’re implying a betrayal. Of whom or of what?

    By the way, America has never been truly “Christian”, ergo it now cannot be “post-Christian”. In America — past and present– religion, like patriotism, has been the last refuge of the scoundrel.

    • It’s OK to “mix in thoughts,” but those “thoughts” have still not been supported. Unless I mis-read, you maintained that conservatives mouth banalities with political correctness, right? What banalities? What political correctness? I just want to know what you consider (1) conservative, (2) banal, and (3) politically correct. Example please. Just one example of a politically correct banality conservatives mouth. And you maintained that consevatives have “underlying motives.” What are you referring to? Exactly what motive(s)? Again, I’m just curious if we are on the same page as to what a “conservative” is.

      • Thanks, recognizing that this is not my doctoral dissertation, for permitting me to “mix in [some] thoughts”.

        You are too astute to continue insisting that I defend the reworked statement you insist on attributing to me.

        However, if you find “banal” objectionable, perhaps “trite, hackneyed, shopworn or threadbare”, will do. Any or all accurately describe the alarmist, coded message imbedded in catchy phrases like, “Post-Christian America”. That takes care of #2, above.

        In this arena, I use “conservative”, alternately as an adjective or a noun, in direct counterpoint to YOUR use of “liberal”. Is that clear enough for you, now? If so, please check-off #1. If not, so as to save a little back-and-forth, please define what YOU mean by your use of “liberal” so that I can be as pointed and concise as possible in my reply.

        Regarding “underlying motives”: There are some conservatives, like Justices Thomas and Kennedy, whose methodologies are clear, reasoned and can withstand rigorous scrutiny. Then, there are others who cloak themselves in the mantle of “conservative” (or Chrisitian or pro-America) in order to hide their attitudes about, for example, women, the Brown or Black foreign-born, Muslims, homosexuals and those who know the dangers of remaking America into a theocracy.

        How else do you explain the motley hoard of conservatives who clamored for this President to produce a birth certificate…. AFTER he took over the Oval Office! The “underlying message” was, He isn’t really an “American” because….

        Don’t be coy, Devilblogger, and fill in the blank. While you’re at it, check-off #3.

        By the way, I hereby retract my earlier retraction of my unmitigated support for President Obama’s being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, it did seem premature but, really, it was simply a rare case of racial profiling working to a Black Man’s advantage. The Nobel Committee correctly decided that a Black American, who accomplished what Mr. Obama did, must, of necessity, be deserving of Universal recognition. Perhaps they saw it that way because Sweden isn’t burdened with the legacy of that Peculiar Insitution, in support of which 150 years ago, other ‘conservatives’ not only cast birth-aspersions but took up arms AGAINST the Consitution of the United States of America.

        Strange how history turns, no? Then it was conservative Democrats attacking the foundations of America. Today it is an heir to the fruits of their defeat, a New Democrat, Barack Obama, who is defending that Constitution… with the Supreme Court saying, “Good job!”.

        Must be driving new Republican consrvatives crazy, huh?

        “Conservatives”. Ya gotta love them or you gotta…. Well, because I really do believe in the Constitution, I’ll just vote.

        When you get a chance, please clarify the “et tu” remark.

        Thanks again for running this ballroom. Where else could I dance with the devil? 😉

        • JMJ — my statement is not reworked; I quoted you exactly, modifying your words only to make my question gramatically correct. But, as you provide no examples, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk up your statement about banalities to “rhetorical flourish.” But know that rhetorical flourishes persuade only when they represent fairly self evident truths. I wanted only one example of “conservatives” mouthing banal political correctness. You (apparently) put my “post-Christian” comment in that category. If that is your example, then your flourish is lacking rhetorical value–saying America post-Christian is neither banal nor politically correct. Disagree? If so, explain.

          And I still don’t know what “motives” you believe conservative operate under. Speak clearly. Spit it out. Do you believe conservatives are motivated by a (secret or hidden) hatred/dislike/arrogance toward “women, the Brown or Black foreign-born, Muslims, homosexuals and those who know the dangers of remaking America into a theocracy”? (your words, directly quoted). Be clear here.

          So, I wait in vain I suppose for your clarification. But I do genuinely appreciate your comments. You are a brave soul!

          Oh, and the “et tu” remark reflected my genuine surprise at your articulated position on these issues. Even JMJ falls for “my” deception on earth???? Really??

  4. JMJ’s apparent inability to articulate a definition of “liberal” and “conservative,” even for his own use, the point must be made that “liberal” USED to mean “less controlling government” and “greater equality for all.” “Conservative,” at that time, meant “resistant to change,” or “favoring the status quo.” JMJ obviously uses those terms in what might be called their “classical” meaning.
    It’s a very useful ploy for modern discussion, because what could be more hated than slavery? On the other hand, except as a ploy for debate, those terms are now useless and nonsensical. And they have been since JFK was president. But it is the crux of JMJ’s argument, here.
    I wish I knew who to credit this to. I’m sure I heard it first as something Dennis Prager was saying, though I do not recall who he attributed it to. The most meaningful definition of “conservative” and “liberal,” today, and granting the not-always legitimate understanding that all of us want the best for our country and our people (though clearly JMJ does NOT stipulate to this, based on his writing above, still, as reasonable people debating sincerely held beliefs, WE should) the difference is as follows:
    “Liberals” are people who tend to believe that the greatest good for the greatest number of people is attained when absolute equality, in all respects, is furthered. And they will sacrifice your freedom to accomplish this.
    “Conservatives” are people who believe that the greatest (and perhaps only) good that government can ever do is to preserve freedom, and they will sacrifice equality to accomplish this.
    Thus, Obamacare supporters bemoan the plight of the individual who is too poor, too sick, or too foolish, to afford proper health insurance, and takes away the freedom of the more responsible of our population in order to, so to speak, (re-)create all healthcare (for us ordinary people) more equally. And this GOAL, whether actually possible or not, is at its heart, admirable. It merely turns out to be either impossible or impractical, depending on whether you believe Obamacare will actually fail in practice, or simply reduce us to the level of Canadian healthcare, while increasing the costs overall for what healthcare is delivered. The result is a loss of individual freedom, but more equal healthcare across the board.
    And, on the other side, the opponents of Obamacare simply do not believe that government is going to effectively handle healthcare, and/or that the costs will necessarily skyrocket, similarly to the president’s plan for electricity, per his own words. They prefer to remain free to handle their own healthcare, make their own decisions about what level and type of services to insure themselves for. That result would have been a higher level of freedom, though healthcare would have remained superior for the rich, and the prudent, and somewhat lessor for the poor and foolish. And this GOAL is no less admirable, as some of us find a higher value in freedom than in government largess.
    The real crime, in Obamacare, so far as I can see, is not in creating the program. It is in the coercive nature of the program. Give us all a 2- year window to opt-out, forever, no second chances, and tax only those folks who opt in, and the resistance to Obamacare would melt away overnight. But that wouldn’t work, would it? It is necessary to reduce our freedoms in order to accomplish equalized outcomes, each and every time.
    Two last things: Anyone who does not believe America was founded as a Christian nation, and existed as a Christian nation for 180 years, plus, simply isn’t a student of American history, or doesn’t understand that by “Christian,” most people mean any of the mainstream historical churches and denominations that strive to follow the teachings of Christ and the traditional Bible, either of the Catholic or Protestant cannon. And, people who don’t understand how reasonable, caring people can differ on the expected outcomes, positive and negative, of any “new” program all too often are eager to assign base and selfish motivations to their opponents, whether to bolster their own arguments, or merely out of a failure in grace. Let us aspire not to stoop to such pitfalls and tactics, ourselves. Supporters of Obamacare, generally, really believe it is going to help. Opponents of Obamacare really believe it is going to damage the healthcare we enjoy now. It’s that simple, and it’s not simply ideological dogma for most people, on either side. I think that’s patently obvious, in the case of Obamacare (though not for all issues.)

    • Well said, Mike. Long, but well said. 🙂

      • The devilblogger doth protest too much, methinks. Why are you being so coy and evasive about knowing or not knowing what I mean by “conservative”? Here, you who boast about being “Liberal One”: So, when I use logical relativism to describe a conservative, how is it you and your minion plaintively and very, v-e-r-y verbosely cry “foul”?

        You devisly deigned to permit me to “mix thoughts” gleaned from earlier writings wherein you and your minions repeatedly described your being conservatives here: Why now do you wail that you will “… wait in vain I suppose for your clarification.” I am using YOUR definition and said so with these EXACT words:
        “In this arena, I use “conservative”, alternately as an adjective or a noun, in direct counterpoint to YOUR use of “liberal”.

        IF : THEN
        If your definition was clear : then my relative definition is clear.

        It is most unstatanly of you to whimper ala Oliver-Twist that, “I wanted only one example of “conservatives” mouthing banal political correctness….” Firstly, because that is NOT what I said. For those whose scrollbar isn’t working properly, what I actually said was:
        “Todays conservatives mouth their banalities with a higher degree of political correctness than was necessary back then; but, make no mistake: The underlying motivations are much the same. They would rather founder than change.”

        And, Secondly, because I gave a sterling example in the conservatives’ hero, Rush LimPbaugh, repeatedly demanding that a U.S. Senator-become-President produce his birth certificate. You and your bombastic minion are obviously very comfortable with online thesauri, so check whether that disgusting demand is not the poster child of “banality”.

        My dear devilblogger, though I cringe at the thought of offending you, you are correct when you demonically deduce that, “You (apparently) put my “post-Christian” comment in that category.”
        That banal call-to-arms is so replete with implied, coded warnings of rape, pillage, socialized medicine, legalized aliens and lions’ dens, that I simply refuse to be drawn into the shell game of describing all its permutations and combinations.

        Rather, let’s play the conservatives’ political correctness game:
        ROUND ONE: Instant Word Association:
        Inner city?
        [ ] Black/Latino neighborhood = 10 points
        [ ] Center of a city, population > 250,000 = 5 points
        [ ] Great place for an evening stroll = 1 point

        Illegal Immigrant?
        [ ] Mexican = 10 points
        [ ] Eastern European = 5 points
        [ ] Indian/Asian = 1 point

        Urban Youth?
        [ ] Black Child in a hoodie = 10 points
        [ ] Black Child in a hoodie on parole = 5
        [ ] Urbane, Cosmopolitan person under age 21 = 1 point

        B.H. Obama is an alien?
        [ ] OMG! The President is one of t-h-e-m? = 10 points
        [ ] The FBI, NSA, GOA, SSA, DMV were snookered = 5 points
        [ ] I REALLY believed that was remotely possible = 1 point*

        How many points did you and your minion score?

        Are you still arguing that you, your pleonastic polemicist and the above, self-described conservatives are immune to this symptom of division and fear in America?

        We as a Country have not yet traversed that time that Sartre referred to as “the period of negativity.” It is deucedly disingenuous for even a devilblogger to try and hold my feet to the fire (pun intended) to “prove” that we haven’t. So, I stick by my assertion that conservatives (broad brush) utter their banalities in a manner that is considered politically correct.


        * And a mouthful of soap for lying like a bad hairpiece!

        • I did not read all this. I have not asked how you define a conservative. I ask one simple thing: an example of a conservative mouthing banal political correctness. It was your assertion. I just want an example. That’s all. Your answer would tell me how you define a consevative, or it would tell me you are full of nothing but rhetorical flourish. But fret not, I have my answer.

        • You have your answers whether you choose to read them or not. And, despite my being a visitor to your abode, I will not be harangued or insulted into defending or defining something I didn’t say.

          Rhetorical flourish? Perhaps a bit more of that displayed by you conservatives before the Justices last week would have you a bit less agitated today, no? Maybe next time.

          Fret? 🙂 The devilblogger doth tend to melodrama, methinks. It’s really not that serious but I am so very relieved that you have your answer. You’re okay now? One – two… in – out…. Good 🙂

        • Fair enough. And I admit it is a bit rude to say I did not read your post. But I was not in a position to read it carefully and I wanted to respond quickly. That is usually a regretful combination. But in this case, I stand by my response, and, yes, I have my answer. I’m OK. 🙂

        • Ah, the problem becomes clear, and the explanation obvious. You see, DB, you and I both got the wrong idea from JMJ’s original post. The issue is not how he defines conservative or liberal; the issue is what he is calling “politically correct” speech.
          As I’m sure you know, DB, the term “politically correct” arose from Cold War era communist policies, behind the Iron Curtain. There was truth (something someone said which was observably correct) and there was political truth (something that was officially sanctioned as true, whether it bore any resemblance to reality or not.) So, for example, saying that “Soviet factories can’t make enough television sets to provide TV’s for the people, resulting in shortages,” might have been objectively true, but the government might toss you into a prison in Siberia for saying it. They might require that, if it was ever necessary to address the issue, it could only be said in terms of “The demand for Soviet-made television sets is very high, resulting in shortages.” That was the “political truth,” or the official “party line.” It had nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with politics.
          JMJ, however, believes that saying Obama was born in Kenya is a “political truth.” That is, it is the official position of the Republican Party that Obama NEVER be referred to as “of Hawaiian birth,” but ALWAYS be referred to as “of Kenyan birth,” regardless of whether anybody actually knows where he was born or not.
          Of course, this is just silly. There are plenty of Republicans who just don’t care where Obama was born, figuring that his mother’s citizenship made him a citizen anyway, and therefore qualified to run for president (there are a few more germane conditions that have to be met, such as living in the USA for 5 years along the way, etc., but it’s really a fairly asinine argument to get caught up in at this point, isn’t it?) And while no Republican gets tossed out of the party for taking either side of that argument, The Donald takes a LOT of heat inside the Republican Party for voicing this position too often, and too loudly. It is NOT an example of “political correctness” as the term is traditionally used.
          The other side of the aisle, though… THOSE folks know from political correct! For example, just see what would happen if some old GOP codger used the term “Negro” instead of African American, even inadvertently. For that matter, recall what happened when a white guy said “niggardly” in a conversation about BUDGETS, for crying out loud. You can’t just avoid using words that were perfectly acceptable a few years ago, you have to avoid using words that, however legitimate, even SOUND like they MIGHT be related to prejudicial term that has fallen out of favor. THAT is old school, Cold War style, political correctness. Because it has nothing to do with objective truth, known or unknown. It has to do with feelings, and whether someone LIKES or APPROVES of what was said, or the way it was said. And it has to do with trying to shape the way people think, by altering the terminology we use, like “Gay” instead of “homosexual” and “undocumented worker” instead of “illegal alien.” That’s what the concept of PC is FOR- it DEFINES the term!
          Well, at least now I can make sense of what JMJ was trying to say, even if I don’t agree with his conclusion, OR his understanding of what “politically correct” actually means. And, DB, I would bet that’s what started this whole thread. You read it like I did, with the traditional understanding of what “politically correct” actually means. And just like me, you couldn’t figure out what he could be talking about, using that term to define the arguments he disagrees with.

        • Geez! And you guys purport to be real Americans? Haven’t you at least *glanced* at The Federalist Papers? No? I thought not.

          Interminable sophistry notwithstanding, if you had, the name “James Wilson” would be familiar to you as belonging to an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Now, I sympathize with you conservatives not being particularly fond of those Folk right about now but, since he was also a Founding Father, signatory to The Declaration and a significant contributor to the Constitution, perhaps your patriotism (not the last-refuge-of-scoundrels kind) can stifle your righteously right-wing revulsion long enough to digest the fact that, in America at least, it was he who first used the term “politically correct”… circa 1790. Yeah, that’s right, in the 18th Century!

          He was long gone before Marx or Engels ever suckled lieb Frau Milch (the lactose variety, not the 12% alcohol by volume sort). So, contrary to the protracted, pointless polemic that precedes this, IT WAS NOT EUROPEAN MARXISM / COMMUNISM THAT GAVE RISE TO THAT EXPRESSION.

          Now, I’m going to be kind-hearted like the angelic Mazsamem and throw you confused conservatives a bone: If you r-e-a-l-l-y stretch the facts, you may salvage the semblance of having taken me to task with that bit of erroneous “erudition” by pretending to have been referring, not to the Cold War Era but, rather, to the bourgeois cafe society era in Germany, circa 1920. That is the earliest that I’m aware the term “politically correct” was used vis-a-vis Marxism/Leninism, communism, et al.

          “Ah, the problem becomes clear, and the explanation obvious”, he said. Thanks for the laugh.

          The only thing clear as Steuben crystal is that (drum roll prelude to a rhetorically flourishing finale….) conservatives are seriously corn-fused. 🙂 But that’s okay. In President Obama’s America, there’s a place near the hearth even for you.

  5. mazsamem7 Says:

    Hello, gentlemen. JMJ~I’ve missed seeing you here! Just want to give my take on the liberal/conservative divide. I’m a divided person. Both sides offer wisdom AND confusion. I recently opened a FaceBook account. Not sure if that’s a 🙂 or a 😦 yet. My page gets opinions from both “camps”. I get a lot of info: pro-life, pro-abortion, pro-union, pro-feminist, pro-religion, anti-religion, pro-gun, anti-GMO, pro-family, anti-LGBT people–and of course, pro-liberal and pro-conservative. Do I hate my friends/family whose opinions I don’t agree with? I just ignore “like” if I disagree. Yeah…the easy way out. 😉 I’ve got a relative who is freaking out in private messages because a friend posted a video about my ethnic background. Magyars (Hungarians) are related to the Mongolian and Turkish peoples. In my relative’s eyes, all Turks are Muslim terrorists, and all Mongols are Chinese commies. Therefore, we CANNOT be related..Plus, he’s WHITE…how dare anyone suggest such things?! I offer that example to show that opinions, whether fact-based or feeling-based, WILL cause division. Who is right in the liberal vs conservative war? I think both are correct, depending on what issue they’re arguing about. I wish we could change the world with a thumbs up-or a thumbs down. I try to apply morality to all important issues. People will accuse me of shoving my morals down their throats. Others will chime in with “but WHOSE morality”? One great thing about America is we ARE free to try to change things. Yet often that freedom is limited by who has the loudest voice or–perhaps more true–the deepest pockets. We got a mess on our hands. When HAVEN’T we? I do think the words “Christian” and “conservative” aren’t necessarily the best partnership. Some conservative sites offend me as a Catholic Christian. I go seeking…and many times, I leave offended, because once again I’m informed that I belong to the “whore of Babylon”. And liberal sites offend just as easily, because I follow a religion of old MEN whose only concern is putting or keeping women down. My closing thought is to quote my dear departed dad, “jaj Istenem”. (Pronounced yoy Eesh-ten-em). Meaning: Lord, have mercy!

    • Missed you, too, Mazsamem. 🙂 Once again, thanks for your lovingness. You truly have the gift of Music, which doth soothe the savage breast. And, just between you and me —I mean, don’t tell those two guys who are chewing on my butt– I count myself a true conservative; ie., I think that in all things there is a tension between Cosmos/Chaos, Yin/Yang, Status-Quo/Change and, whenever reasonable, personally opt for a measured, studied course of [SACRILEGE ALERT] evolution.

      Your Goodness and Sweetness notwithstanding, I came to pick a fight. ;-( So….

      My beef with those two well-written knuckleheads is that they seem to pretend to believe that the current discourse in American politics is steeped in a come-what-may commitment to the precepts of the Declaration and Constitution. When I’ve succeeded in removing the veils from their eyes, they will finally admit that too much of what passes for “honest debate” in America is really nothing more than well-financed fear mongering.

      I do have hope for them, however. At least they say what they mean, even though, in at least one case, one of them must have used up all the ink in his computer to say it.

      Anyway, really nice to see you again.

      Gotta go. That guy actually bought more ink!

      Yours eFaithfully,


  6. While the intellectual back and forth is entertaining, the issue at hand is the Constitution of the United States of America and the fact that it is being disregarded. In the upholding of Obamacare’s mandate, upon condition that it is a tax, when the bill does not present it as a tax; the Chief Justice of the United States stepped outside of the Constitutional role of the Court and made law. That is the sole authority of the Congress. And if the mandate is constitutional upon condition of it being a tax, then the law is also unconstitutional because taxes imposed upon the American people must be originated in the House of Representatives, not the Senate. The Congress of the United States of America voted for an unconstitutional bill. The President signed into law an unconstitutional bill. The Supreme Court upheld an unconstitutional bill. The bill violates the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizure of property. To tax a man’s decision to not engage in commerce is an unreasonable seizure of his income. The bill violates the 10th Amendment in that it gives the federal government authority it doesn’t constitutionally have. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The bill violates the very spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

    • Right on. Right on.

    • Greetings, Johnny McDonald, and Happy 4th !

      A tax or revenue bill must originate in the House but a bill that may/will require new or additional taxes MAY originate in the Senate. The individual mandate falls into the latter category, thereby making moot any argument concerning the legality of mandate based upon its containing bill’s origin.

      It is fit and proper for the Court to determine the nature and, more importantly, the Constitutionality, of the individual mandate irrespective of the verbiage used in its presentation or argument.

      The States’ and Federal governments have concurrent powers to tax, levy, excise, it being recognized early as The Articles of Confederation that a state or national government without that power would be ineffectual. The Court has often abridged those powers to tax, etc. I am unaware of an instance where it created a new one, which it certainly did not with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

      You assert that, “To tax a man’s decision to not engage in commerce is an unreasonable seizure of his income.” That argument resonates with me but I lay it aside when considering the following analogy: If I chose not fully to insure my car and wrecked it, you and society would feel no compulsion to fix it for me. However, if I also chose not to medically insure myself, drove that car, wrecked it AND myself, you and society WOULD feel a responsibility to fix me. Well, except maybe DB. 🙂

      Doesn’t the commonweal override our shared outrage?

      The conservatives’ Great Right Hope, Mitt Romney, thought so when he signed into law an individual mandate bill in 2006(7?)

      Although this law is flawed and the Court correctly found provisions of it un-Constitutional. However, PPACA provides a solid base upon which we can stand, argue, debate and compromise. Crazy as this Country sometimes seems, we’ll work it out eventually. We usually do.

    • Dissemble: Make believe with the intent to deceive.

      “The states, rather than the people, for whose sake the states exist, are frequently the objects which attract and arrest our principal attention… Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language… ‘The United States,’ instead of the ‘People of the United States,’ is the toast given. This is not politically correct.”

      — James Wilson
      With no cut-and-paste for effect

      P.S.: Etymology not etiology

      • Etymology would refer to the evolution of the language. Etiology would be the origin or cause of the concept we are referring to. As a theologian, I do tend to used “etiology” by default, and sometimes etymology would be the better choice, but I stand by my use, in this case. I am not discussing how the words came into being, I am discussing the idea it came to represent.

        I don’t know why you quoted Wilson, as though the quote supports your argument. It does not. He clearly indicates that he finds the example given “inaccurate,” and therefore, “not politically correct.” Did you read my earlier post? “Politically correct” in its current use is not concerned with accuracy; it is concerned with implication and presentation. That is exactly what I argued. You make my point.

      • ETYMOLOGY: the history of a linguistic form (as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found, by tracing its transmission from one language to another, by analyzing it into its component parts, by identifying its cognates in other languages, or by tracing it and its cognates to a common ancestral form in an ancestral language.

        EXAMPLE USAGE: JMJ claimed the etymology of the phrase “politically correct” can be traced at least to 18th Century America.

        ETIOLOGY: 1: cause, origin; specifically: the cause of a disease or abnormal condition; 2: a branch of knowledge concerned with causes; specifically: a branch of medical science concerned with the causes and origins of diseases

        EXAMPLE USAGE: Determining the etiology of grandiose dissembling is unlikey to be achieved by the casual observer but is better left to a forensic psychiatrist.

        CHILDHOOD RHYME (Adapted):
        “Poor little dissembler sitting on a fence, trying to make a dollar out of ninety-nine cents.”

        –Am Ende–

  7. JMJ, I did not know that the term had any preceeding etiology past the Communist use; I will look into that.

  8. Well, that didn’t take long. JMJ, the fact that some people used the word “politically” and “correct” next to each other ina sentence before 1900 does not actually apply, in this case. A quick perusal of the Internet supports my contention that your use is confused, or at least confusing. For example, just check Wikiapdeia:
    “Early usages of the phrase “politically correct” have been found in various contexts, which may not relate to the current terminology.[3][4] Examples of the term can be found as early as the 18th century. The previous meaning was ‘in line with prevailing political thought or policy’. The term previously used ‘correctness’ in its literal sense and without any particular reference to language that might be considered offensive or discriminatory. For example, J. Wilson’s comments in U.S. Republic, 1793…”

    So, just as you abuse the Bard’s “Hamlet” in this thread, you decided to use “politically correct” in it’s 18th century context? And then you conclude WE are confused by our ignorence? In that case, here’s another current phrase I like, which you can take any way you like: Oh, WHATEVER….

    But FYI, even in the 18th century context you seems to prefer, your suggestion that the Birther issue is a conservative PC position doesn’t stand, as I point out in my second post of this thread. It is not a “prevaling” position on the right.

  9. GScraper is fastest and most powerful scraper on earth, and GScraper can post to any anonymous posting platform. If you have never used this, you simply cannot imagine scrape and POST can crazy to what extent ! We are very confident of this we are willing to let you try basic version for free. These features will blow your mind! google11111111111111111111111

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: