The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Thursday, October 21, 2010


Remember when anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was a hot topic in the media? Many on the Left, upon hearing Al Gore’s dire predictions of a 20-foot rise in the oceans, became hysterical, believing that carbon emissions were systematically destroying the planet. Their solution was the most significant transfer of wealth (via carbon taxes) from rich nations to poorer ones in human history. Never mind that the data was sketchy and (as we’d learn) doctored to produce a desired result; the science was tenuous at best; the computer models were inaccurate and/or tendentious, and AGW's leading proponents had an agenda that was far from scientifically objective.

AGW became a religion, and anyone (including yours truly) who had the temerity to question its orthodoxy was deemed a “climate denier.” As a consequence, “deniers” were demonized by the MSM, major politicians, the Hollywood elite, and many, many proponents on the Left. We were, as Richard Fernandez writes in another of his brilliant essays, “blasphemers” because we were politically incorrect.

In his essay, Fernandez comments on National Public Radio’s summary firing of liberal commentator Juan Williams for expressing his nervousness when he encountered men in Muslim garb on an airplane. His comments were politically incorrect, but past history provides a reasonable background for his nervousness. A commenter, “cfbleachers” at The Belmont Club addresses this:
I think it helps to break down precisely what was said here, what was not said, what was done, and what was not done.

Juan Williams said that when he got on a plane, he felt “nervous”, if there were male Muslims identifying themselves as Muslims first.

Why would this reaction take place? Because a segment of the Muslim population, has declared war on America and has hijacked planes, hidden explosives in their shoes, hidden explosives in their underwear, and have targeted airports and airplanes as a specific target of their murder of civilians?
It would seem that his fear has a rational basis.

He did NOT say that when he got into an elevator with a Muslim or went into a store with a Muslim or passed a Muslim on the street, that he felt fear or apprehension. He said that he felt it specifically in the area where a segment of male Muslims have targeted Americans for acts of mass murder.

He did not say that he was offended by Muslim garb. Or that the burqa offended him.

NPR then, apparently, has a zero tolerance for fear of mass murder. There can be no other explanation. When an identifiable group declares war against America, seeks to mass murder our citizens, openly declares that they will continue to try to mass murder our citizens…in the name of their RELIGION…then, whose side is NPR on when ANY of our citizens feels fear of this very real threat?

Does the FBI say that the threat is not real? No, they don’t. Does Homeland Security say that the threat is not real? No, in fact…they tell Americans to be EXTRA VIGILANT when going to airports and getting on airplanes.

In NPR’s eyes, Mr. Williams blasphemed. No matter that he is a staunch defender of civil rights, a rational liberal voice, and a long-time contributor to NPR. He blasphemed, and he had to be removed—no debate, no discussion, no understanding.

In the Alice and Wonderland world of the politically correct, facts that don’t fit an accepted meme are disregarded if possible and shouted down when necessary. Eyes are squeezed shut and the listener (in this case, NPR) shouts “la, la, la, la” as loud as possible until the unwanted information abates.

Fernandez comments:
The trouble is, the blasphemy is only obvious from a certain perspective. If you’re an outsider then you are walking blindfolded through a cultural minefield. So it is probably with some trepidation that the morally infirm must regard the rise of anti hate-speech and blasphemy laws in the legal codes of the 21st century … If there are just some things the blasphemers don’t instinctively “get” or which they wrongfully assume is protected under such quaint notions as freedom of speech, then too bad …

Yeah, too bad.