Allan's Perspective is not recommended for the politically correct, or the overly religious! (Some people have opinions, and some have convictions ..., what we offer is Perspective!)

My wife is right, I am anal retentive...., so now I keep a can of WD-40 next to the toilet! (Sometimes I feel like I'm just a bobble-head on the highway of life!)

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

I'm not so crazy after all!

Dear Readers:

Image result for orator clipart gifAs usual, the silent majority of 80 - 90% of the population is being drowned out by the vocal 10 - 20% who think they should be in charge of stuff!

One of the best examples of the tail wagging the dog is the 'politically correct' group, who would gladly impose their brand of Utopia on the rest of us!

Here's a couple of examples:

Image result for south park caitlyn jenner clipartMembers of the LGBTQ community expressed disappointment and outrage their numbers are not counted in the 2016 census. (The survey does track same-sex marriage and common-law relationships. But for the rest of us -- the single, widowed and divorced -- the statistical tool widely relied upon to plan social programs and community services makes no reference to sexual orientation.)
 On a side-note here, if I was a cross dresser, or wanted to pull a Caitlyn Jenner and get my dick cut off ......, (Oh wait, he didn't get it cut off, he left it there just in case!) I think I would keep it on the down-low!

Then there's the sticks and stones argument that's brought up every year or two in Parliament!
Before we consider the merits of Liberal MP Mauril Bélanger’s bill to change the words of O Canada, can we at least agree the bill is the issue?
Image result for orator clipart gifThe bill would alter the second line of the anthem, the one expressing the singer’s desire that Canada should command true patriot love “in all thy sons,” to read “in all of us” instead. Bélanger’s is far from the first attempt to correct the offending line: there have been private member’s bills aimed at making the anthem more “inclusive” going back 30 years or more. None has passed. When the Conservative government briefly floated the idea in the 2010 throne speech, it retreated in the face of a massive blow-back from the public.
And how does the meaning change things, you ask?  It’s too simple to say usage, for behind changes in usage are changes in circumstances, and changes in attitudes. 
Image result for orator clipart gifThe literalist, by contrast, is convinced that words lead change, that by changing the words we use we can change opinions. Yet the attempt more often results in heaps of disused euphemisms.
In the present case, the literal, exclusive meaning of “all thy sons” long ago gave way to the inclusive. As such, its continued usage is not a contradiction of the principle of the equality of the sexes, as now enshrined in law across the land: it is a reminder of its triumph.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-debate-over-o-canada-lyrics-is-about-language-not-gender-equality

[These S.O.B's aren't above playing dirty pool either folks, the latest author of the bill, Mauril Bélanger has a case of terminal ALS, and his proponents claim that failure to pass this legislation before he dies is somehow a personal attack against him!]