As the late George Carlin used to say, "It's all B.S. -- and it's all bad for you." Such is the state of American culture at this point in time. Readers continue to send in great examples of toxic euphemisms that illustrate just how sick our intellectuals and "leaders" have become. Here are some from what passes as the field of education:

What they say: "... create a climate where students are 'actively engaged' in meaningful learning experiences."

What it means: Pet and coax students to complete assignments. (And misuse scare quotes often as a means of emphasis.)

What they say: "... produce learning experiences suited to the grade level and to the student developmental level that will enhance student achievement."

What it means: Make sure everyone passes.

What they say: "Identify, select, and modify instructional resources to meet the need of students with varying backgrounds, learning styles, and special needs."

What it means: Keep assignments easy, making allowances for students' lack of knowledge.

What they say: "Approach situations with a student-centered attitude and flexibility that promotes student success."

What it means: Dumb down the curriculum to ensure that "learning experiences [are] suited to the grade level and to the student developmental level [to] enhance student achievement."

What they say: "Proactively reach out to students, don’t wait for problems to approach them."

What it means: Write sentences with dangling modifiers so their meanings are obfuscated. In this case, be sure that problems don't get near the students. (Those darn problems can be dangerous stalkers.)

What they say: "The full time instructor will be evaluated based on [his] ability to accurately and effectively resolve behind pace and schedule issues."

What it means: Make sure to shovel out the exercises on schedule, whether the students grasp the material or not. However, if you create "a climate where students are 'actively engaged' in meaningful learning experiences" that "produce learning experiences suited to the grade level and to the student developmental level that will enhance student achievement" and "meet the need of students with varying backgrounds, learning styles, and special needs," you won't face that problem.

(And be sure to avoid using masculine personal pronouns least you be revealed as a male sexist pig. Of course, the student will follow your lead, meaning that s/he will misuse the plural pronoun in their (oops) compositions.)

Obama's One-Man Death Panel ... To fight evil, you must grasp its nature. CLICK HERE!

“Impulse control disorder"

Translation: Official sounding: grants permission to steal, gamble, and commit arson because there is a disorder that dismantles the connection between responsibility, thoughts and actions.

“Full figured”

Translation: fat, overweight.

A woman in court to defend herself against eviction said she couldn't work because, "she caught the depression."

Translation: I'm unhappy with my life but won't do anything about it.

“ADD”

Translation: Bored and would rather be somewhere else or doing something else.

“Excitable”

Translation: Allowed to misbehave and do as he pleases because his parents are unwilling to set limits.

“Work through the past”

Translation: Find an excuse to not think about improving myself/solving problems in the present by continually recalling past events to gain sympathy.

“Stress”

Translation: Life, including the requirement to think and work in order to gain desired results.

Somebody recently asked me, "As a therapist, how can you be in favor of capitalism and limited government, and against the welfare state?" My reply was, and always is, as follows. I write columns, books and essays on the psychology of a healthy life. Central to emotional health is a willingness to set boundaries. For example, I write of how people are not entitled to your time, nor are you entitled to theirs. I write about how self-assertion is a necessary skill to "enforce" boundaries in one's life. All of this contributes to a sense of serenity, a core belief that one is entitled to live for one's own sake, not feel guilty about it and to enjoy everything life has to offer, while still being productive and self-responsible. If I actually believe all these things I write, then why would I adopt political views that undermine all of these points the moment legislators go into session?

I don't agree with "liberalism" or "conservatism." Liberalism is the view that the central purpose of government is to transfer wealth from some members of society who have earned it to others deemed needy by politicians. Liberalism utilizes the force of law to literally steal from one individual to give to another, to take from members of one group to give to another. They call this "compassion," while evading the fact that no such thing is true. If I broke into your house and took some of your money, claiming that it was for someone more needy and deserving than you, and that I had the police on my side, would you call this compassion? Liberals would howl louder at this act of tyranny and intrusion than anyone, especially if it happened to them. As for "conservatism," it's nothing more than liberal-lite with religious belief thrown in. According to conservatives, the welfare state should exist, but it shouldn't grow as fast as liberals want. Further, according to conservatives, all people should be religious and the force of government should be used as a means to promote religion.

As a therapist who advocates boundaries, self-determination, individualism and self-esteem, why on earth would I ever subscribe to either liberalism or conservatism? If I advise people to value their lives and their selves, why would I ever endorse a political system that sacrifices half the population for the alleged sake of the other half? Politicians under today's system are the abusers. Quite frankly, so are their supporters. I'm on the side of their victims -- specifically, those who don't want to be their victims.

CLICK HERE for audio/interviews/radio shows on related topics!

Most people, I find, deeply resent their bosses. What they don't understand is that the boss -- particularly when the boss is the owner of the company -- has more responsibility than the employee. This fact should be plain enough, but it's rarely if ever even considered by most people. The typical employee views the boss as having arbitrary power over him. Evaded in this mindset is the fact that the boss is the one left with all the bills if the company goes down. The employee will be out of a job -- worst case -- but the employer could be out of a house, or in debt for the rest of his or her life.

It's disgusting beyond words to watch our elected officials encourage this view with their talk of "spreading" the wealth around, taxing only "the rich" (i.e. the people who provide the jobs, in most cases), and making society "fairer." These elected officials are usually intelligent enough to know this is all B.S. They're merely prostitutes for the ignorant, for those too stupid (or too evasive themselves) to consider that employers should have the same individual property rights as employees, and that employers are carrying all of the risk while the employee carries little or none. How about some compassion and empathy for the job creators who have kept civilization going all these years? Let's start by firing just about every single politician currently in office, and replacing them ONLY with people who understand and honor this fact. The first one I'd fire? The world's most incompetent employee: Barack.

How to Cope in Business ... and Much More! CLICK HERE

The Daily Dose of Reason Named One of 50 Best Blogs for Ayn Rand Readers ... CLICK HERE!