After part 2 was done I was half expecting a little blow-back from people who weren’t willing to accept my descriptions of the public school environment. I figured there had to be a few folks out there who believed their public schools weren’t that bad, and I was fully prepared to admit they could be correct. Under the
rules of logic you can’t take a few specific examples and then declare they apply to an entire population, so I am still ready to believe there must be some schools out there, possibly only in Utah or small-town America, where the atmosphere isn’t quite so toxic. In fact, I must confess I am desperately hoping there are. Alas, I am starting to believe my descriptions aren’t all that surprising. Well, it’s either that or nobody wants to believe them. (Yeah, I know there’s a third, and even better reason, but now that I’ve started this thing I have to pretend somebody is going to read it).

My anecdotes may not be exactly the same as what other people have experienced, but that does not make them any less true. The whole point is they are hardly unique. Maybe some of the incidents I
describe are more extreme than what other folks witnessed, and it’s more than
likely there are people out there who endured even worse incidents, but the sad
truth is there are plenty of folks out there with very similar experiences to the ones I mentioned, who do not even perceive these events in the same way I do. I see this
as an overall degradation in the way kids are being raised and educated, but
many others I know see this new environment for kids only as a modern rite of
passage. For them the path to adulthood is obtained by letting the kids run
wild, without very much supervision, and the expectation is the children will somehow
grow up normally – apparently after they’ve indulged in enough sex and drug-use
to discover what their limits are.

Personally, I believe there is a lot
of selfishness and laziness behind this method of raising kids. By just leaving
the kids alone to do whatever they want the parent also is now free to do whatever
he or she wants. Plus, the hard work of enforcing rules upon the children is no
longer required. After all, it’s a lot easier just to say you trust your kids
than it is to deal with the childish shouting they’ll throw at you.

What I don’t understand is these
‘helicopter’ parents who are so worried about their kid’s safety they hover
over them during soccer games, and even job interviews, but they don’t have the
same level of concern when their kids go out all night. For that matter, why do
these same parents go off on weekend trips and believe they can trust their
teenagers to behave properly while there are no parents in the house? If you
fall into that category, why don’t you go around the neighborhood afterwards and ask what
happened while you were gone? It’s a pretty good bet your neighbors will tell
you a few things about the loud party your kids held.

Not only are there far too many
parents these days who aren’t paying attention to what their kids are doing when
it really matters, there are far too many people in this country who aren’t
paying attention to what liberals are doing when it really matters. The modern
day adults are completely happy to believe everything is okay as long as nobody significant is making a fuss. As far as the perception of the overall condition in our country
goes, good or bad, these folks are more inclined to believe what they are being
told than what they are personally experiencing. In fact, a thirty second
commercial or a two minute news story on TV carries more weight with people’s
perception of Life in America than any actual events going on around them. Sadly, the
majority of people don’t seem to care about such things as social decline or
how uneducated the young people really are right now. All they care about is
what they are told to care about.

Let me illustrate: For those of you
who remember the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky saga, I personally witnessed how
much the national news affected the behavior of college students. I worked for
a college at the time, and I saw how excited the students were when the news
broke about the stain being found on the dress. It was all anybody could talk
about that afternoon. That night I went home and watched the evening news. The
nationally known broadcaster covered the story of the dress, and then he
quickly followed up with a so-called study of how uninterested college kids
were over the incident. He declared the college kids were very nonchalant about it
all. They considered themselves to be too sophisticated to care about such
behavior between consenting adults, which actually made me laugh. I knew
better. I personally saw how excited the kids were over this story.

What I didn’t yet know was why that particular
aspect of the story was being presented. I found out the next day. Some of the
same students I saw the day before tried talking about the dress again, but
more than half of the kids who had been excited yesterday were no longer
interested. I actually heard them say things such as, "Oh, I’m so over that.
This story really doesn’t interest me. I simply don’t care what consenting
adults do." Just that quickly I saw how effective the TV media was in brain-washing
people. All the newscasters had to do was tell the kids they weren’t supposed
to care, and the very next day the kids suddenly didn’t care.

Yes, television is a huge factor in
the way things are different now. When I was a kid the shows were all rated G,
but they weren’t labeled as such because they didn’t need to be. TV programs either
met the expected standards of decency or they didn’t get aired. Truly, the
biggest complaint anybody has ever made is too many of the old shows were
violent. Yeah, that’s funny. A few people getting shot with no blood is too
violent, but doing autopsies of gunshot victims on CSI is what, educational? Please excuse this next unintentional,
"dog-whistle", type racist remark, but isn’t this a case of the pot calling the
kettle black? Aside from which, those so-called violent shows from the old days
always emphasized the difference between good and evil. The bad guys always got
caught and punished, but that is not the case anymore. All too often now the
murderers are the heroes of the show.

I suppose the real thing liberals
hate most about the old shows is how often God and religion were incorporated
into the stories. I recently watched an old re-run of Bonanza in which Wayne
Newton sang an entire hymn inside a church. Horrors! My heart fills with dread
when I think about all the kids today who may have accidentally seen that show and
weren’t able to get counseling afterwards. How are they supposed to cope with
such shocking sights? Thank heaven there are so many other shows out there
glorifying promiscuous sex and rampant drug abuse. If a left-leaning parent has
good reflexes, and the channel is changed quickly enough, the child’s pliant
mind can easily be cleansed before it’s too late. Simply offer up enough vulgar
language to get the kid giggling and all socially unacceptable scenes involving
religion will soon be forgotten.

Personally, I don’t see the harm in
presenting an occasional religious concept, especially in shows set during a
time when religion was an important aspect in the everyday lives of people, but
leftists behave as if ideas about faith cause them physical pain. Geez Louise,
it’s enough to make you think these scenes must burn their eyes like acid or
something. I don’t know, perchance it does. Maybe the effects upon their eyes
are so severe it makes all the bouncing bosoms appear blurry. In that case I
must express a little sympathy. Lord knows I’d
get upset if I couldn’t see nipples clearly enough.

Seriously, though; what was so bad
about keeping TV family friendly? The shows weren’t all violent. Many of them
were comedies, and some of the programs about families actually helped kids
learn the problems in life aren’t always as bad as they first seem. In fact,
the shows usually ended up showing you how correctable most problems are. If
you laughed in the process of learning these lessons, so much the better.

For some reason leftists have always
hated happy shows. They think those old shows weren’t realistic enough. To them
the world is a miserable place, and they’ve always thought it was better to
portray life in America in the same wretched way they saw it. Norman Lear has
even made recent statements using words to that effect to explain what was
behind his development of shows such as All
In The Family
and Maude. He
believes the shows he created are important because they made people more aware
of the social issues he cared about.

I’ll admit Norman Lear helped changed
TV all right, but it’s debatable whether or not he made it better. All In The Family definitely broke new
ground, but the first thing most of us noticed at the time was the toilet.
Nobody had ever flushed one on TV before. The next thing we noticed was all the
yelling. The Bunker family was highly dysfunctional. Not even Jackie Gleason on
the Honeymooners screamed this much.
Just about every episode contained a loud fight, and after a while the entire
show became too unpleasant to watch anymore.

Just ask yourself this one question:
which family would you prefer to live with, the Cleavers from Leave It To Beaver or the Bunkers from All In The Family? If you are under age forty you may not be able
to answer that question, but just go look up a few scenes from each show on
YouTube. Unless you enjoy being miserable, you’d be nuts not to pick the
Cleavers. Even if that show wasn’t realistic enough for liberals, at least it
gave people a measuring stick for determining how happy their own family life was.

Norman Lear called his portrayal of
family life more socially responsible, but the reality is it was only
depressing. As I said, liberals don’t like happiness. They always want to bring
people down. They think whatever they are feeling should be forced onto others,
and they truly feel noble when doing so.

To which I say, hey, buddy, you may
think your fecal by-product is so valuable it must be shared, but don’t rub
your crap on me and then tell me you’ve done me a favor. Keep your damned stink
to yourself! Holy mama, when it comes to annoying things, I believe I’d much rather
have a Dachshund hump my leg than have a cry-baby liberal force his opinions upon

The other weird thing about All In The Family was Archie Bunker was a
blue-collar union worker living in New York, and the audience was expected to
believe he was a typical conservative. Seriously? Has anybody ever seen a conservative
New York union man? If there ever was such a person I bet he had his own UFO.

For the sake of honesty, it should
be acknowledged some episodes of Leave It
To Beaver
, Make Room For Daddy, The Donna Reed Show and Father Knows Best were a bit hokey, and most
of the problems they dealt with weren’t as bad as what was being seen on the
evening news, but why was that a bad thing? Isn’t the world depressing enough
when you’re outside the house? What’s so bad about coming home and allowing
some light-hearted shows to take your mind off the real world for an hour or
two? After all, shouldn’t people be allowed to simply relax and laugh a bit while
inside the safety of their houses before they have to go out and face the world
again? Oh no, not when liberals are around. You aren’t allowed to be happy
until they feel happy, and, too bad for you, liberals have an unending supply
of things to keep them from feeling happy.

So, now, thanks to leftists, our
children are being fed negative messages about the United States in general,
and conservatism specifically, while they are either at school or engaging in the
use of electronic media. Since those are the two biggest places where the kids
spend any time, it’s just about impossible for them to discover there’s another
side to any issue. Unless it’s by accident, or possibly by deliberate
intervention from parents who still care, the children aren’t receiving any
positive messages at all.

This is where conservatives have
massively failed. They are giving large amounts of money to useless
politicians, and some to political organizations, but they aren’t spending much
money at all in competing in these two areas. Why aren’t conservatives donating
money to help colleges such as Hillsdale expand or to get other similar colleges
created? Why aren’t conservatives donating money to help production companies
be formed to produce better TV shows? Why aren’t conservatives donating money
to get funny commercials put on television showing how idiotic some liberal
ideas turned out to be? Why aren’t conservatives donating money to purchase a
television channel or two that will provide entertaining shows kids and adults will
like, while also showing them the things liberals want to ignore?

Beyond all else, I’d just like to
know why the hell aren’t conservatives competing at all? I wish I had enough
money to do some of these things by myself, but damn it, why aren’t the evil
rich Republicans we keep hearing about at least putting their money where it
might actually do some good? I hate to say it, but the money’s mostly wasted
when it’s only sent to politicians or the Republican Party. Candidates and
political parties are far more interested in winning a few elections than they
are in keeping the country from collapsing under the weight of socialism, and
worse, these so-called leaders of conservatism are even willing to put up with most
of the stupidity coming from the left, as long as it doesn’t affect them personally.

As it stands now the only way
anybody will ever learn anything about the true history of this country is to
go back to doing it the way I was taught in elementary school. It was only
during those few years where we were taught anything good about what made the
US special. In fourth, fifth and sixth grade we were shown the same two films
each year. One movie was The Man Without
A Country
, and the other film was an educational documentary comparing the
American way of doing things to the way things were done in other countries.

Many of the things we were taught in
the documentary are considered shocking now, but at the time nobody thought a
thing about them. The subject of the free market place was brought up, and we
were told our system not only gave us products much cheaper than other
countries had to pay, but it enabled us to produce better stuff. The whole
world wanted American made cigarettes, cars, planes, blue jeans and electronics.
Our products, including tobacco, were considered the best in the world, and we
were darned proud of it.

In fact, the film specifically said
our government depended upon the taxes gained from the sale of tobacco and
alcohol. Not only that, but the taxes were so low most people didn’t mind paying
them. This applied to everything. All our taxes were kept low, and we were told
this was why we could afford bigger and better things than the rest of the
world had. (For reference: at this time the sales tax in California was zero for anything fifty cents or less, and a penny for anything between fifty one cents to a dollar). Our houses, cars, television sets and just about everything else were superior and available in greater quantities than anywhere else on earth.

The film even made it a point to
mention how much of the world still used outdoor restroom facilities and had no
electricity. Yes, you might be able to say there was some arrogance being
displayed when we were told our way of life was better than most other places,
but we were also told why. It was because our form of government wasn’t trying
to control businesses the way socialized or communist countries did. Our way of
life enabled us to keep most of our own money, and that made everything cheaper.

Even when America was being compared to other industrialized countries, the
film still wasn’t bragging about how much richer we were. No, what it was telling us
was we weren’t actually that much wealthier than they were; we just didn’t have
to give our government huge chunks of money every time we bought or sold

To me the stuff about how cheaply we
could send letters through the mail had the most impact. However, the film was just a little bit outdated. It
stated we had gone a long time without raising the price of a postage stamp above
three cents, and it was expected we would continue to do so, but by the time I
saw the documentary the stamp had already been increased to four cents. All the same,
this was incredibly cheap. Even a pack of gum cost a nickel, and it couldn’t fly
all the way across the country.

Looking back, I can see how this
best demonstrates what the ideas leading to The Great Society really did to our
country. The cost of a postage stamp from 1917 to 1958 was 3 cents. It was 4
cents only until 1963 and by 1968 it was six cents. Sure, six cents doesn’t
sound like much, but think about what that says. We went forty one years
without change and then in the next ten years the cost doubled. In fact, the
forty one years since 1958 saw the cost of a stamp double, then double again,
and still more than double one more time. By 1999 a stamp was 33 cents. The reason this is important is because the post office is required by the Constitution to neither make a profit nor operate at a loss. The costs of postage are only allowed to be enough to pay for actual expenditures, and therefore the only reason the stamps went up in price is because everything the post office had to buy got more expensive. Every time the stamp value doubled it meant the costs of doing business doubled, and we’re talking about an agency with no sales taxes to pay.

You want to blame inflation or a bad
economy? You can’t do it. The forty one years between 1917 and 1958 saw the
American economy go through immense prosperity, extreme poverty, and back to
immense prosperity, and yet nothing in these fluctuations caused the price of a
stamp to change. Now look at the forty one years since 1958. This time-frame did
not see any massive swings in prosperity – a little up, a little down, but
nothing either up or down even close to the booms and busts America experienced
in the first half of the 20th century, and yet, despite how relatively level
our overall economy has been since 1958, our prices on everything have steadily
been going up. Why? Because the government stepped in and started
"helping" us, that’s why.

Among other things, our government
declared war on poverty, and to pay for it they raised our taxes. I don’t
remember if they also raised our taxes to pay for the space race, but I do remember
Jesse Jackson and others were complaining we should take the NASA money and
spend it on welfare programs instead. The government also decided we needed
help on our healthcare. This was something else they had to raise our taxes to
achieve, and you know the government, as soon as a tax gets created it always
gets increased. Whee! The cost of everything immediately started going up.

Nobody remembers it anymore, but the
government did try to take more control over health care in the 60’s than they
succeeded in actually getting. You could call Medicare, and the expansion of the
role insurance companies played, the
compromise they settled upon when the bigger attempt failed, but maybe it wasn’t
as much a failure as it was a stepping stone to what we have now. I remember
politicians at the time saying they would be keeping an eye on the insurance
companies for a while, and if those companies couldn’t satisfy the country’s health care
needs, the government might be forced to step in again. Seems to me that’s exactly
what politicians have been trying to do ever since, but maybe I’m mistaken.

What I’m not mistaken about is the "help"
coming from the government caused medical bills to skyrocket. For every
employee in the office a doctor once had to pay, the government and insurance
companies added at least thirty five people behind the scenes just to process all the extra paperwork
being pushed through dozens of new offices, and that was decades before Obama Care
even came along. One can safely assume the number of people pushing paperwork is only going to grow larger.

If you really wanted to get health care costs back to where they were affordable, all you would have to do is remove most of these non-medical bureaucrats. Paying them magnificent salaries doesn’t help a single person get better medical care; all it does is make the costs for that care exceedingly high. Get the government out of health care altogether, with all its useless bureaucrats making random decisions on who gets what level of treatment, and we’ll all receive better care. Moreover, it seems pretty sneaky for politicians to complain about insurance companies failing to provide adequate coverage, when the only reason they are failing is because of political interference in the first place.

You know, that’s the worst thing
about leftists. They are too comfortable with deceit. The huge escalation in
the costs of health care are directly attributable to their actions, and they
have the nerve to pretend evil corporations or the demonic Republicans are
responsible for it all. In fact, they are so good at lying they continuously manage
to convince voters to let them create new expensive programs they already know
will never work. It’s insane. The more things they destroy, the more they demand
they should be given full control. It drives me nuts. Anybody with a fourth
grade IQ would notice this fact, if only they bothered to look, or even just had
somebody point it out to them, so why aren’t conservatives working harder to get
that message across?

I don’t know, but I am seriously starting to believe
most politicians today, even the so-called conservative ones, don’t really care
about the future. They are so selfish they are hoping to get as much as they
can, while they can, and they are fully expecting to die of old age before the
country crumbles to dust. After that nothing else matters to them. Rats! Wish I was rich enough to be such an insensitive jerk. If I was I wouldn’t have to care anymore, either.

Oh well, there’s always hope the people of America will wise up in time to avoid the complete destruction of our noble experiment with freedom. Towards that end, I don’t suppose it would hurt to offer up some prayers, just in case. God knows it’s pointless to count on any politicians to do the right thing.

Until such time as liberalism succeeds in eradicating everything good the Constitution ever stood for, excuse me, I mean "fundamentally changing" our country, I will continue to say: Life to America!

0 0 votes
Article Rating