HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 11, 2003 The trend amongst liberals today is to fall into one of two categories: The historical liberal and the CD liberal. Let me explain the differences. The historical liberal is one who is concerned about the equal rights and privileges of others. They are the champions of the downtrodden and tend to embrace the philosophy of the Social Democrats. We have come to associate them with big government and government assistance programs designed to help the “have-nots” at the expense of the “haves”. Individuals like this have been the historical backbone of the Democratic Party for generations. It is probably fair to characterize the historical liberal as someone who is concerned about his fellow man and society in general and would like to see everyone doing well. In that regard, they would be in agreement with the average historical conservative. Where they differ is by what means this end should be accomplished. Historical conservatives believe in making opportunities for all and rewarding diligence and hard work. They also want equal rights and privileges for all as long as the responsibilities are equal. They tend to believe the downtrodden deserve opportunities and a “hand up rather than a hand-out.” The historical conservative has been the backbone of the Republican Party for generations. There have always been snake-oil salesmen and outright crooks on both sides of the political spectrum. There have always been opportunists who care only about winning and maintaining a public office. However, a certain faction has been growing larger and larger on the liberal side that threatens to either totally change or completely destroy the Democratic Party. It is the CD liberal. The CD Liberal The CD in this case stands for “Callous Disregard”. Such people have a callous disregard for the lives or well-being of others and are totally focused on self. Self-fulfillment rather than selflessness is their motto. Allow me to make my case: Lately we have heard this charge being uttered: “…………poses a threat to a woman’s right to choose.” But the phrase is never finished. Right to choose what? The “right” to choose to kill an unborn child. Once we have accepted this as a “right”, where does it end? Will we begin killing newborns who demonstrate unacceptable mutations or syndromes? Will we begin killing off the elderly who can no longer fend for themselves? How about 2-year-olds that refuse to mind their parents? Teens that are in rebellion? How can we begin to make the murder of children part of our “rights?” Is this in any way a benefit to society? Some may argue that having a child at the wrong time of life may hinder or ruin the opportunities of the pregnant woman. But she had a choice to either use birth control methods or simply abstain from sex. Nevertheless, there are childless couples all over the country that spend months and years and hundreds and thousands of dollars hoping to adopt a baby. In almost every case, there is only one benefit to the killing of the unborn. It is the benefit to the selfish and/or careless mother. The availability of abortion on demand in this country allows women (and men!) to be promiscuous and uncaring. It tends to degrade the fabric of our society in which the standard family unit is the foundation. Abortion on demand also downgrades the value of human life. If life in and of itself is not immensely valuable, then the value of life is going to be judged by other factors such as appearance, money, talent, power and so on. In such a society the “have-nots” are not just at a disadvantage, they are in danger! Another CD liberal cause is to legally equate same-sex coupling with the traditional marriage partnership. The push to legalize “same-sex marriage” in states like Oregon and Hawaii and the California legislation to give same-sex couples the same benefits as married couples is the tip of this iceberg of disaster. While the CD liberal pushes hard to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality, the rest of the deviant world stands poised to take advantage. Frankly, if our standards of morality are legally sundered, there is no definite stopping point. Sex between consenting adults becomes sex between consenting individuals. NAMBLA certainly applauds this trend. If it is okay for a man to have sex with the man next door, why not the boy next door? How about the 8-year-old girl next door, as long as she is consenting? After all, it just might be that my sexual orientation is only towards grade-school children. Then what do we do with the Necrophiliacs? (Obsessive fascination with death and corpses. Or, Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with corpses.) Are we not discriminating against them? How do we condone one deviant form of sexual orientation without opening the door to all of them? The CD liberal has succeeded in taking many historical liberals along with them. By tying their particular selfish causes in with historical causes such as assistance programs and environmental issues, the CD liberal has co-opted the vote of liberals in general. Do not most liberals seek to keep abortion legal? Do they really understand why? If the pregnant woman is allowed to say, “My body, my choice” then why do we not allow the wealthy businessman to say “My money, my choice” and refuse to pay taxes that give aid to the poor? If the liberal is dedicated to the common good, they must see that the needs of society far outweigh the convenience of a woman who has gotten pregnant and doesn’t want the hassle of pregnancy or the burden of caring for a child. Please don’t wave the “back-alley abortion” hanger at me! It is not true that making abortions illegal makes criminals out of innocent people. Should we make bank robbery legal so that bank robbers are not discriminated against? How dare we force poor crack addicts to go to the streets to get their fixes? What right have we to criminalize wife-beating and rape and murder and even speeding in an automobile? The answer is that a civilized society must have a code by which it will live. The must be a moral foundation that is accepted by society that we might have a chance to live together in harmony and peace while pursuing our lives. The CD liberal desires to destroy the accepted codes and mores of our society simply to gratify their own selfish desires. They should, in fact, give up the guise of “liberal” entirely. They are actually self-centered, self-indulgent and self- seeking: they are selfish! So, Hilary? Abandon the Democrats and take those who think like you along with you. Take the members of NOW and NAMBLA and others of their ilk and form the Selfish Party. Tell it like it is and get all the constituents you can muster. But the time has come to be honest about it and rid the Democratic Party of your vainglorious rantings. ------------ About the author Kimbal Ross Binder: Erstwhile gym-rat, former independent driven by disgust for the Democratic Party into the arms of the Republicans, current parent and expert at puns, jokes that make people groan and eating Debbie's cooking. Mr Binder lives out in the boondocks of NW Indiana. Email Kimbal Ross Binder: radar@eternalisp.com Comment on this column in the forum. ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
