Wednesday, February 24, 2010


That used to be General Electric's slogan.

Every time I saw or heard it, I responded, "Gee, I remember when it was light bulbs."

Most of us would agree that progress is a good thing, as long as the progress is in the right direction; that is: making things better.

Very often, however, certain groups take a word and change or adapt it to mean what they want it to mean, quite apart from its true meaning.

"Marriage" is one of those words.

Since its beginning, "marriage" has meant the union of a man and a woman. In recent years the homosexual community has usurped the word to include the partnership of two men or two women.

So the moral of the story is: When you don't like the meaning of a word, just ignore or change it. If enough people do so, the word comes to mean what the user(s) want it to mean.

One who believes in progress toward a better product, in the way General Electric meant the term in their advertising, might be called "progressive." That term would indicate that the person believes in improving the product.

In 1912, politicians, specifically Theodore Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" Party, stole the word to make it define a movement " dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics."

The Bull Moose Party was a split off from (are you ready for this?) the Republican Party!

The term "progressive" has gone through several etymological alterations, and today it is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies.

We are at a point where "progressive" and "liberal" are almost synonymous.

Still, there are some differences between pure liberalism and pure progressivism.

Progressivism has evolved into a philosophy of governmental control and oversight of almost every aspect of citizens' lives.

The progressive movement in America has more in common politically with extreme socialism and/or communism than it does with traditional liberalism. It has really become a logical, natural adaptation of liberalism.

President BO, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charlie Rangel and other Democrats are examples of modern progressive thinking.

Progressives believe that no matter the problem, the federal government should have a hand in its solution, even to the point of assimilating the very problem itself.

If an automobile company runs into trouble, insert the government into it.

This applies not only to the government takeover of Chrysler and General Motors, but now in "solving" the problems that have beset Toyota.

When financial institutions ran into problems that were brought on by the very "progressive" regulations instituted by government, requiring banks, for instance, to make loans to people who had no means of repaying them, the solution seen by progressives was to increase the involvement of government, including dictating to them what they should be paying their people.

The mind set of the progressive arm of the liberal philosophy is that the more government is involved in the corporate and private lives of citizens, the more secure those citizens will be.

Those of us who disagree with that premise, believe that the evolution of progressivism from its beginning as the Bull Moose Party into a form of "democratic communism," is a danger to the existence of the United States of America as we have known it.

From progressivism will come an extreme degradation of individual freedoms, until true freedom will become a faint memory in the minds of those who survive into the future.

It is not too late...yet.

If Americans can get the dangers of progressivism through their thick skulls, if Americans can educate themselves as to the real meaning and direction of progressivism, if Americans can begin to see that they each share in the responsibility for reversing this insidious menace, they can reverse it by loudly protesting it and by voting for traditionalists in November and in 2012.

When we re-establish the principles upon which this country was formed: independence from the control of a central, mis-responsive government, individual freedom coupled with responsibility, and local control of most issues, we will discover that progress, civil and industrial, will once again enable us to be the world's leader in virtually every aspect of life.

Freedom's progress will become our most important product.


lisa said...

Joe who would have ever thought this would be an issue in our lifetime? At least there are many of us who already know it.
We do need to educate our friends,family and neighbors who have gotten used to the freedoms they have always enjoyed not realizing how quickly that can change.
Hopefully we can wake up the rest of the voters and make sure they know that "Progressive" is not a modern term conducive to modern day society and that it is actually "regressive".
It's our job to get the word out although the way things are going many more have awoken by their own situations.
Hopefully they don't get their information from quislings like Olberman, Maddow and Maher.

bluepitbull said...

While it is true that we must remain vigilant against the spread of this philosophy and those that it might indoctrinate, I think we are seeing this regress into the shadows again. It could be that I am wrong, but it will probably wait a generation as the effect of public schools on students lead to an even less educated mass that it can prey upon.

Joe said...

lisa: And don't forget Matthews (Mr. Tingly legs).

bluepitbull: President BO and his cohorts are dyed in the wool progressives, whether or not in name, at least in actions.

bluepitbull said...

Oh, I totally agree with you. At the same time I see many Americans saying "This isn't the hope and change we were looking for." Look at the rise in Ayn Rand's book sales, for example. The Tea Party is evidence as well and the shift to less liberal news outlets.

Leticia said...

At one time the word progress meant something positive, in present time it brings an ominous feeling of doom.

Tapline said...

Joe, We have seen this progressiveism creep over this country for quite some time now...No one put a name on it but, it has been changing slowly many years now and accepted by the majority as it happens...Take for instance, Seat belts....It first started in the military. We had to wear seatbelts on base...Seat belts were not even included as standard equipment on cars, back then....Because we wanted to drive on base and that being a dictatorship....We concurred and had them installed....I said at the time this will never happen off base, did....Many other things have been passed, for your own good because "you are not smart enough to think for yourself Big Brother will help....I could go on indefinately, but you get the Idea....Now they are in your bedroom and next it will be how high your heat should be in your own home..They have been dictating to the schools for quite some time, slowly,slowly indoctrinating the youth.and that continues.....WE must stop this idiotcy...(sp).....stay well....

Anonymous said...

Obama and the Pelosicrats have failed to implement their socialist agenda. Obama and Nancy know what their lib fans like Shaw Kenawe and Truth101 along with is buddies TAO and Tom and the rest of the backside kissers refuse to see: America ain't that liberal!

I have a few lib visitors to my blog, but they are polite and we have some interesting exchanges but they never are vulgar or insulting as these few seem to always be...

Many liberals are so because they've only heard one side. I figure why run off a potential convert? I do agree that slobbering ranters shouldn't be tolerated. And why is it that blogger such as Shaw Kenawe seem to think that she is objective and yet jumps at the bit to insult everyone that has the word Republican next to their name.
She rants about Saraha Palin, Dick Cheney, George Bush and their families, along with Glenn Beck and of course Rush. And then Scott Brown until his latest vote.
I just can't stand these hypocritical people.

Tom said...

I like the seat belt analogy. That's a good one.

Seat belts really do save lives and reduce injuries. We all have auto-insurance in order to mitigate the risk of auto accidents, right? That means, my premium rate as a safe driver is affected by people who are not safe drivers, or are involved in accidents because the risk is mitigated across the insured.

By the government requiring everyone use a seat belt, that reduces the number of deaths and injuries in car acccidents, thus ultimately reducing my premium as a safe driver who never even files a claim.

Tapline seems to think that his not wearing a seat belt would not affect anyone else, thus the government is intruding on his individualism in requiring him to use one. He simply doesn't understand that his not using a seat belt does affect other people.

As an aside, the marrige = man+woman has many other historical meanings. It's meant man+woman+woman+woman.. or man+involuntary woman.. or man+underage woman.. etc.

Heck, in 13 states of the union, it wasn't until 1968 that inter-racial couples could marry.

The one thing that is true about marriage is that it has changed radically over it's invention.

Joe said...

Tom: Nobody has to wear a seatbelt unless they choose to drive a car. Having said that, it was an act of control when the government began to require their use.

Have they saved lives? Indeed. So would not driving at all. Outlaw driving and save lves.

Since falling down stairs can kill, we should require all houses to have only one story.

Sticking one's finger in an electric socket can kill. Outlaw electricity.

It's absolutely absurd to expect the government to be the entity to protect us from ourselves.

Tom said...

You missed my point entirely. Auto insurance is risk mitigation across a pool of subscribers. The point was not to "outlaw" things which people do that are not driving up costs for others. Go rock climbing, great. Fall and die, that's a shame, but it doesn't affect my insurance rates.

Your falling down the stair analogy fails because would not affect my insurance rates, and it's not reasonable to require one story houses. Requiring seat belts is a reasonable thing to do, and helps keep down rates for the rest of the people in the insurance pool.

It's not at all about the government telling you what you can do with yourself. I'm very liberatarian when it comes to individual liberty.. as long as what other people do does not cost me money.

See the difference between seat belts and electrical outlets now?

Joe said...

Tom: A shocking comparison.

Tapline said...

I came back to check out the responses to my comments....Joe you were as usual on target however the responder who tried to correct my logic. I will say, a person who worked at the hospital was turning into the base when she was hit by a truck. Her vehicle was wedged under the bed her seat belt was stuck the truck caught on fire she couldn't get out. I'll not continue...Others have been thrown from their cars not wearing seatbelts and survived, so there you go. I assume the insurance industry pushed for the manditory seatbelt laws by lobbeying congress, I hear "Sam the Man" was responsible for making the states pass manditory wearing of seatbelts by making it a requirement for receiving Federal transportaion funds. Could be wrong but that's the way I heard it. First it was not manditory, but if the police stopped you and you didn't have them fastened youd receive a warning...not so today..."WE are only here to Help" Of course there are reasons to curtail your individual freedoms. Studies and surveys can prove any point you wish to make....
All these things pass into law for your own good or mostly the good of the masses.....And the beat goes on.....stay well..