THE BRYCE IS RIGHT!

Friday, August 14, 2015

THE WORLD'S BEST

BRYCE ON LIFE

- Come on, who is kidding who?

(Click for AUDIO VERSION)
To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

I find it rather amusing when people start touting their products as the "world's best" or "world's finest." Such boasts are usually self-proclaimed and are not based on some independent person or group to impartially judge the products. In fact, such superficial claims detract from the company's credibility as opposed to adding to it. For example, try an Internet search on "World's Best (whatever)" and you'll undoubtedly run into more opinions than facts.

I've been a baseball fan for a number of years, but even I snicker when I hear Americans brag about their "World Series" as the world championship. We've got some great talent in this country and in all likelihood we may very well win such a championship, but I think there are a lot of countries who would love to participate in such a series. Actually, calling it the "World Series" without such participation smacks of arrogance.

For years there has been a long ongoing argument amongst rock and roll aficionados as to which was the "World's Best" band; with the Beatles, Rolling Stones, and Led Zepplin often mentioned. As much as I liked all three groups, I would have to say most adamantly, "Who cares!?" Isn't it enough they each sold millions of records, made a lot of fans, and tons of money? Why can't we just enjoy them for who they are?

There is something twisted in the American character requiring us to formulate a pecking order for everything thereby establishing bragging rights. I guess it is due to the competitive nature of this country. Somehow I don't understand the logic when people say they have the "world's best" philly cheese steak, chicken wings, chili, or whatever. Isn't it sufficient to simply say something is either good or bad?

This obsession with "world's best" has become so obnoxious, I openly laugh whenever I see it, which in Manhattan seems to be everywhere. Next time you see "world's best" written down, ask the proprietor to show you the certificate awarded to them and the statistics used by the judges in the competition. Better yet, ask them if they would be willing to participate in an independent contest whereby you'll act as the "world's greatest" judge. Don't be surprised if they balk at the offer.

Originally published: June 25, 2010

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M&JB Investment Company (M&JB) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see: timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

NEXT UP: "SOFTWARE FOR THE FINEST COMPUTER - THE MIND" - It's about people, not machines.

LAST TIME: THE PRESS' WAR WITH DONALD TRUMP - How will he spar with the press in the next debate?

Listen to Tim on WJTN-AM (News Talk 1240) "The Town Square" with host John Siggins (Mon, Wed, Fri, 12:30-3:00pm Eastern); WZIG-FM (104.1) in Palm Harbor,FL; and KIT-AM 1280 in Yakima, Washington "The Morning News" with hosts Dave Ettl & Lance Tormey (weekdays. 6:00-9:00am Pacific). Or tune-in to Tim's channel on YouTube.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

THE PRESS' WAR WITH DONALD TRUMP

BRYCE ON POLITICS

- How will he spar with the press in the next debate?

(Click for AUDIO VERSION)
To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

At the August 6th GOP presidential debate in Cleveland, and the ensuing fallout, it became clear the press had declared war on Donald Trump. They simply do not want him in the electoral mix as his roots are planted in business as opposed to politics. Calling it a "debate" is being much too generous. Rather, it was a modified version of a press conference where candidates field questions from the media. In a debate, a moderator coldly presents a topic and a speaker poses their argument, followed by a counter argument by an opposing person. This is not what happened during the debate where Fox moderators offered sensational questions and were not interested in discussing legitimate topics, such as how to stimulate the economy and GDP, what our policy should be in the Middle East, how we should attain energy independence, a discussion on diminished morality, race relations, our space program, etc. In contrast, the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon debate was perhaps the closest we'll ever witness of a true debate, which was a civil exchange between two totally different candidates.

The 24 million viewers who tuned into the Cleveland debate was the largest audience ever for a primary debate. It was also the largest in the history of Fox News and the largest in all of cable news; all thanks to Donald Trump. Had he not been there, Fox would not have achieved such lofty ratings. Yet, I felt the debate was conducted unprofessionally, particularly when you compare it to the Kennedy/Nixon debate. The introduction of the candidates was clumsy and embarrassing, and the questions asked by the moderators lacked tact and significance. It sounded more like the women arguing on "The View," as opposed to a presidential debate. Frankly, the earlier debate of seven candidates was much more dignified and to the point.

The press is exasperated by Trump. They complain he lacks specifics in solving problems. When they ask him, "How will you do this or that?"

His answer, "negotiate," infuriates them.

They are also appalled he donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign back in January. "Sheer hypocrisy," they claim. No, that is how business is performed in today's world, right or wrong. As a businessman, I understand him perfectly, but the press obviously does not. In business, it is common not to tip your hand before you play your cards. However, the press not only wants to see his cards, they also want to argue how he should play them. If he doesn't play the cards their way, they get very upset. It is no small wonder he doesn't accept political correctness.

His unscripted candor is typical of board room discussions. Whereas such talk is remarkably refreshing to the people who have lost faith in government and political machines, it is unnerving to the press.

The next GOP debate will be on September 16th at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. It will be interesting to see if there will be any change in the give and take between Trump and the press. As Trump knows, the best form of defense is a strong offense. Now it is time for him to take on the irresponsible press. The people love every shot he takes at them.

If another superfluous question is asked, such as that posed by Fox's Megyn Kelly, do not be surprised if Trump answers something to the effect, "Really, that is the best question you've got? Aren't you aware this country has more serious problems we should be discussing?" The press will be climbing the walls. If they persevere, do not be surprised if Trump simply ignores them and discusses whatever he wants to.

If we have learned anything thus far in the Trump campaign, the more the press attacks him, the higher his numbers rise in the polls. When they tout he is nothing but a "flash in the pan," the public rallies to his cause. This is indicative the public no longer trusts the media. One thing is for certain, as Trump continues to move ahead, the rhetoric from the press will become more visceral, much to Trump's benefit. The press just doesn't get it.

Stay tuned.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see: timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

NEXT UP: THE WORLD'S BEST - Come on, who is kidding who?

LAST TIME: ARE WE ALL RACISTS? - The answer might surprise you.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

ARE WE ALL RACISTS?

BRYCE ON RACISM

- The answer might surprise you.

(Click for AUDIO VERSION)
To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

Often considered the touchstone of a person's perspective on life, the word "racist" has been so overused, it has become the punchline for jokes and in danger of losing its validity. The word is as overused and abused as the word "technology" which seems to be applied to everything. The word "racist" was originally created to describe a person who believes a particular race is superior to another. However, it has morphed into something used outside of race, such as when discussing political or religious inclinations. In other words, it has gone way beyond the color of a person's skin. For example, consider how Black Liberals treat Black Conservatives. It is no longer just about the color of your skin, it is also the politics you observe.

By today's standards, I contend we are all racists. There is always some faction we do not agree with or share our views, be it based on race, religion, sex, ideology, politics, business, or cultural nuances. As such, we dismiss them out of hand. A lot of it is based on ignorance, but I also believe it is rooted in our animal instincts as "competitive domination." Such a loathsome perspective of another group results in a variety of adjectives and nouns, such as bigot, extremist, fanatic, opinionated, segregationist, supremacist, zealot, chauvinist, sexist, etc. In reality, such words suggest nothing more than "intolerance" of another group. For example, many heterosexuals do not understand or accept the homosexual perspective, it is "unnatural" to them and, as a result, do not wish to be associated with them.

People of different cultural or religious backgrounds cannot find compatibility either, they do not understand their customs or beliefs, or perhaps there is some history whereby factions fought in the past and have difficulty burying the hatchet today. To illustrate, I visited Saudi Arabia a few years ago where I was teaching some management classes. In talking with my Saudi contacts after hours, I asked about their relationship with Israel. I made the observation the Israelis were not going away any time soon, so why not develop a dialog to see what the two countries had in common. I was politely, but sharply, rebuffed. The Saudis made it clear they had no desire to have any connection whatsoever with the Jewish state.

The biggest problem with being a racist is when it turns to hate and violence which, of course, leads to confrontation, maligning the character of another group, dirty deeds, and war. Most of us though keep our racism in check to avoid such incidents. We may not like another group, but we are unwilling to break the law.

Consider the disparity between the following groups:

- Whites, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc.
- Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, and others.
- Upper, middle and lower socioeconomic classes.
- White collar workers versus Blue collar, management versus unions.
- Liberals and Conservatives, Socialists and Capitalists.
- Intellectuals versus the unsophisticated.
- Heterosexual marriages versus Homosexual versus Polygamy versus extramarital affairs.
- North versus South, East versus West.
- The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.

If we have a problem with any of these groups, and say so in public, we are considered racists. According to political correctness though, we are all supposed to live together peacefully and accept the foibles of each group. Anyone who believes this is taking it in the arm. Think how bland and awkward our lives would be if we truly believed this. We would have to be on guard 24/7 to prevent any faux pas from occurring. Rather, it is our diversity that makes our world interesting. Some things we will like, others we will not. It's like Sushi; you either like it or you do not. Since it is not universally accepted, should we eliminate it completely and replace it with something like Soylent Green? As human beings it is virtually impossible for us to agree on everything. Completely eradicating the racist concept would only lead to a life of mediocrity.

Accusing someone of being a racist is today's politically correct way of putting someone on the defensive by saying, "I do not like you." The reality is, it no longer matters as the word has been overused and watered down.

Those who do not believe they are racists better take another look at themselves in the mirror. They are not being honest with themselves.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see: timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

NEXT UP: THE PRESS' WAR WITH DONALD TRUMP - How will he spar with the press in the next debate?

LAST TIME: IMPLEMENTING BUSINESS ETHICS - Implementing an effective ethics program makes dollars and sense.

Monday, August 10, 2015

IMPLEMENTING BUSINESS ETHICS

BRYCE ON MANAGEMENT

- Implementing an effective ethics program makes dollars and sense.

(Click for AUDIO VERSION)
To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

We hear a lot these days about the deterioration of ethics in business, e.g., graft, corruption, cheating, favoritism, skimming money, etc. This has resulted in a public relations nightmare for business. If consumers do not trust a company, its a matter of time before it goes out of business. This is supported by recent studies providing evidence there is a correlation between business performance and ethical practices (see the Institute of Business Ethics). Basically, the Institute's study suggests there are long-term benefits associated with enacting an ethics programs. Such studies and recent corporate snafus (e.g., Enron) are impetus for companies coming to grips with ethics in the workplace.

There are essentially two considerations for devising an ethics program in business; first, knowing what your ethics are, and, second; implementing them in a consistent manner.

INTERPRETING ETHICS

There is little point in my telling you what is ethically right or wrong. You already have an interpretation of this. However, let us understand what influences our interpretation of ethics; our interpersonal relations with others, such as our family, friends, neighbors, fellow workers, as well as the media. Ethics is learned more than it is taught. It is based on observations of the conduct of others, people we like and respect as opposed to those we do not. It is then up to each of us to interpret these perceptions from which we will base our conduct and behavior. The point is, we act on our perceptions, however accurate or inaccurate they may be. Another influential factor are our own human frailties of competitiveness, love, greed and ambition. But then again, this goes back to interpersonal relations.

Let us recognize that ethical behavior is interpreted differently from person to person. What one person may consider right or wrong may be different for the next person. The objective in business is to implement a uniform form of behavior thereby instilling consumer confidence in a company overall.

IMPLEMENTATION

Writing a corporate code of conduct is in vogue today as a means of articulating the ethics of a business. Such codes are proudly displayed on web sites and in corporate brochures more for public relations than anything else. True, they are useful for disciplining an employee for an infraction of the rules, but I do not see them as an effective way of implementing an ethics program. Understand this, regardless of what the code of conduct states, the ethics of a business are whatever the top-dog says they are. Too often I have seen companies say one thing, then act another, e.g., Enron.

Printed codes of conduct are nice, but we have to recognize that it is one thing to enact legislation, quite another to enforce it. As stated earlier, ethical behavior is based on observations. Regardless of what a code of conduct says in print, ethical behavior is based on the relationship of superior and subordinate worker relationships. If a subordinate observes an indiscretion by his superior, in all likelihood it will be emulated by the subordinate. This phenomenon occurs top-down in the whole corporate chain of command. If it breaks down anywhere in the corporate hierarchy, it will become visible to the subordinate layers and potentially create a "trickle-down" effect. This means the boss has to be a role model for ethical behavior; they must "walk-the-walk" as well as "talk-the-talk." If they do not, it will not go unobserved by their subordinates. Managers, therefore, should avoid the "do as I say, not do as I do" phenomenon. They must lead by example. Anything less is sheer hypocrisy and will inevitably lead to changes in behavior.

It is simply not sufficient to issue platitudes as to what is and what isn't ethical behavior. The manager must follow-up and assure ethical behavior is implemented accordingly. In other words, we shouldn't just "desire" truth and honesty, we must "demand" it. If one person gets away with an indiscretion, others will surely follow. As such, when writing out a code of conduct, be sure to stipulate the penalties for its violation.

The success of a business ethics program is ultimately measured by how well it becomes ingrained in the corporate culture. As we have discussed in the past, corporate culture pertains to the identity and personality of the enterprise. All companies have a culture; a way they behave and operate. They may be organized and disciplined or chaotic and unstructured. Either way, this is the culture which the enterprise has elected to adopt. What is important is that in order for an employee to function and succeed, they must be able to recognize, accept and adapt to the culture. If they do not, they will be rejected (people will not work with them).

The intuitive manager understands the corporate culture and how to manipulate it. Changing the Corporate Culture involves influencing the three elements of the culture: its Customs, Philosophy and Society. This is not a simple task. It must be remembered that culture is learned. As such, it can be taught and enforced. For example, a code of conduct is useful for teaching, as is a system of rewards and penalties. Designating people to act as watchdogs of the culture can also be useful, but be careful not to create a climate of paranoia. Ultimately, as a manager, you want to create a culture that promotes the ethical behavior you desire.

CONCLUSION

We now live in strange socioeconomic times. 40-50 years ago we normally had one parent staying home to raise the kids. Now it is commonplace to find families where both the husband and wife are working and paying less attention to their children, thereby relegating their parenting duties to teachers and coaches. In other words, the family unit, which is the basic building block for learning ethical behavior, is becoming severely hampered.

In business today we have a "fast-track" competitive mentality which does not encourage a spirit of teamwork but, rather, more rugged individualism. Nor does it promote employee loyalty. Further, we now live in a society that encourages people to go into debt, thereby causing financial tensions.

Bottom-line, ethics is about people and trust. Consequently, we should be sharpening our people skills as opposed to avoiding it. We don't need more maxims of how we should conduct our lives; we need to lead by example. As such, we need more role-models and heroes than we do paperwork.

Let me close with one last thought on how ethics impacts business; there is probably nothing worse in business than being caught in a lie, particularly by a customer. Any trust that there may have been before disintegrates immediately and business is lost. In this day and age, there is something refreshingly honorable about a person where their word is their bond. Ethics just makes good business sense.

Originally published: April 17, 2006

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see: timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

NEXT UP: ARE WE ALL RACISTS? - The answer might surprise you.

LAST TIME: EXCESSIVE USE OF PROFANITY - Why do we allow this to occur?

Friday, August 7, 2015

EXCESSIVE USE OF PROFANITY

BRYCE ON LIFE

- Why do we allow this to occur?

(Click for AUDIO VERSION)
To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

I've noticed profanity has become a natural part of the teenager vernacular lately, perhaps excessively so. I know teachers and parents who are very much concerned with this and are at a loss as to how to handle it. In my school days, we were all well aware of the words but knew better to use them in the presence of adults as schools still practiced corporal punishment back then. If you got out of line, you weren't just sent to detention, you were swatted with a paddle.

A lot has changed since then. Today, only 20 states in the country allow corporal punishment in schools (not including here in Florida). As many as 25 countries have outlawed it altogether. I guess this is another area where lawyers have gotten involved and threatened lawsuits on behalf of irate parents who refuse to discipline their own children and subject the rest of us to these clods.

In studying this issue, I noticed all 50 states in the country allow corporal punishment on the part of parents. Yet, I wonder how many parents actually exercise such action. Again, back when I was a kid, if you got out of line, the old man would take a belt to your hide or your mother would wash your mouth out with soap if you spoke foul language (as happened to Ralphie in the movie, "A Christmas Story"). My great grandmother would use a switch or fly swatter if necessary. Such corporal punishment was not unique to my family as just about every kid on the block was keenly aware of the penalties for stepping out of line. It's called, "cause and effect"; if you screwed-up, you had to suffer the consequences. Believe me, we would have much preferred to have been "grounded" than face the wrath of a displeased parent. Being "grounded" just didn't exist back then.

I'm not sure why teens use profanity excessively; perhaps it is to appear "cool" or something they learned through the media, but it sure seems they drop the "F-bomb" as if it is a common everyday word. I'm no saint myself when it comes to swearing, but as an adult you realize there is a time and place for everything and you tend to use it more judiciously than our youth. Excessive use of profanity does two things; first, it waters down the effect of the word. Whereas profanity is normally used to stir emotions, inordinate use negates its effect. Second, excessive profanity is a significant indicator of someone's intellect. Rudimentary language reflects a rudimentary intellect. I am reminded of the old maxim whereby, "Profanity is the attempt of a lazy and feeble mind to express itself forcefully."

When youth uses profanity in the presence of adults, it does not threaten or embarrass adults as much as it causes the youth in question to lose all credibility in the adult's eyes. It is just not smart to do. I find it rather amusing when youth resorts to primitive profanity as opposed to articulating their position. It most definitely does not make them look more mature.

As for me personally, I tend to think of profanity along the same lines as Mark Twain who said, "In certain trying circumstances, urgent circumstances, desperate circumstances, profanity furnishes a relief denied even to prayer." Amen!

Originally published: June 21, 2010

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see: timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

NEXT UP: IMPLEMENTING BUSINESS ETHICS - Implementing an effective ethics program makes dollars and sense.

LAST TIME: WILL THE REPUBLICANS BOTCH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

- I just hope they do not grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

WILL THE REPUBLICANS BOTCH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

BRYCE ON POLITICS

- I just hope they do not grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.

(Click for AUDIO VERSION)
To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

On the eve of the first GOP debate in Cleveland (August 6, 2015), I want to comment on the the Republican Party's chances for taking back the White House in 2016 and breaking the gridlock in Washington. I have been a loyal Republican since 1972, representing the first class of eighteen year olds given the right to vote. Over the years, I have voted in numerous elections, believing each was more important than the last. However, I do not believe the stakes can be any higher than the 2016 elections as the country appears headed in the wrong direction, at least according to Rasmussen and Gallup. Frankly, I am not optimistic of the Republican chances for success. This is a new world, with new perspectives and thinking in play. There is nothing wrong with the GOP's message of smaller government, empowerment of business and people, financial responsibility, and belief in God and the US Constitution, but I'm not sure young voters are listening or comprehend it.

I have five concerns bothering me this election cycle:

1. There are currently 17 GOP candidates in the running for president, the most in the last 50 years or longer. Such a large number gives the impression the Republican Party hasn't a clear front runner. I hope those candidates who do not fare well in Iowa and New Hampshire will withdraw early, so we can begin to build on a front runner. Anyone who overstays their time in the race will only hurt the party. As an aside, I am frequently asked which candidate I prefer. Although I have my favorites, my standard answer is, "Anyone other than Hillary or a liberal," meaning I honestly believe any of the GOP candidates would do a better job than a Democrat.

As to the upcoming debates, here are the questions I would ask the candidates and, No, I wouldn't bother with anything regarding the Confederate flag, gay rights or giving away the store, but rather, how we can invigorate business, raise the GDP, increase jobs and wages, make America competitive again, balancing the budget and reducing the trade deficit. I would also like to know their thoughts on social engineering, declining morality, immigration, health care, defeating ISIS and Muslim terrorists, and putting Russia and China in check. We need discussions of substance, not facade.

2. Since winning the Senate in 2014, thereby assuming control over both chambers of Congress, the Republicans have not displayed any significant form of unity. We have thus far seen rifts between moderates and conservatives, and between the House and the Senate. They also give the impression they are afraid to confront the president. Mr. Obama may have veto power, and is willing to exercise it, but the Congress holds the purse strings and appears unwilling to assume their fiduciary responsibilities. I am frankly tired of hearing Congress whine about the president yet refuse to challenge him. If they are truly incapable of standing up to the President, perhaps it is time to elect new Congressmen.

3. I recently had a glimpse of the party's infrastructure and, as a management consultant with nearly forty years of experience, the GOP appears to be woefully weak in terms of systems. They know how to solicit money, but not much else. As a systems man, I can see they desperately need vertical mobility in data bases, from the federal, to state, to county, to city, to Republican club. Currently, there is nothing remotely like this available to the GOP, just separate and incompatible data bases which greatly hampers their ability to administer their membership.

They should also establish "standard practices" for all levels of the Republican infrastructure. This includes such things as accounting, membership, communications, etc. This does two things: It makes the GOP more productive, particularly when new board members are introduced, and; it brings uniformity to the operations between Republican units.

The party also needs to adopt a program to effectively communicate to their membership. Currently nothing exists to this effect other than the mainstream media. Through such a vehicle, they could educate their members, as well as the public. Since the integrity of the press is in question, this would provide a mechanism to present the Republican side of an issue.

4. I find it rather disturbing, the Republican Party is trying to win an election in the 21st century, using campaign tactics from the 20th, e.g.; campaigning door-to-door and telephone calls, both of which tend to irritate people today as opposed to soliciting their support.

If you want to attract young people to the party, you must devise an "app" for them to access news and information via their smart phones, tablets, laptops, or desktop computers. This is an area where the Democrats have an edge as demonstrated in the last two presidential elections. The GOP needs to build an app to disseminate GOP news and advertisements, coming events, access to information resources (e.g., position papers), and monitors what the user is looking at (data mining) to fine tune campaign strategies.

5. And finally there is the matter of the Hillary Factor. During the 2008 presidential cycle, she self-destructed in her race against Mr. Obama. Now it looks like she is going to do it again. Her missteps during the campaign, including Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation, is hampering her credibility and trustworthiness in the opinion polls. In other words, Hillary Clinton is giving the Republicans ample opportunity to take her down, but are they smart enough to do so? I'm no longer certain.

If the Republicans lose the 2016 presidential election, they only have themselves to blame. I may be a loyal member of the party, but as a management consultant, I see a lot of dry rot in their operations. The fact I am asking these questions, a 43 year Republican, is symptomatic of the lack of confidence growing in the party. I just hope they do not grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.

I am sorry if I appear to be the child who exclaims, "The Emperor has no clothes," but the GOP needs to quit fooling around and get their act together. The stakes are simply too high.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see: timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

NEXT UP: EXCESSIVE USE OF PROFANITY - why do we allow this to occur?

LAST TIME: LEGISLATING POLITICAL CORRECTNESS - Will the latest round of political correctness change our attitudes?

Monday, August 3, 2015

LEGISLATING POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

BRYCE ON POLITICS

- Will the latest round of political correctness change our attitudes?

(Click for AUDIO VERSION)
To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

In June, the American people were peppered with a powerful dose of political correctness (PC). Following the shootings in Charleston, South Carolina, there were calls for the removal and elimination of Confederate flags across the country as it was claimed the flag was nothing more than an icon of bigotry. Retail titans Walmart and Amazon were just two of the major companies who panicked and removed the flags from their shelves. This was followed by several other calls to eliminate any trace of the Confederacy in the South be it on bumper stickers, license plates, or changing the names of parks and removal of statues. While this was going on, the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages in all fifty states. These two events polarized the country. Southerners defended their flag, not as a symbol of bigotry, but as representative of their ancestors' heritage. Heterosexuals were aghast the biblical sense of the word "marriage" was being distorted by a government institution.

These two instances will likely not change the opinions people hold about these two issues. If anything, they will reinforce attitudes and reinvigorate disagreements between people, thereby dividing the country further. It also demonstrates you cannot legislate thinking patterns. Regardless if South Carolina removes the Confederate battle flag from the state capitol, or the Supreme Court's ruling on gays, attitudes about these subjects will only solidify, not dissipate. Only political maneuvering, such as PC, can alter the perspectives of people.

The intent of political correctness is to subliminally alter our perceptions and values. In the Confederate flag incident, it is intended to distort our sense of history. Personally, I never thought too much of the flag. I was raised a Yankee for the first half of my life and was proud the Union won the Civil War. However, I have lived in the South for the last thirty years and have come to understand the South's view of the war. I have learned it is more about states rights as opposed to slavery. I will not argue there is no bigotry in the South, nor will I argue there is no bigotry in the North, on both sides of the color line I might add. However, we have been asked to make a rush to judgment, simply for political correctness.

As we should all know by now, PC is primarily intended to influence our thinking processes, our vocabulary, and even our sense of humor, as American comedians are just now discovering. Make no mistake, it is nothing more than social engineering in sheep's clothing. Our attitudes, perceptions, and moral values are being constantly tweaked by the liberal press, and not necessarily for the better; to illustrate:

PC does not make us better workers - In fact, it make us impotent in terms of achieving results.

PC does not make us better citizens - Instead, it will distort our sense of history, civic duty, and patriotism.

PC does not make us better people - We'll become rather bland with little imagination and no desire to challenge the status quo.

I remember when I first heard the expression, "The N Word." This was driven home in the first OJ Simpson trial in 1995. Now we have a "Word" for just about every letter of the alphabet. Frankly, people are getting tired of this and a push back is likely in the offing. For example, Christians will no longer be apologetic for their religion; Capitalists will no longer be ashamed of their entrepreneurship and being successful; Whites will no longer feel guilty for the color of their skin; Conservatives will no longer be apologetic for their political views, and; people will continue to wave Confederate flags and not alter their definition of marriage.

As I said at the beginning, PC is intended to divide us, not to bring us together.

God, how I miss Sam Kinison, one of the most politically incorrect comedians we ever had. We could really use a strong dose of Sam today.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim's columns, see: timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

NEXT UP: WILL THE REPUBLICANS BOTCH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? - I just hope they do not grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.

LAST TIME: INDIFFERENCE IN CUSTOMER SERVICE - It's bad business, but does anyone care anymore?

THE BRYCE IS RIGHT!

Search This Blog

Friday, August 14, 2015

THE WORLD'S BEST

Thursday, August 13, 2015

THE PRESS' WAR WITH DONALD TRUMP

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

ARE WE ALL RACISTS?

Monday, August 10, 2015

IMPLEMENTING BUSINESS ETHICS

Friday, August 7, 2015

EXCESSIVE USE OF PROFANITY

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

WILL THE REPUBLICANS BOTCH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

Monday, August 3, 2015

LEGISLATING POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

Tim's Home Page

About Me

Followers

Blog Archive