I have to mention this gem from Obama at a recent fundraiser:
"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared."
Hmmm. This reminds of another classic quote from Obama from back in 2008:
"[Small town Pennsylvania residents] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
It's kind of hard to avoid the conclusion that Obama is an elitist. He clearly believes facts, science, and intelligence are all on his side, and those who disagree are prejudiced, ignorant, or not thinking clearly. In Obama's world, those who disagree with him are always motivated by irrational fears or xenophobic bitterness. His administration openly smears anyone who dares to question him -- from the Tea Parties to Fox News to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The man who campaigned on bridging our differences and bringing an end to extreme partisanship in Washington has become one of the worst partisan hacks in Washington.
I like The Denver Post's David Harsanyi column on this topic, found on realclearpolitics.com here. Harsanyi is not a social conservative and I don't always agree with him, but I find his sarcasm against the left quite refreshing.
***********************
On another note, one of my favorite liberals, Juan Williams, was recently fired from his position as political analyst for National Public Radio. Williams was fired for making allegedly bigoted comments about Muslims on The O'Reilly Factor a few days ago. Here are those "bigoted" comments:
"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
The CEO of NPR, Vivian Schiller, later added insult to injury by saying that Williams should have kept his feelings about Muslims between himself and his "psychiatrist."
Even taken out of context, there is nothing bigoted about Williams' comments. He is expressing the feelings that many, probably most, Americans have when flying post-9/11. The comments were true and honest. Given that radical Muslims blew up four planes less than 10 years ago and that those same radical Muslims are still trying to attack us, such concerns are eminently reasonable. When you take Williams' comments in context, however, the ironic thing is that Williams was actually challenging O'Reilly to be more careful and more sensitive in his statements about Muslims.
However, context, honesty, and reasonableness don't matter in the least to the political correctness police, which is becoming stronger and stronger in our country and is threatening to stamp out any kind of honest discourse in the name of "sensitivity." Free speech is being muzzled in the name of tolerance. The left has succeeded in putting numerous topics off limits for debate for anyone who wishes to avoid being labeled as bigoted. Gay rights is one such area. Dare to deviate from liberal orthodoxy on this topic in any way, and you are guaranteed to be branded as a hate-filled anti-gay bigot. Even to advocate for something as reasonable as keeping the traditional definition of marriage, which seemed to be a point of universal agreement in our society just 10 or 15 years ago, now is considered intolerant and homophobic by "polite society." Preaching from the Bible against homosexuality is already illegal under hate crimes legislation in Canada. Does anybody doubt this will happen in the U.S. within a few years as well?
Another area that is off-limits is race relations, especially if you are white. Almost anything you say regarding race and race relations in this country, no matter how innocent, is likely to be taken out of context and used against you. I have been watching Bill O'Reilly for years and I guarantee there is not a racist bone in his body. I remember how viscerally angry he became a few years ago when covering a story about an alternative, non-school sponsored high school prom in Georgia where blacks where prohibited from attending. Bigotry is something he hates with a passion. And yet, this man has been called a racist repeatedly for daring to have honest discussions about race relations on his program. In trying to brand Rush Limbaugh a racist last year, liberals completely manufactured a quote out of thin air, despite the fact that two black men frequently fill in for him on his program and his long-time radio assistant is black. Even Bill and Hillary Clinton were accused of racism back in 2008 for daring to campaign against a black man for president. Liberals deduce all kind of racist code in simple anti-Obama slogans such as "take our country back," a phrase that has nothing to do with race and was used by Howard Dean against the Republicans a few years ago.
Islam is yet another area that is increasingly becoming off-limits for civil discussion. Left-wing editorial after left-wing editorial declared opposition to the Ground Zero mosque (supported by 70% of Americans) to be bigoted and xenophobic. Two members of The View walked off the set when O'Reilly made the undeniably true statement that the Ground Zero mosque should not be built because "Muslims attacked us on 9/11." They claimed his statement was bigoted because he failed to identify these Muslims as "extremists." You see, in today's PC world, it doesn't matter whether what you say is true if it's perceived as insensitive. Facts and truth must take a back seat to tolerance. Of course, tolerance is not really so tolerant after all, since it declares whole categories of speech and thought to be off-limits. Such "tolerance" is the reason that Major Hasan was able to shoot up Fort Hood last year. His military peers and superiors knew that he was a ticking time bomb, but were afraid to say anything negative about him because he was a Muslim and they didn't want to run afoul of the PC police.
Juan Williams is a liberal, but he is an honest liberal and deserves better than how he was treated by NPR. It is scandalous that this left-wing outfit is getting taxpayer money. The Republicans should cut off all taxpayer funding for NPR if they take control of Congress next year. Williams' article about his firing is on foxnews.com and is well worth reading. Check it out here. And I would urge all of my readers: please don't give in to the PC police. It is time that all of us as Americans stood up against this increasing threat to free speech in our country. Don't be afraid to speak out on the issues and to say what you believe. Don't lend your support in any way to politicians and journalists who peddle this pseudo-tolerance.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Odds 'n Ends
Labels:
elitist politicians,
free speech,
Juan Williams,
NPR,
Obama,
political correctness
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It's worth adding that NPR needed to be de-funded even before the Juan Williams firing. We don't want to create the perception that this is some kind of visceral reaction that is just about Williams. There are many good reasons to de-fund and privatize NPR: (a) their extreme liberal bent, which is out of step with the country at large; (b) their intolerance of conservative views; and (c) the unpleasant truth that the federal government has no business subsidizing regular public media anyway.
Another thought: the NPR ombudsman's write-up on Juan Williams, and how inappropriate it is for journalists to express their views on controversial subjects outside NPR, actually made me laugh. The writer was making a fair point, but what is different between Nina Totemberg and Juan Williams? Could it be that this rule only applies to centrist liberals like Williams, and never to fringe lefties like Totemberg?
I completely agree with you, Andrew. NPR's firing of Williams is not the problem; it is merely a symptom of the problem. But it provides an interesting window into the mindset of the people who run the network, and should be a valuable tool for conservatives to use in rallying public support for a de-funding effort.
Ah yes, Nina Totenberg. The NPR reporter who said a few years ago that she hoped Jesse Helms and his children got infected with AIDS and died. She can show Juan how objective journalism really works!
I still remember sitting down to watch the McLaughlin(sp?) political talk show at your folks' house many years ago, and expecting to disagree with whatever came out of Nina's mouth!
I agree that NPR should be defunded. However, I think it's important to push for a law which would make it illegal for the federal government to fund media of any kind, lest it appear that we are being partisan. (The left will probably scream bloody murder anyway, but at least we can say we are being politically neutral.)
Post a Comment