Define the terms and control the conversation

One thing that the progressive movement has done well is to learn how to get the "rules" to favor their side.  They have done an exceptional job at creating definitions that favor their point of view and agenda.  By defining the terms, and co-opting the media, they clearly have a controlling voice in current society.

I think my first introduction to that was in one of my - shall I call it a "Social conscience"class - in my first or second year of college.  We got into a discussion over "choice" and it's impact.  I took offense that they chose such a benign sounding word for such a horrible act.  (Yes, I am pro life!). As I recall, I was the only one who spoke up about it, too.  I explained I supported "choice" as a Democratic concept, but not how they defined it.  I was not the star of the class that day.

Ok.  I get it, now.  New definition to an existing word. The term was effectively hijacked, and used to support a political agenda.

As that concept became more common place, and acceptable, new definitions crept into the vernacular.  Another example is the new use of pride.  It is a basic human desire to be proud of who one is or of what you have done, but that term has also been taken over to the extent that it no longer carries the meaning it once did for society.  It "means" now that it encompasses everything the LGBT wants it to.  Please understand I am not saying anything against them here-I am only using them as an example of driving the conversation by taking over a term.

This is not isolated to such groups or concepts.  A while back I read of a resolution, voted on and passed by a majority, that included the word "unanimous" in the title. ( I understannd this is not an uncommon ploy. )  The casual reader would read that as supported by each one rather than a majority.  So, again, define the term and control the conversation.

How about the term "affordable?"  Yes, currently made famous in Home Affordable refinance program (HARP) and Affordable Care Act.  Clue here.  When you have to put that in the title, you know it's gonna cost you!  Each of these government programs carries a heavy tax burden, and it would be a real stretch to "afford" either of these.

So, what is the point?  I guess we need to be discriminating readers - and voters - when we come up against terms like these.  We must realize how they can be manipulated to easily muddy the waters so you don't see the bottom - you only see what "they" want you to see.

Consume carefully.  Vote your conscience.  Know where you stand, and use your Super powers (your heart and your brain...) to make sense of what you hear.  Act accordingly!

Can we get another wagon, please?

How many of you will remember a theme that recurred over and over in the old Westerns about a "Doctor" selling a Magic Elixir that cured everything?  This "Doctor" parked a wagon in some prominent place and started to gather a crowd.  He would show an old man barely able to walk who would drink some of the elixir, then get up and do a dance.  The crowd would be awestruck, and flock to the wagon to buy their share.  Clearly, this was no "Doctor" and the Magic Elixir was nothing of the sort.  It was likely 90% whiskey with some flavoring thrown in.  A straight out misrepresentation of what it really was - or maybe a 10% truth???

And the wagon was an essential part of the plan.  It made for a quick get away when the people found out the truth and ran them out of town!

Fast forward to today.  We have our crowds worshipping at the feet of two Snake Oil Salesman.  Each appears to be selling their brand of the stuff, but how can one be sure that either of the elixirs will do any good?  I guess I would have to wonder about the percentage of truth that exists on either side these days.

No wagon this time. We built them a permanent residence for their time here in "town."

Each of these salesman is in it for profit, just like the salesmen in the old days.  It's all about power and agenda.  And likely neither of them is selling  a complete cure that is "good for what ail's ya."  Maybe we should take the two elixirs, mix them together, and see what we come up with!  Now there's a thought.

If there is no (or little) truth in what they say, how can you choose?

Can we get another wagon, please?

You can't have it both ways...

First off, this should NOT be considered an article in support of either Donald Trump or the GOP.  Instead, it is about the "system" and how things seem to be just a little one sided.  We selectively pursue or ignore laws when they do or do not support our political views.

This cites an article from Politicususa.com about Apple refusing to support the GOP convention in any way, shape, or form.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/18/apple-dumps-trump-refusing-provide-money-technology-gop-convention.html

A similar article on the matter is at the "Bipartisan Report".

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/06/19/breaking-apple-drops-all-support-of-gop-convention-their-reason-is-incredible-video/

Let's think about this for a minute. Apple doesn't like Donald Trump or the GOP for supporting(?) him for the presidency.  OK - that can be their opinion.  They have that right.  However, if Donald Trump or the GOP comes to them with a contract for technological support - a contractual, business arrangement - then Apple should be obligated to provide that service.  That is the LAW of the land.  If Apple is to be applauded for such a stance instead of taken to court, then shame on them - and shame on us for allowing it to happen.

IF - and this is a big IF - they are allowed to skate on this point, then the Christian business owner who is forced to or provide insurance coverage for contraceptives, or bake a cake, or provide flowers, or photograph, or sing at a ceremony for a same-sex couple, when they clearly do not agree with that type of union should similarly be applauded for their choice and stance on the matter.

Sadly, that's not the case.  Apple is being held up on a pedestal for refusing to provide a service that they are in the business of providing.  (That's being "politically correct" in the current environment.) In the other cases, the lawyers and civil libertarians and GLBT community take businesses to court to force them to provide services.  (Here, refusing is NOT "politically correct" in the current environment.)

Get off the back of Chick Filet and Hobby Lobby and similar businesses that have taken stands because of their beliefs until you see the two-faced stance you are taking.

Oh, I was wrong - If you define the playing field, and the rules, I guess you CAN have it both ways...