The Right State

The hyper-sensitivity police are at it again.  This time they have Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in their sights for using a very accurate term of ‘tar baby’ to describe the Big Dig boondoggle.

Gov. Mitt Romney has apologized for referring to the troubled Big Dig construction project as a “tar baby” during a fundraiser with Iowa Republicans, saying he didn’t know anyone would be offended by the term some consider a racial epithet.

In a speech Saturday, Romney, a Republican considering a run for president in 2008, acknowledged he took a big political risk in taking control of the project after a fatal tunnel ceiling collapse, but said inaction would have been even worse.

“The best thing politically would be to stay as far away from that tar baby as I can,” he told a crowd of about 100 supporters in Ames, Iowa.

Okay, this is a very accurate statement.  A tar baby from Uncle Remus’ famous stories about the continual struggle between Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox, has come to represent something once you attach yourself with, you can never escape.  Romney decided to take on the project of fixing the Big Dig.  If he failed, he would be forever stuck with the tag of failing to fix Massachusetts project.  It would also most likely doom his political career.  Thus the Big Dig would be Romney’s tar baby.

Black leaders were outraged at his use of the term, which dates to the 19th century Uncle Remus stories, referring to a doll made of tar that traps Br’er Rabbit. It has come to be known as a way of describing a sticky mess, and has been used as a derogatory term for a black person.

“Tar baby is a totally inappropriate phrase in the 21st century,” said Larry Jones, a black Republican and civil rights activist.

Oh, grow up!  I grew up with my dad reading Uncle Remus stories to me at bedtime.  For these black ‘leaders’ to take these beloved stories and twist them into something racist is totally wrong.  What it tells me is these people never read the stories of Uncle Remus.  It was never the way he intended his stories to be defined.  I would imagine Uncle Remus would roll over in his grave if he know how black ‘leaders’ were twisting his stories into this perversion.  They might as well slap him in the face for his efforts.

Today the hyper-sensitivity police are looking for any kind of imagined slights or racial epitaphs, no matter how far they have to stretch the matter.  This time in stretching the remarks of Gov. Mitt Romney, they have not only denounced the governor, but a very good writer in Uncle Remus as well.  For that, they should be ashamed of themselves.

Tags: Culture, Politics by Chuck
No Comments »

Why is it that a judge in the ‘progressive’ nation of England can see so clearly through all of the hype on gay ‘marriages’ when some of our own judges here in the states can not?

A British judge on Monday dismissed a bid by two female professors to have their same-sex wedding in Canada recognized as a marriage in Britain.

Judge Mark Potter, head of Britain’s High Court Family Division, dismissed the claim by Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger that in defining their relationship as a civil partnership — rather than a marriage — Britain had violated their human rights.

Granting their request would risk undermining the time-honored institution of marriage, he said.

“To accord a same-sex relationship the title and status of marriage would be to fly in the face of the (European) Convention (on Human Rights) as well as to fail to recognize physical reality,” Potter wrote in his ruling.

Potter said there was a “long-standing definition and acceptance” that the term marriage referred to a relationship between a man and a woman, primarily designed for producing and rearing children.

Wanting to call a gay relationship a ‘marriage’ flies in the face of hundreds of years of family values and precedent.  What if I fixed up a carriage and tried to travel down I-45 with it?  When I am stopped by the police I would say, ‘Hey, it’s a car.  Look, it’s got four wheels, the horses are the motor, and these reins are my steering wheel.  To me, it’s a car.’  The officer will still write me a ticket and my vehicle is still not a car.  It is a carriage.  With me calling it a car does not change the fact of what it is.

So why do gays want to call their relationship a ‘marriage?’  It is almost like they do not believe it themselves and are trying (rather desperately) to gain acceptance from liberal judges by judicial fiat.  It’s not like we arrest, hang, or torture gays.  We just don’t like this liberal ideology shoved down our throats, especially by unelected and unaccountable judges.

50 or a 100 years from now gay and lesbian lifestyles may be more acceptable in public opinion which may then allow for a gay ‘marriage,’ though I doubt it.  The institution of marriage is so ingrained into society as between a man and a woman.  Call it whatever you want, just don’t call it a ‘marriage.’

Tags: Culture by Chuck
No Comments »