Hordes of college mail have inundated my mailbox over the last six months, all plastered with clearly posed pictures of immaculate green lawns, impossibly blue skies and unbelievably elated students – with a representative from every possible minority, of course. Universities would not want to irreparably offend their prospective students by publicizing a photo in a brochure of—gasp—two white students instead of properly representing the extensive Colombian population.
This concerted effort to ensure diversity and forestall cries of “racist” from the ultrasensitive, let’s-all-just-love-one-another crowd impacts more than just college pamphlets bound for the trashcan—I mean, recycling bin—anyway.
The pursuit of political correctness inhibits our daily speech as well. Anyone who has ever stumbled over identifying an individual in a crowd as “black” can sympathize. Though “Negro” and “colored” were once acceptable descriptive terms, the feel-good liberals of the 1970s eradicated them in favor of “Afro-American” and “black.” Before long, even those terms were deemed hateful and replaced by the modern,  offense-proof “African-American”—unless, of course, the sacred paragon of political correctness is merited—“people of color.”
Never mind that identifying a person in a crowd as “black” is doing nothing more than assisting a friend in locating someone in a crowd.
While this issue may seem petty, political correctness becomes critically damaging when it impacts Americans’ abilities to discuss vital national issues and express their opinions.
When addressing the danger of terrorism, caution must be taken to not refer to the act as “Muslim extremism” or “Islamic radicalism” or the perpetrators as “terrorists,” a name which might offend the fragile souls of the suicide bombers; inspirational terms such as “insurgents” and “freedom fighters” are preferable. These words, however, were still not tolerant enough for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) which, when referring to the terrorists who killed 52 and injured 700 in a 2005 bombing of London buses, sympathetically identified them as “misguided criminals.”
Similarly, qualifying people as “illegal aliens” has been deemed offensive and transitioned to “illegal immigrants,” then to “undocumented immigrants” or “guest workers.”
Preoccupation with word choice and the avoidance of anything possibly offensive distorts the truth about crucial issues and inhibits true freedom to express opinions.
This, of course, was the goal when political correctness, named “cultural terrorism” by its inventor, communist George Lukacs, was developed.
The idea was adopted by the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 to investigate the obstacles inhibiting communism from spreading. The institution discovered that Western civilization’s espousal of individual rights was the culprit. To exterminate this harmful mindset, the organization planned to introduce into Western culture the idea that voicing personal opinions is offensive and harmful to society.
The concept was embraced by communist Chinese leader Mao in the 1930s under the title “sensitivity training” and arrived in America when the Institute transferred to New York City in 1935.
While political correctness’ modern-day purpose is certainly unrelated to furthering the communist agenda, its effects are still the same: political correctness limits freedom of speech by dictating which word choices, topics and opinions are socially acceptable and eliminating those which are not.
When people are cautious about expressing their views, particularly ones contrary to left-wing opinions, debate over critical issues is lessened and those with socially acceptable opinions are given complete control over the country. Political correctness is essentially a “thought police,” as named in George Orwell’s 1984, ensuring only certain opinions are permissible.
In order for a democratic society to function, all citizens must be free to voice their opinions, even if they seem offensive to others. People are guaranteed the right to freedom of speech, not the right to not be offended. Most importantly, all people must be able to plainly state the truth without diluting it with vague terms.
I am white. Others are black. Terrorists are horrible. Illegal aliens are criminals. And this is America, where I have the freedom to say what I want, regardless of who is offended.

The year is 1979, and Jimmy Carter is President of the United States. In September of that year, his approval rating is 35%. Due to his failed policies, indecision and the weak economy during his single term as president, Carter is considered to be one of the worst presidents of the modern era. Ironically, the current president’s approval rating at the exact same point in time of his presidency is almost the same as Carter’s.

Barack Obama, unfortunately, is beginning to take on the role as the president who is simply Carter’s second term. According to a number of polling sources, including the Gallup Organization, Obama’s approval rating reached it’s lowest point at 38% this past month, and it only seems to be getting lower.

This is because the president makes lofty promises to the nation but never brings forth results. Since his apparent $800 billion “stimulus” in 2009, the only thing that has risen in the U.S. economy is the unemployment rate. According to Gallup, the percentage of Americans without jobs since the passing of the stimulus bill has surged up to nearly 10% at some times, although as of late it has settled to around 9.1%.That number is not expected to fall any time soon.

On top of Obama’s job troubles, the Dow Jones,the most crucial measure of economic health, dropped below 10,000 points for the first time since the economic collapse of 2009 due to the fears of indecision on the debt ceiling, the federal government’s maximum deficit limit, before defaulting and eventual shutdown of public services.

Granted, all of the issues that are facing our country today cannot be completely blamed on our commander in chief. However, he’s certainly not helping to solve these problems either. It is not so much that Obama has made the wrong decisions, but rather, that he has made none at all at very crucial junctures.

In addition to these financial and economic troubles, the president is also failing miserably on the foreign front. When Libya erupted in revolution, threatening the sovereignty of dictator Muammar Gadaffi, Obama never took an official position on the matter, and American involvement was and still is uncertain. This is not to mention the fact that Obama never kept his promise to the thousands of people during his victory rally that he would remove all U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

All of these decisions, or lack thereof, have led to a sharp decline in America’s comfort with this political novice as president of the most powerful nation in the world and will almost inevitably lead to a loss of the White House for the man that promised “hope and change.”

Usually participants in mission trips are
thought of as daring voyagers to distant
lands where poverty stricken people are
in need of help. Mexico, Africa and even
India are common destinations. But, there
is a group of missionaries who are often
over looked. They t ravel wi thin the land
of the free, home of the brave—the USA.
Domestic missionary work is necessary,
however. Al l mi s s ioner s take on an
impor tant role, and in my opinion, none
should be held in higher regard than others.
Recently, I traveled to Lewis County, Ky.
on the Glenmary mission trip along with a large
group of eager and enthusiastic teachers and
students. You might wonder why a mission trip
to a location only 5 hours away is necessary.
Certainly there is poverty in America. Is a
mission trip really necessary though? In
today’s economic climate, generosity in the
hearts of Americans is needed more than ever.
I saw things in Kentucky, good and bad,
that I never imagined I would see on the trip.
Lewis County is comparable in size to
Summit County. Imagine how many high
schools are in Summit County and compare
that number to the one and only high school in
Lewis County. The percentage of high school
graduates is, unsurprisingly, lower than the
national average. There are kids in Kentucky
that would do anything for an education and
for some, that means driving over an hour to
school everyday. I’m amazed when I think
about the amount of money we send overseas
to further education when our education system
in America is in need of help. This is not to
degrade or talk down upon the good people
of Kentucky. My goal in this column is to
illustrate the need that exists so close to home.
Even though i t was my second t ime
going to Lewis County on the Glenmary
trip, I was reminded yet again of the spirit
present in Appalachia. We helped build
houses and in turn, built community. We
participated in card games with older people
and in turn contributed to a life full of memories
The people we met are so full of life,
despi te some of the condi t ions they are
subjected to. They don’t dwell on the material
possessions that are so often given priority
in our society. They laugh and enjoy the
company of each other. Obviously, they are
human. They have good days and bad days.
It never ceases to amaze me though that
people living in an area where there are many
problems can enjoy their life so completely.
The recession is a contributing factor to
the increasing statistics of unemployment and
poverty, but at the same time, it can’t be blamed
entirely. Poverty existed yesterday, exists today
and will exist tomorrow in our country. Maybe
the degree of poverty varies when comparing
a small African country to Lewis County. In
no way am I saying that the needs of other
countries are unimportant in comparison to
ours. I only mean to say that when looking
for service opportunities, one may not need
to look outside the boundaries of the U.S.
All service is good whether at home or
abroad. But why is it that most people choose
to leave the country to reach out to someone in
need, when they can find someone standing on
Arlington Street with a sign asking for help?

The world’s youngest self-made billionaire,
Mark Zuckerburg, created Facebook in 2004
while attending Harvard. Facebook began
when Zuckerburg created a web site that
gave male Harvard students the ability to vote
between two of their female counterparts based
on appearance.
This later blossomed into the first website
you probably go to when you get on the
computer. Ironically it is the adjacent tab to my
word document right now.
I have come to discover there are several
different kinds of Facebook users. There are the
people who only get on occasionally to check
notifications and messages. There are the
daily users who make status updates, picture
comments and wall posts a common ritual.
Then there are the Facebook creeps.
The Facebook creep: a person who spends
so much time on Facebook that they know
specific things about the lives of their Facebook
“friends” that they have never actually spoken
to before.
Creepers, you know who you are, so
don’t bother trying to “go offline”, because
your constant Facebook footprint plagues the
homepages of the hundreds of people you feel
it necessary to be friends with.
Last and most certainly least, there are the
few people who still consider MySpace to be
better. Attention stubborn MySpacers, there
is a Facebook application for putting music in
your profile so stop making excuses and join
the revolution.
P.S. Don’t friend request me.

A couple of weeks ago, I decided to switch up my Sunday afternoon routine and do my homework at Angel Falls Coffee Co. in Highland Square rather than at my desk at home. I had been to this coffeehouse a few times before, and the first thing that always caught my eye was the massive dessert case, containing everything from giant sugar cookies to lemon bars. This time, however, I noticed something different upon my arrival; the dress code I was clearly violating.Now I am familiar with the tortured artist look-the dark colors, the stuffy sweaters, the berets-but for some reason, I just do not understand why anyone chooses to dress this way. I see this dress code all over, but mostly in artist hot spots, like coffee houses or bookstores. While I have no problem with people dressing any way they choose, I do not approve of the idea that there is only one way an artist can look. It almost seems as if an artist cannot really be credited as one unless he or she abides by this set “uniform”.There were five people in the coffeehouse when I walked inside, and they were all following the artistic dress code. A couple was perched on a love seat, clothed in matching sweaters-his maroon, hers black. A college student was staring out a window, rather than at his English Composition textbook, dressed in a long sleeve shirt with both a matching hat and scarf. A man scribbling furiously in a sketchbook was wearing tight black jeans and a black turtleneck.I cannot stand wearing turtlenecks. To me, they are nothing more than uncomfortable articles of clothing that make me feel like I am suffocating, even in the middle of the winter. Not to mention that I find them to be simply unattractive, no matter where, when or how they are worn.The reason the outfits at Angel Falls really bothered me was the fact it was a bright, humid afternoon with a temperature around 85 degrees. Does anyone really need to wear a scarf on a hot, end-of-summer day? Or a turtleneck? I don’t think so.I am not trying to put down any of the people who favor this type of attire. I just feel that many of these coffee house regulars dress this way because they think it makes them look artsy or intellectual, and they will do so even if it means sweating through their long-sleeve shirts on hot days. I think that many people in this type of dress are trying to prove they are smart, quirky or creative to others, without having to say or write a word.I do believe that fashion is a form of art, however, I do not believe in dressing uncomfortably simply to look artistic. If a person wants the world to know that he or she is poetic, smart or innovative, the only thing that person needs to do is prove it. There should not be a “uniform” for talented artists or writers. Most people prefer an old t-shirt and a pair of jean shorts to a stuffy shirt and scarf on a hot day. I know I do.

On the same crazy note, in Massachusetts,
officials considered requiring all
amateur soccer players to wear helmets while
playing.

Healthy-eating fanatics should rejoice
that in some poor regions of Los Angeles, fast
food restaurants have been banned.

Most reasonable people would probably
agree that these laws are controlling. Despite
this, they seem to make sense and serve the
common good.

What many Americans might not realize is
that in the quest for serving the common good,
they take away our individual freedoms.

Sure, I don’t care about my right to wear
my pants at my ankles. In fact, I think it would
be in the best interest of the public to require
all people to strap their pants securely around
their waist. But that’s what happens in China.

This is America.

If someone wants to wear baggy
pants, eat fi ve Big Macs and head soccer
balls for seven hours, he or she has the
right to do so. As Thomas Jefferson said,
“But it does me no injury for my neighbor
to say there are twenty gods or no God. It
neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Unless it takes away my rights or harms me in
any way, do what you want with your life.

Most people don’t give a second thought
to these laws because they seem reasonable
and don’t affect them personally. This makes
them dangerous. Slowly, people begin to look
to the government to solve their problems with
their own lives and society.

The belief that the government can run
my life better than I can is a severely misguided
conviction. The government’s job is
to protect our country, not to protect us from
ourselves.

That mind set is the foundation of tyranny,
not liberty. It is this that causes people, believing
the government can fix everything, to
hand complete control of banks and the health
care system to the government.

This is America: embrace it. As Americans,
we need to improve our lives and the lives
of others with our freedoms, not with laws.
Government is not the solution; we are.

Make no mistake: doing things for the
common good is a noble thing. But for the
most part, that’s our job as Catholics, citizens
and human beings.

We must defend everyone’s liberty when
it is under attack, even if it is just the freedom
to wear his or her favorite pair of pants. Freedom
is not lost all at once, but rather through
tiny steps.

So to the saggy-pants enthusiasts of Louisiana,
I’m with you. Keep on “lookin’ like a
fool with your pants on the ground.”