Blogging Blue

In thinking of the controversy surrounding the coexist bumper sticker, as well as
comments made by Daniel over at GOP3.com - not to mention his own ham-handed attempt at a “CONVERT” bumper sticker - I’m reminded of one of my favorite passages from the Bible:

“Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke [reason with] thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.”
– Leviticus 19: 17-18 (KJV)

In this passage originates a powerful idea: that you should treat your fellow as you yourself would be treated. This is perhaps the oldest definition of empathy, and it’s something folks like young Daniel from GOP3 and all the right-wing talking heads here in southeastern Wisconsin would be wise to keep in their minds and hearts.

No Comments »

Now unless you’ve been living under a rock lately like I have, undoubtedly you’ve heard about the controversy surrounding Chuck Sykes’ comments in defense of a spoof of the “Coexist” bumper stickers that can be seen on bumpers across southeastern Wisconsin. Said spoof, which was contrived by Tom McMahon, involves replacing, among other things, the Star of David on the bumper sticker with a Swastika.

In case you haven’t heard about it, Jay Bullock over at folkbum is talking about it, as are the folks over at Whallah! Anne Quimby Mathias over at Pundit Nation has something to say as well, so feel free to check any of those fine blogs out if you’d like to read a little more about the situation.

After making it clear he supported Tom McMahon’s spoof, Chuck Sykes came under fire from the folks at the Interfaith Conference - and rightfully so in my opinion - but after briefly removing a letter he wrote defending his support for Muslim-bashing, the letter found its way back onto Sykes’ website at 620WTMJ. Apparently Chuck Sykes is sticking to his guns in comparing Muslims to Nazis and Communists, going so far as to say,

Mr. McMahon believes, and I agree, that we are now engaged in a struggle with Islamic fascism. We cannot coexist with terrorists who blow up buses filled with children, cut off the heads of hostages, and slaughter innocent civilians. We need to resist and fight them.

What seems to be escaping Chuck Sykes is the fact that “Islamic fascism” and Islam do not go hand in hand. Sure, there are extremists within Islam who are willing to go to any lengths - including perverting their religion - in order to serve their own ends, but the same could be said for Christians. Apparently Tom McMahon and Chuck Sykes buy into the thinking that all Muslims are terrorists, and that’s really an unfortunate way of thinking, because it’s simply not true.

Now I certainly understand Chuck Sykes’ argument that this is a free speech issue, and in that respect he’s right. No matter how distasteful - or downright disgusting - we may think Tom McMahons’s parody is, he’s still allowed his freedom of speech. What I take issue with is Chuck Sykes’ ignorance in defense of Tom McMahon, because the kind of ignorant and misinformed opinions that Chuck Sykes is spreading are dangerous.

EDIT: Michael Plaisted over at Plaisted Writes sums up this whole situation about as well as anyone….read more here.

No Comments »

So Charlie Sykes - also known by his more formal sounding nom de plume Charles J. Sykes - has graced us all with a preview of his 50 Rules, due in stores Thursday, presumably to whet the appetites of his rabid and devoted fan base.

Michael Mathias over at Pundit Nation and Paul Soglin at Waxing America have both started to break down the three rules Charlie previewed, and I just wanted to add my own thoughts on Rule #11, because it’s got some glaring problems (emphasis mine).

RULE (11): After you graduate, you won’t be competing against rivals who were raised to be wimps on the playground.

The Duke of Wellington once said that “the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton ” – reflecting his view that competitive sports shape a nation’s character. We sure as hell should hope that’s not true about America unless, that is, we plan on going to war against an enemy who also values non-competitive, risk-free, self-esteem building play activities for its young….

Now I’m sure you’re wondering what’s wrong with the quote I’ve highlighted, and I’d love to explain. It’s improbable Wellington ever actually said, “the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton,” because according to various sources I’ve read, Wellington had been dead for three years when, in 1855, Charles Montalembert credited him with that remark in his De l’Avenir politique de l’Angleterre. The Duke of Wellington was at Eton from 1781 to 1784, from the ages of 12 to 15, and it’s known he was an idle and dreamy boy who took no part in organized sports. There was, in fact, little in the way of organized sport at Eton at that time, the activities to be seen on the playing fields appeared to the uninitiated to be more like free-for-all fights than games. Further, Wellington was said to have remembered his days at Eton as lonely and unhappy, his only sport being solitary leaps across a local brook, and he almost never visited the school in later years despite being its most famous alumnus.

I’m left to wonder if Charlie Sykes has any researchers on his staff, and if so, did he bother to have any of them make sure this quote - which he uses to help justify the logic behind Rule #11 - was accurate and attributed to the right person? If not, Charlie should get someone on that.

18 Comments »