Conservatives Fear Progressives

Grrr....the older I get, the more I dislike conservatives. It's not that I love liberals more, I just hear more and more godawful bullspit from conservatives & it makes me go toward the liberal side of things. During CPAC, which has been dubbed "the Conservative Woodstock" (because, like Woodstock, the "message" is incoherent & quite possibly formulated under the influence of drugs), conservative politicians spewed a message of hate against so many groups it's freakin' ridiculous. They listed their "enemies", which didn't just include out-and-out liberals, but also a slew of others including progressives. Glenn Beck (who is quite possibly my least favorite person on the planet) tried to explain (again, incoherently) why we should hate progressives.
What the hell?! Progressives did so much for this country! It was the progressive movement that pushed for child labor laws; it was progressives that pushed for an 8-hour workday, a minimum wage, & safe working conditions; it was progressives who pushed for the public libraries where Beck claims to have educated himself on the inner-workings of government. Glenn Beck said, "You know how I learned all this? I educated myself; I went to the library--it's free, people!" No, Mr. Beck, libraries are NOT free; they are paid for by taxes and are community-owned. According to your own definition, you are a communist. I wish I had some way to make sure he would read this blog because someone needs to shame that man into silence (assuming the moron is capable of shame).

TSWRA & slightly more fluffy controversy

TSWRA stands for "The South Will Rise Again," something that is said (not chanted, as a chant is defined by repetition) at the end of "Dixie, With Love" when it is played at Ole Miss football games. There has been quite a bit of controversy over the phrase, opponents stating that it is a throwback from a racist past; supporters of the phrase claim that it means something different now, that it represents all that the South could be--they claim it's been redefined as a battle cry for progress.
Which group better defines TSWRA is not important; what is important is the University's official stance on the issue: any student caught "chanting" (I've already went over why it's not a chant) this phrase will be punished. What "punishment" is exactly has not been specified: it could be something as simply unpleasant as being escorted from Vault-Hemingway Stadium or it could be as severe as a fine (the bane of every student's existence) or even expulsion. The chancellor has reserved the right to dish out any of these punishments by not saying how students will be disciplined for their participation in saying TSWRA. This is a problem.
Another problem is the restriction of free speech inherent in this sort of stance. Racist or not, progressive or not, shouting out, "THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!" is every student's right as defined by the Constitution. The bleeding hearts will tell you to have compassion on those who used to be oppressed under the phrase; I say that if men can constitutionally speak out on abortion (something that is supposed to be a woman's right), I should be able to voice my opinion concerning my own right to shout whatever I want at a football game. This phrase has been screamed out in Vault for 7 years & only now that we have a new chancellor is it being brought up. And people thought our former chancellor was being unreasonable with the taking away of Colonel Reb. Yeah, that was pretty stupid, too, but at least it was within his right. Colonel Reb was a school emblem, therefore, he could do whatever he [the chancellor] wanted to with the mascot. TSWRA is not an official school anything; it was started by the students in 2002. This means that the university should have no control over it.
The most valid reason I have heard over banning TSWRA is that we will lose funding, but even this is a weak arguement. It would be like calling for the disbandment of CAN because a pro-war financier of the university was offended by its activities on campus. It's bogus. If someone is anti-Constitution (which you are if you agree with the unreasonable restriction of freedom of speech), then I don't want your money anyway. I'd rather pay more tuition (especially, admittedly, since I don't pay my tuition--ironically, the government does) than have my rights restricted because some people think it's wrong to not hide "the bad South," as TSWRA has quickly become associated with, in a closet & pretending it didn't happen. I'm not racist, I just don't believe that the freedom of speech should be restricted because someone finds it offensive.
Now that I've gotten that bit out of my system, I'm onto slightly less dire sources of controversy, such as the ending to Breaking Dawn. Many people believe that the ending would've been better served with a death; I disagree with every fiber of my being. I'm not normally an HEA kind of girl, but I felt this was the most appropriate ending to the series. Someone on a discussion board actually suggested that Renesmee should've never been born (which is pretty common, even though I think it's rather bogus) and that Bella & Edward should've sacrificed themselves for their family. WHAT?! That's like letting the bad guys win. Even if Edward & Bella's family defeated the villians or the sacrifices they made directly caused the villians' downfall, it still wouldn't have felt like victory to me. "Well, it's the last book, might as well kill everyone," is J.K. Rowling's style, not Stephenie Meyer's. If Bella & Edward would've died, I would've taken my copy of Breaking Dawn back to the store & demanded that they let me exchange it for something a little less lame and sold my copies of the other books on Amazon. I wouldn't have ever been able to see the Twilight Saga the same way again.
I feel terrible for not updating in weeks like I haven't, but I promise, I will start updating more often. Life just keeps getting in the way of my blog updates--ugh, stupid responsibilities.

Socialism

This word comes up alot today, so let me give you the definition: Socialism- economic theory that supports government ownersip of the production and distribution of goods and services. Social Security and Medicaid are not socialism, they are entitlement programs; government REGULATION of business is not socialist, it's smart because business owners will never do the right thing unless there are consequences for being corrupt, greedy sons of bitches. When conservatives think business practices will be regulated they scream, "SOCIALISM, THAT'S SOCIALISM!" because of the stigma connected with the word. You want to know a horrible socialist program that someone, somewhere in this great nation is using every day that it's open? The United States Postal Service...that's right the Postal Service is a socialist program (Amtrak is too). No one bitches and moans about the Postal Service being socialist, but it is; the United States Postal Service is government ownership of the distibution of the mail. FedEx and companies like it exist, but unless you specifically take your mail to FedEx (or a company like it) to have it shipped, your mail is picked up and dropped off by the United States Postal Service.
Now I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I'm just making a point: people try to label things socialist that aren't while everyone takes advantage of things that are truly socialist without batting an eyelash. Just remember: before putting a label on something, make sure you're actually using the label correctly and question labels when you think someone might not be accurate in what they're saying.