Slinging a smooth stone
“A Rose, by any other name is still a Rose”...or is it?
By C.F. David, Editor, The Boise City News
Words, especially English words in the 21st Century can be funny. I dare you, walk up to anyone with a smile on their face, especially a man; and ask them why they are so gay. Oops, you should have had your guard up. However, the first definition of gay, the one recognized as correct according to Webster : happily excited, merry. The definition with the connotation to Homosexuals is the fourth, basically nonexistent.
Politicians and columnists from both political spectrums have been lashing out, trying to ‘tar' each other with either label, Liberal, or Conservative, whichever is derogatory at the moment.
Let's try to define conservative: first definition: preservative, second definition: of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b. capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism : as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : Progressive Conservative 3 a: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions.
Now for liberal: 1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts liberal education b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2. a : marked by generosity: Openhanded a liberal giver b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way a liberal meal c: Ample, full 3: obsolete : lacking moral restraint : Lincentious 4 : not literal or strict: Loose , a liberal translation 5 : Broad-minded ; especially: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms 6 : a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism ;
Since perhaps the 1960s, especially in this part of the U.S. called the heartland, a Liberal has been considered nearly Godless; and at or near being a Communist. However, at the same time, in the Soviet Union, a good Communist would have been considered to be a conservative, resistant to change of the status quo. A citizen of the Soviet Union who had been caught petitioning for more freedoms and the relaxing of the restraints placed by the government, would have been...a liberal.
In Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan before and during WWII, a good citizen would have been...you guessed it, conservative; liberals were targeted as among other things, Communists.
Politics isn't a rainbow with Liberals on the left and conservatives on the right. It's a circle; they are more alike than different.
At this time in our nation's history, we don't need fingers pointing from across the aisles in Washington D.C. We don't need “Conservative congressmen, columnists and reporters, accusing their “Liberal” counterparts of using politics when discussing U.S. treatment of prisoners, or vice-versa. There should be no politics involved.
Let's get real, we entered Iraq on the pretext of “liberating” them; let's define liberation: 1 : the act of liberating : the state of being liberated 2 : a movement seeking equal rights and status for a group.
It says nothing in that definition about torture and humiliation; it says nothing of perhaps beating 30 or more individuals to death to get information. It makes no difference that Saddam killed millions; it makes no difference that this is war. In using that excuse, should have the U.S., not just imprisoned American Citizens of Japanese ethnicity, but Germans, and Italians as well during WWII?
If war can be used as an excuse, should we have had our own Final Solution? WE are better than that; or rather we should be.
Those acts of violence; of which it is my opinion were ordered done; have done more to destroy whatever chance we had for a fragile democracy in Iraq than any bomb dropped on Baghdad.
The word for the week is partisan.
Boise City News