Is It Time To Revisit The Dictionary?

Every time I make a purchase these days, it seems the person working the register will ask me to swipe my card. I always want to retort "Why should I swipe what I already own?" or "Madam, do I look like a thief to you and what is this card you mention?" Being an ancient man (like Melvin Roarke), I remember when swiping something meant you stole it or tried to. I wonder if any of these debit/credit machines have a slot on the side. Would that mean I should "side-swipe" the card to get the correct screen?

One of my favorite word whipping posts is the word "perversion" or "pervert". It has lost all reasonable meaning in common dialogue. In current earth orbit, if a guy compliments a woman on her figure, he is often labeled a pervert. If he says, "That stupid woman almost ran me over", he's misogynic and a woman basher and probably a pervert, for good measure. If she happens to be of a different race, he's most certainly racist, and god help the fellow if he's straight and the woman is transgender. He should be killed or at least arrested, according to what bologna is currently being shoved down our collective throats.

I want to explain myself here with a couple of examples. Recently, a 21 year old college student "lady" accused the hip hop artist Nelly of assaulting her on his tour bus in Washington state. Never mind that she went willingly into the lair of a spider, is of legal age, and the fact that she now refuses to testify, the artist is still being investigated for rape. No one is accusing him now, but he is still a rapist! Think about what I am about to say.

Nelly is a hip hop artist whose biggest hit is "It's getting hot in herre (here). The lyrics tell you to take off all your clothes. So, why on earth would a young "lady" get on his tour bus alone with him, unless she understood what was most likely to happen? It is akin to placing your hand in the jam of a door and slamming said door. Your chance of injury is 99%.

Given the choice of taking a cab, or a shortcut down a dark forbidden alley in a known mugging area to save a few bucks, which one would you take? If you are an attractive female (and you know this because men are attracted to you) and a famous/rich person sends their lackey to ferret you out to visit them in a private audience, why would you go? You think they want to make small talk? If you do, you are the definition of both naiveté and ignorance. Do I think you deserve to be molested? No, but just like the dark alley, somewhere in your pea-sized brain there should be a warning going off.

There is a giant difference between entertainers who party with girls willing to party and sexual predators like Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein and there is a bit of difference in these two. Bill Clinton would and probably still does send out lackeys to lure women into his bed according to their own testimony. He occasionally would offer them good paying jobs.  Mr. Weinstein pretty much made it mandatory that if they were going to work in Hollywood, they had to pass the gold standard. Neither of these men are perverts. They like women and they use their positions to coerce them.

Now, let's talk about a pervert. Bill Cosby. Bill used his fame to get in close to many beautiful women in the Playboy Mansion and then... he doped them. When they would wake up hours later, they would have no memory of what happened. Bill is a classic pervert. He's the real deal. The women he "dated" knew they were playing with fire and if they would have been smart, they would have seen him as a "dangerous alley at night time", but they went with him anyway. Did they deserve to be drugged and molested?  No. Were they there on their own admission and not coerced? Yes.

Words like racism, misogyny, Fascism, predator, and perversion are being manipulated by extremists to the point that they are losing their true meaning. Anyone who uses these words needs to drag out their dictionary and relearn what they either never knew, or have forgotten. When we as the public hear politicians and angry mobs screaming these words, we need to recognize their misuse. It might not be a bad idea to read that last sentence again.

 .

You ain't seen nothing yet!

I remember when people failed a grade in school they had two options. Go to summer school, or repeat the grade. If they tried out for the cheer-leading squad and didn't make it, they had two options. Try again next year or try something else. If they applied for a job and were denied employment, they either went and took a couple courses to sharpen their skills or they applied for a different job doing something else.

If they attempted to join the Air Force and for some reason were denied entry, they went to the Navy and then the Army and as a last resort, they became Marines (no insult intended or implied). Not everyone will make a good Marine and my hat is off to them for their mission. My point is, they applied around until they got satisfaction.

How many times in a working career do we experience failure to get a position we believe we not only desire, but deserve? When we don't get it, what is our response? Do we become antagonistic and combative or (egads) subversive? Would we rather see the whole business collapse than move forward without us being in the position we felt we should have filled? Do we whine and cry and rally everyone we can persuade to overturn the decision or wreck havoc to show the travesty?

Are we so self assured and righteous to believe that only we can do the job to the point that we would physically strike the other person or wish them and their family harm? Should we hire a attorney to go after them, or a blogger to put into motion a constant barrage of slander against the person who did the interview or better yet, the person who was chosen over us? Would we refuse to accept defeat even though we clearly were not selected, elected, but rejected?

Would we justify our actions by believing everyone got it wrong, but us and those who supported us knowing full well, it would make the company, school, or business less effective because of our well planned public stunts? Would the end justify the means, even if it meant dividing everyone against each other? Would creating a hostile situation satisfy us or be acceptable restitution because we were not selected?

Whatever happened to just accepting the fact that we were not chosen and either go back to the drawing board, or find another occupation?  Why is it, that people who claim to be accepting of almost anything and everything are so outspoken against other things to the point that they turn to violence to get their message across. They claim to be champions of human rights and the first amendment, but they behave in just the opposite manner when arguing their point. They demand to be heard, but scream down anyone who won't agree with them. They proudly crash into assemblies rudely shouting out "My team is better than your team", but pummel anyone wearing a button, hat, or t-shirt with the opposing view stamped on it.

But the greatest weapon they possess is using the misogyny or race card to slander anyone who has the ignorant temerity to disagree with them. This automatically buys them time, as the very implication of this heinous malady makes the person guilty in the eyes of other people like them and for the most part, the Press. Never mind that many people on both sides of the argument do not reach for actual facts; they just follow. What, me read? Why should I read when I can listen to Limbaugh or Pelosi? They will tell me what to think, right?

It's sad, sad, sad days we are living in when people don't have enough moral and ethical history to think for themselves. This is why if you were to pull a random protestor out of any hostile group and have them explain whey there are really protesting, it would be a joke. It would sound like this, "It is history man! I mean, like, look at all the people out here making history!" "What are you specifically protesting against"

"Racism, misogyny, hatred, violence, repealing Obamacare, man!" "Do you have insurance?" "Heck no!  I can't afford it!  Now stand back.  Watch me throw this brick at that racist!"

No, sadly, the day when people backed up, licked their wounds and went quietly into the shadows are gone. They would rather release the dogs of war and rip apart the throat of the nation than let things go a different way than they would have chosen. The liberal and tolerant idealism is a facade that many people sincerely believe is a benevolent philosophy.

The traditional definition was a person open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values. The new definition is one who wants to tear down traditional values and replace it with radical change and do both at any cost.