I've heard about the commercial.
I didn't watch the Super Bowl so I haven't seen Coca-Cola's now infamous ad featuring America the Beautiful sung in different languages. From what I've heard, though, the ad is an ode to multiculturalism, and the political right is quite riled up about it. I understand their anger. However, with all due respect to my friends on the right, I think they're overreacting just a bit.
There's a saying, taken from the title of a popular book, that is appropriate for this controversy: don't sweat the small stuff. And that commercial is small stuff. Yes, I understand the implications of Coca-Cola pandering to multiculturalism and political correctness, and if the company had done that with The Star-Spangled Banner I'd be as upset as most conservatives. Why? Because The Star-Spangled Banner is our national anthem, the official hymn of our American identity. America the Beautiful, while a poignantly patriotic song, is not.
We have epic problems facing our country today. We are 17 trillion dollars in debt. We have an imperial president who ignores the Constitution. We still have terrorists who want to kill us. In the name of fighting "discrimination", gay activists are undermining our freedoms of association, speech, religion, and conscience. Millions of Americans have lost their health insurance due to Obamacare and millions more will likely lose theirs in the near future. Like I said, epic problems. We can't afford to waste energy on small stuff. We must stay focused on the real threats to America and a multi-lingual rendition of America the Beautiful isn't one of them.
Showing posts with label PC Madness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PC Madness. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 05, 2014
Monday, October 21, 2013
Outrage In Colorado
While the nation's attention has been riveted to the government shutdown and fight over Obamacare for the last couple of weeks, other things are happening across the USA that should anger Americans even more than the smarmy goings on of Washington politics. One of those things was an outrageous incident that happened in Sterling, CO about two weeks ago.
The grieving family of Linda Baker, wife of Baptist pastor Mark Baker, were denied their request to have the ichthys--an early fish symbol of Christianity--with "Jesus" written inside it, placed on Mrs. Baker's headstone. Shawn Rewoldt, manager of the public cemetery where Mrs. Baker was buried, refused the family's request on the grounds that the name "Jesus" might offend someone. Stunned, the family protested only to have Rewoldt compare the Jesus-in-the-ichthys symbol to the hooked cross of Nazi Germany. "What if somebody wanted to put a swastika [on a headstone]?" Rewoldt reportedly told the Bakers to defend his decision. Next, the family appealed to the city council for help but the council supported Rewoldt. Only after being pressured by a Facebook campaign launched by the Bakers did Sterling city manager Joe Kiolbasa overrule Rewoldt. Linda Baker will get to have the symbol she wanted put on her headstone after all, but her wish should never have been denied in the first place.
Yes, I know the cemetery in question was a public, city-owned cemetery, but the manager didn't use the separation of church and state ruse to block the Baker family's religious freedom. Oh no. He tried to stop Jesus's name from being seen on the grounds that its "Christian connotation" might offend. If the Bakers had asked for the name "Allah" or "Mohammed" for their loved one's headstone you can bet your proverbial bottom dollar that neither of them would've been deemed potentially offensive.
This entire incident was despicable and outrageous! Yet, as outrageous as it was I would've expected it in the big liberal cities on the east and left coasts. Shockingly, this attack on Christianity occurred in the heartland in a town with less than 20,000 people. The poison of political correctness and Christophobia is seeping into and corroding every nook and cranny of America. All the budget and policy battles in Washington will be for nothing if we don't stop the march of the Left's cultural rot through America. To paraphrase Jesus, what does it profit a nation to gain fiscal order yet lose its soul?
Try banning that, Sterling, Colorado.
The grieving family of Linda Baker, wife of Baptist pastor Mark Baker, were denied their request to have the ichthys--an early fish symbol of Christianity--with "Jesus" written inside it, placed on Mrs. Baker's headstone. Shawn Rewoldt, manager of the public cemetery where Mrs. Baker was buried, refused the family's request on the grounds that the name "Jesus" might offend someone. Stunned, the family protested only to have Rewoldt compare the Jesus-in-the-ichthys symbol to the hooked cross of Nazi Germany. "What if somebody wanted to put a swastika [on a headstone]?" Rewoldt reportedly told the Bakers to defend his decision. Next, the family appealed to the city council for help but the council supported Rewoldt. Only after being pressured by a Facebook campaign launched by the Bakers did Sterling city manager Joe Kiolbasa overrule Rewoldt. Linda Baker will get to have the symbol she wanted put on her headstone after all, but her wish should never have been denied in the first place.
Yes, I know the cemetery in question was a public, city-owned cemetery, but the manager didn't use the separation of church and state ruse to block the Baker family's religious freedom. Oh no. He tried to stop Jesus's name from being seen on the grounds that its "Christian connotation" might offend. If the Bakers had asked for the name "Allah" or "Mohammed" for their loved one's headstone you can bet your proverbial bottom dollar that neither of them would've been deemed potentially offensive.
This entire incident was despicable and outrageous! Yet, as outrageous as it was I would've expected it in the big liberal cities on the east and left coasts. Shockingly, this attack on Christianity occurred in the heartland in a town with less than 20,000 people. The poison of political correctness and Christophobia is seeping into and corroding every nook and cranny of America. All the budget and policy battles in Washington will be for nothing if we don't stop the march of the Left's cultural rot through America. To paraphrase Jesus, what does it profit a nation to gain fiscal order yet lose its soul?
Try banning that, Sterling, Colorado.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Just In Time For The Holidays
We've all heard about. Here's my take on what the TSA has in store for the travelling public just in time for the holidays.
I don't fly. I have flown in the past but I don't like it and haven't done it in about 10 years, so the TSA's new security measures aren't going to affect me any time soon. Still, I've been following the controversy and I think the body scans and pat-downs are a bit outrageous.
Yes, I want Americans to be protected from terrorism. As a supporter in limited government I believe that such protection is one of the federal government's few responsibilities, but the TSA's security measures just doesn't past the smell test to me. They're questionable on several levels.
First, the measures are just so intrusive. You have to submit to being virtually stripped by a machine or groped by a stranger in order to get on a plane. And if you refuse you can be fined $11,000! That's the second problem I have with this situation. The TSA is being quite heavy handed and arrogant toward the public. It reminds me of the way anti-Obamacare protestors were held in contempt by elected officials. Once again the government is copping an arrogantly paternalistic we're-going-to-force-you-to-do-what-we-know-is-best attitude. The TSA isn't listening to the people's concerns and that's creating as much anger as the intrusive security measures themselves.
The third problem with the TSA's new policy is that it puts TSA employees in an unfair situation. Imagine it's your job to "protect" the public by looking at the naked bodies of and/or fondling the "junk" of thousands of strangers. Now imagine that a lot of those strangers deeply resent what you're doing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that TSA employees could come in for some abuse from those strangers. Now, that shouldn't happen. The TSA workers are just doing their job and they shouldn't bear the brunt of the public's ire. Unfortunately, the government has put them in this unenviable position, and it could've been avoided if the feds had some courage. And that brings me to the most offensive problem with these security measures: they're a capitulation to political correctness.
Let's face it. The current admininstration is obsessed with not offending Muslims. So obsessed that it'll design "security" policies for Americans with "sensitivity" to Muslims in mind. Thus, the TSA's new security actions treat all fliers as if they pose an equal threat to America; they don't. Muslims--especially young, Middle Eastern, male, Muslims--are the likeliest perpetrators of terrorism today. But rather than acknowledge that fact the TSA implements anti-terrorism procedures so that Muslims don't feel--gasp!--profiled.
Ah, yes. Profiling! The most heinous act of racial oppression known to man, based on the way liberals react to it. Profiling Muslims is certainly worse than Muslims actually murdering Americans. Even if the profiling is based on behavior and not race, as the Israelis do it, it's still unacceptable to the PC whipped crowd. Why? Most likely because behavior-based profiling would still nab a lot of terrorist wannabes named Ahmed. So, the TSA strains to avoid profiling of any type, and opts instead to subject all American fliers to fondling and/or a virtual strip search. Fondling, strip searches, and privacy violations. All brought to you by your friendly federal government.
Just in time for the holidays.
I don't fly. I have flown in the past but I don't like it and haven't done it in about 10 years, so the TSA's new security measures aren't going to affect me any time soon. Still, I've been following the controversy and I think the body scans and pat-downs are a bit outrageous.
Yes, I want Americans to be protected from terrorism. As a supporter in limited government I believe that such protection is one of the federal government's few responsibilities, but the TSA's security measures just doesn't past the smell test to me. They're questionable on several levels.
First, the measures are just so intrusive. You have to submit to being virtually stripped by a machine or groped by a stranger in order to get on a plane. And if you refuse you can be fined $11,000! That's the second problem I have with this situation. The TSA is being quite heavy handed and arrogant toward the public. It reminds me of the way anti-Obamacare protestors were held in contempt by elected officials. Once again the government is copping an arrogantly paternalistic we're-going-to-force-you-to-do-what-we-know-is-best attitude. The TSA isn't listening to the people's concerns and that's creating as much anger as the intrusive security measures themselves.
The third problem with the TSA's new policy is that it puts TSA employees in an unfair situation. Imagine it's your job to "protect" the public by looking at the naked bodies of and/or fondling the "junk" of thousands of strangers. Now imagine that a lot of those strangers deeply resent what you're doing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that TSA employees could come in for some abuse from those strangers. Now, that shouldn't happen. The TSA workers are just doing their job and they shouldn't bear the brunt of the public's ire. Unfortunately, the government has put them in this unenviable position, and it could've been avoided if the feds had some courage. And that brings me to the most offensive problem with these security measures: they're a capitulation to political correctness.
Let's face it. The current admininstration is obsessed with not offending Muslims. So obsessed that it'll design "security" policies for Americans with "sensitivity" to Muslims in mind. Thus, the TSA's new security actions treat all fliers as if they pose an equal threat to America; they don't. Muslims--especially young, Middle Eastern, male, Muslims--are the likeliest perpetrators of terrorism today. But rather than acknowledge that fact the TSA implements anti-terrorism procedures so that Muslims don't feel--gasp!--profiled.
Ah, yes. Profiling! The most heinous act of racial oppression known to man, based on the way liberals react to it. Profiling Muslims is certainly worse than Muslims actually murdering Americans. Even if the profiling is based on behavior and not race, as the Israelis do it, it's still unacceptable to the PC whipped crowd. Why? Most likely because behavior-based profiling would still nab a lot of terrorist wannabes named Ahmed. So, the TSA strains to avoid profiling of any type, and opts instead to subject all American fliers to fondling and/or a virtual strip search. Fondling, strip searches, and privacy violations. All brought to you by your friendly federal government.
Just in time for the holidays.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Islamic Terrorism At Fort Hood
It was terrorism.
No, officialdom hasn't yet labeled it as such, but the massacre of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood this past Thursday was an act of domestic Islamic terrorism. This is the second act of Islamic terrorism on American soil since Obama took office, and the deadliest one since 9-11. But no one among the powers that be seems to have the courage to call this rampage what it is.
As I've thought over these last few days about the horror at Fort Hood, I've concluded that what scares and angers me the most is seeing the iron grip that political correctness has on our society and all its most important institutions.
Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the army psychiatrist and Muslim who slaughtered our soldiers at Fort Hood, had given plenty of clues that he was heading off the radical Muslim cliff. He had complained that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were unjust to Muslims and feared his upcoming deployment. He had said he was Muslim first and American second. He said he believed Muslims shouldn't kill other Muslims. And he had reportedly left jihadi style rhetoric on the internet. These things by themselves might not be too much case for alarm but taken together they had up to a HUGE red flag. Why didn't the military pick up on it? Most likely for the same reason that most politicians and news folks haven't called what Hasan did terrorism.
In the PC world of the Left, where many politicians and virtually all journalists live, Muslims are a protected group. Being non-White, non-Western, and non-Christian they are regarded as oppressed and are cut tremendous slack and given a huge pass. Every effort is made to be sensitive to their feeling. Violence by Muslims is to be understood, not condemned. And under no circumstances are Muslims generally to be condemned for the actions of a few. This politically correct paradigm is the main reason why the rampage at Fort Hood hasn't been called terrorism. But I think there's another reason, too. Officialdom has resisted labeling Nidal Malik Hasan's crime Islamic terrorism for political reasons. They want to protect the reputation of Barack Obama and his smarmy policy of peace through appeasement.
Obama, you may recall, went on his now notorious I'm Sorry To Be An American Tour of the Muslim world shortly after becoming president. His grovelling to Muslims was supposed to usher in a new era of "mutual respect" and peace between America and the Islamic world. It didn't. Islamic terrorism has continued and has now struck twice on American soil since Obama took possession of the Oval Office. The first act of domestic Islamic terrorism under Obama was the June 1st murder of Pvt. William Long by Muslim convert Carlos Bledsoe, aka Abdulhakim Muhammad. The second act of domestic Islamic terrorism under Obama was the horror at Fort Hood on Thursday. That attack, I repeat, was the deadliest Islamic attack on the homeland since 9-11.
I fear that more attacks from radical Muslims are coming. They are coming because we now have in Washington a crew who won't do what's necessary to stop them. The first president to treat Islamic terrorism as the war that it is was savagely maligned for doing so. Now we have a president who thinks that "soft power",i.e. appeasement, will calm the savage Muslim beast. Well, Nidal Malik Hasan and Abdulhakim Muhammad didn't get that memo. Waiting for the Islamofascists to become good boys and girls in response to our ass kissing is going to cost more Americans their lives. Next time it may be a shopping mall, commuter train, or school that gets hit. Don't expect the Anointed One and his policies to be held accountable, though, when they strike again. Don't expect the terrorists to be held accountable, either. It'll be Bush's fault; that's liberal officialdom's prime way of absolving Obama of responsibility for anything bad. Protecting Obama, not America, is all that progressives, including Obama himself, really care about. More dead Americans in the homeland are on the way.
Heaven help us.
No, officialdom hasn't yet labeled it as such, but the massacre of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood this past Thursday was an act of domestic Islamic terrorism. This is the second act of Islamic terrorism on American soil since Obama took office, and the deadliest one since 9-11. But no one among the powers that be seems to have the courage to call this rampage what it is.
As I've thought over these last few days about the horror at Fort Hood, I've concluded that what scares and angers me the most is seeing the iron grip that political correctness has on our society and all its most important institutions.
Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the army psychiatrist and Muslim who slaughtered our soldiers at Fort Hood, had given plenty of clues that he was heading off the radical Muslim cliff. He had complained that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were unjust to Muslims and feared his upcoming deployment. He had said he was Muslim first and American second. He said he believed Muslims shouldn't kill other Muslims. And he had reportedly left jihadi style rhetoric on the internet. These things by themselves might not be too much case for alarm but taken together they had up to a HUGE red flag. Why didn't the military pick up on it? Most likely for the same reason that most politicians and news folks haven't called what Hasan did terrorism.
In the PC world of the Left, where many politicians and virtually all journalists live, Muslims are a protected group. Being non-White, non-Western, and non-Christian they are regarded as oppressed and are cut tremendous slack and given a huge pass. Every effort is made to be sensitive to their feeling. Violence by Muslims is to be understood, not condemned. And under no circumstances are Muslims generally to be condemned for the actions of a few. This politically correct paradigm is the main reason why the rampage at Fort Hood hasn't been called terrorism. But I think there's another reason, too. Officialdom has resisted labeling Nidal Malik Hasan's crime Islamic terrorism for political reasons. They want to protect the reputation of Barack Obama and his smarmy policy of peace through appeasement.
Obama, you may recall, went on his now notorious I'm Sorry To Be An American Tour of the Muslim world shortly after becoming president. His grovelling to Muslims was supposed to usher in a new era of "mutual respect" and peace between America and the Islamic world. It didn't. Islamic terrorism has continued and has now struck twice on American soil since Obama took possession of the Oval Office. The first act of domestic Islamic terrorism under Obama was the June 1st murder of Pvt. William Long by Muslim convert Carlos Bledsoe, aka Abdulhakim Muhammad. The second act of domestic Islamic terrorism under Obama was the horror at Fort Hood on Thursday. That attack, I repeat, was the deadliest Islamic attack on the homeland since 9-11.
I fear that more attacks from radical Muslims are coming. They are coming because we now have in Washington a crew who won't do what's necessary to stop them. The first president to treat Islamic terrorism as the war that it is was savagely maligned for doing so. Now we have a president who thinks that "soft power",i.e. appeasement, will calm the savage Muslim beast. Well, Nidal Malik Hasan and Abdulhakim Muhammad didn't get that memo. Waiting for the Islamofascists to become good boys and girls in response to our ass kissing is going to cost more Americans their lives. Next time it may be a shopping mall, commuter train, or school that gets hit. Don't expect the Anointed One and his policies to be held accountable, though, when they strike again. Don't expect the terrorists to be held accountable, either. It'll be Bush's fault; that's liberal officialdom's prime way of absolving Obama of responsibility for anything bad. Protecting Obama, not America, is all that progressives, including Obama himself, really care about. More dead Americans in the homeland are on the way.
Heaven help us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)