Tilting the Scales

It seems that a federal judge in Port Chester, New York, felt that the lack of Latino representation in village trustees warranted providing each Hispanic in the village with six votes: Residents get 6 votes each in suburban NY election. That's right, not just one, not even just two, but six votes each. This, according to Judge Stephen Robinson, will put the village more in line with the Voting Rights Act. In other words, in order to ensure that the village elected Latino representation sufficient to account for the fact that half of the village is Latino, a federal judge provided that half of the population with six times the number of votes. In what level of hell does this make any sense to anyone?

Of course, for those who think it does make sense, perhaps you'd like to institute similar lunacy for other underrepresented members of society. After all, more than half the voting public is female, yet female representation is significantly less than that of male representation. Of course, until at least ten percent of all elected officials are openly gay, we should provide the gay community with as many votes as it takes to get their fair share of elected representation.

This is yet another example of social engineering twisting the intentions of a fair and open voting system by attempting to manipulate the outcome. Instead of inspiring greater participation by the Latino contingent of Port Chester's voting public, we'll artificially create an environment where the outcome is “fair”. Rather than seeking more Latinos to run for office, we'll simply ensure that every Latino who does is given a downhill path toward selection.

And what of the non-Latinos in Port Chester? When all the trustees are now Latino (assuming, of course, that at least six run for the positions), where will the voting rights of non-Latinos be? Will the next step be to have this federal judge, or other “impartial” third party, make all the selections for this post? Stranger things have happened. At the very least, I think I know from where our current President's next Supreme Court nominee will be coming.

Spin Cycle

There is that overt, institutionalized form of newspeak known more commonly as political correctness. Then there is the other form of newspeak better known as spin. The minuscule difference between the two is the nature of their delivery.

Political correctness is built around the belief that society can be manipulated. While the stated goal (i.e. a more enlightened and empathetic populous) might be fueled by good intentions, the intrusion into our lives is nothing short of sinister. Just as Orwell predicted, the ultimate aim of this modern newspeak is to rid the world of negative thoughts. While I'm not advocating negative thought, I am also not a proponent of, nor a believer in, the manipulation of societies. Such a power, regardless how well intentioned, is just as prone to abuse as is the most lethal of weapons and potentially far more dangerous. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the affects of such efforts can be short lived at best due to the fact that such programs cannot ultimately change human nature.

As for the second form of newspeak, it is perhaps less sinister because it is not limited by a particular ideology. In fact, there are examples of this art being exercised on the same populous to sell the same product from opposite sides of the political spectrum (e.g. the Justice nee Patriot act). This form of newspeak convinces us to support things like "fairness", "progressivism" and "life", all things which, separated from their contexts, are easily supported.

The "fairness" doctrine proposes to force radio and television outlets to provide equal time to opposing political and social opinions. Who wouldn't support fairness, particularly when it comes to politics? However, who is to determine what is fair? Is the measurement of audience size meant to be included in the comparison, or is the measure meant to include only time? Are we to assume that one political view point gets less time because it occupies times of higher viewer/listener-ship? And who is to objectively measure on which side a given viewpoint should be counted? Were a libertarian to be speaking, should he be counted as liberal when advocating legalization of drugs but conservative when touting the need for smaller government, or should he be simply silenced for failing to be easily categorized?

Progressivism is a similarly misleading term. Again, who would be opposed to progress? But this is simply a label placed over the prior term "liberal", meant to convince us that the intentions of the political left are positive and progressive. Similar to the other form of newspeak, progressivism proposes to force the human race to advance toward a higher form despite human nature.

Even the seemingly innocuous term "life" has been abused for the advancement of a cause. Those opposed to the premature termination of pregnancy inform us that they are pro-life. Well, who isn't? I don't know anyone who doesn't want to be alive, despite what life has often thrown their way. Of course, the term is meant to imply that any proponent of abortion is anti-life. Somehow the term anti-choice didn't stick to these people.

I'm not foolish enough to believe that such marketing of causes is soon to end. However, I would hope that more people would become aware of the intent when signing onto such causes. People will forever be mislead by the words being used as long as they permit themselves to be.