On Prudes and Sanctimony

At age 60, I still enjoy the revelation - the grand "ahaaa" - that comes from learning the meaning and origin of words.

A number of years ago, I was invaded with the accusation of being "sanctimonious" for discourging my family from watching a certain movie I felt was inappropriate at the time. I later learned that being called that word was a good thing, despite the negative intent of the name caller, as well as current usage. In fact, being sanctimonious is acting as though one has been sanctified; set apart; made holy through Christ. Of course our behaviors should be different from those who are neither sanctified nor sanctimonious. Those who are not sanctified tend to have a natural dislike of those who are. They like to ridicule.

Another word, "prude" comes to mind. Although I haven't been called a prude lately, I suspect some people think I am. But I was reminded by Laura Ingraham, speaking on her radio program, that the origin of "prude" is from "prudent" - a positive word suggesting thoughtfulness and care. I suppose since it is no longer fashionable (in the eyes of many) to be prudent, the natural thing to do is to ridicule those who are with a negative connotation via the word "prude."

I guess it boils down to this: If a person is and acts sanctified and you are not, ridicule him with the word "sanctimonious." If a person is more prudent than you believe is appropriate, ridicule him with the word "prude." The person who is called these things can take these words as a complement. As the Scriptures say, "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive."

So, to all you sanctimonious prudes out there - keep it up! We need more people like you.

The Real National Policy - "Greed"

A guest on the Laura Ingraham show this morning defended the Administration's UAE ports management deal on the basis of an overarching federal policy that is at the heart of the matter.

Why would the President suggest this morning, in response to the warranted uproar of concern about national security, that "people don't need to worry about security?" Is it because another federal policy takes precedence over national security?

What is that "other" policy? As this guest explained, it is the economic vitality of this nation. It is the material wealth of this nation we are concerned with. And he was sincerely matter of fact when he was saying this. He explained that we are part of a global, multi-national economy. We are a trading partner - a trade zone. We have to reach out and be a part of all of it to remain competitive and successful. And the ports deal is a part of it. While the above is not a direct quote, that is the essence of his message.

That "policy" statement explains our lax immigration policy as well.

While I enjoy prosperity and a successful economy as much as the next guy, these policies verge on greed at the expense of security. I think of Pooh Bear getting his hand stuck in the hollow of the tree, not wanting to let go of the honey, while the bees have a field day with the rest of his hairy bear body. Trouble is, our hairy bodies may get blown up, not just stung.

The business interests in this nation are huge and greedy. The President is not immune - he's bought into it. There are billions hinging on this deal. There will be a lot of excuse making by those special interests with the most to gain from "the deal."

"The deal" does not meet the straight-face test with regard to national security. But if we understand that our primary national policy is greed, then what this administration does will make more sense. I hope this helps those who were heretofore as befuddled as I.