Skip to main content
Home2012 Articles2011 Articles2010 Articles2009 Articles2008 Articles2007 Articles
 
 2010 Articles 
Sunday, February 28 2010

The old adage says that religion and politics don't mix.  Someone needs to tell FOX Sports writer Jason Whitlock that sports and politics don't either.  In his February 17 column dedicated to ranking the top 10 quarterbacks of all-time, Whitlock made one of the most ridiculous, outrageous, and boneheaded statements any sports reporter has made in a very long time.

Whitlock was describing the game-clinching play of Super Bowl XLIV when Saints defensive back Tracy Porter jumped a route being run by Colts wide-receiver Reggie Wayne, intercepted quarterback Peyton Manning's pass and galloped down the field for a touchdown, securing the Saints win.  For Indiana folks like me, it was heartbreaking.  For the folks of New Orleans...ecstasy. 

But Whitlock managed to drive a political wedge into what should have otherwise been left as a thrilling moment of sports history by writing, "A black defensive back outsmarted a beloved white quarterback.  I know. That's a truth many of you can't handle. It makes you uncomfortable."

Yes, I'm serious...he really did write that.  Whitlock didn't bother to enlighten anyone what it was about Porter's skin pigmentation that led to his decisive advantage over Manning.  Perhaps that little nugget of wisdom will come in a future column. 

Now, for the purposes of full disclosure, I readily admit that I am a Peyton Manning sycophant.  I would defend him and his body of work on the football field any day, against anybody.  I would not be the source to come to for objective analysis of where he ranks on the list of all time great quarterbacks.  But this has nothing to do with defending Manning or his legacy.  It doesn't even have anything to do with football.  Rather, it has everything to do with our society having the courage to look race-baiters in the face, rebuke them, and then quit giving them a platform from which they can continue to fan the very flames of discord that they claim to abhor.  They don't despise racism; they thrive on it.  And in cases like Whitlock, they apparently make their living from it.

Leading into his buffoonish remark, Whitlock wrote that he was making his column, "all about the elephant in the room" - that elephant being the fact that a black player outsmarted a white one.  Apparently Whitlock saw himself as courageous for being willing to discuss what no one else would.  Maybe it didn't dawn on him that the reason no one else was bringing it up was because it was such a stupid thing to say.

How would Whitlock react if a white sports writer had written a column to address the "elephant in the room" regarding the Saints go-ahead touchdown that had occurred just moments before Porter's interception - a play that was just as pivotal in determining the game's outcome?  If that writer correctly pointed out that the play was called by a white coach (Shawn Payton) against a black coach (Jim Caldwell), was executed by a white quarterback (Drew Brees) throwing to a white tight end (Jeremy Shockey) over a black defender (Jacob Lacey), and concluded that it was time we paid attention to those facts, would that be acceptable?

You see, rational people just don't think this way anymore.  Most of us aren't obsessed with race.  Dare I say it - most of us don't really care about race.  A lot of black Indianapolis Colts fans were devastated when the black Porter picked off the white Manning.  Conversely, a lot of white New Orleans Saints fans were elated when it happened.  That's as it should be, isn't it?  Wouldn't that have been a better elephant to write about, if one was determined to bring race up at all?  Isn't that living up to the words of Dr. King when he spoke of judging someone based on the content of their character (or in this case, their athletic play) rather than the color of their skin? 

Why does that elude people like Jason Whitlock?  And how does he think that his racially-driven remarks will help us reach that mountaintop of brotherhood?  Perhaps it's because Whitlock isn't nearly as interested in standing atop that mountain as he is in drawing attention to himself and his work? 

It is a sad, sorry and small man who looks at a great play like Tracy Porter made and who thinks the significant storyline is the color of his skin.  So let's just address the real elephant in the room, shall we?  As long as such men - men like Jason Whitlock - are setting the discussion agenda, we're never going to reach a colorblind society.  They simply won't allow it.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:20 pm   |  Permalink   |  5 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, February 21 2010

Imagine that I offered to give you a tour of Walt Disney World.  Having never been there - but having heard much about it - you excitedly accept the offer.  But when we went, imagine that I only showed you the insides of the port-o-potties that sit along the back edge of the park's property, and then urged you to conclude that Disney World was one disgusting destination.  Honest and fair of me?

Welcome to the Howard Zinn method of teaching American history.  About a month ago, this Marxist storyteller (too many people insult the field of history by conferring upon him the inappropriate and undeserved title of historian) died, leaving behind a legacy of contempt, fraud, and a herd of acolytes sure to carry on his life-long crusade of rewriting the pages of this country's story.

My genuine opposition to Zinn's work is not based in his zealous anti-American bias.  It is rooted primarily in his blatant anti-intellectualism that is so often glossed over by adoring crowds of media and entertainment types who share his contempt for America.

I first encountered Zinn's magnum opus, A People's History of the United States, when I was a first year American history teacher.  A friend had recommended that I read the book, "for a different perspective."  Admittedly, I struggled at first to even take it seriously.  What kind of a history text has no documentation and footnotes?  What kind of American history text leaves out Washington's Farewell Address and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, leaves out the moon landing and D-Day, leaves out Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright brothers...but makes plenty of room for Joan Baez and the Berrigan brothers?  This had to be a joke - some sort of parody, right?

On that count, I was in many ways correct.  Regarding Zinn's work as a chronicle of American history is indeed a cruel joke - one that is being played on the minds of countless young Americans across the country.  For despite the fact that the Marxist Zinn admits, "There is no such thing as pure fact...I wanted my writing of history and my teaching of history to be a part of social struggle," countless high schools and universities (including Indiana University, Penn State, the University of Colorado-Boulder, etc.) require students to read his fairy tales for completion of some courses.

The hatred Howard Zinn holds for his country (he rails, as any true Marxist does, against the evils of the American capitalist system...yes, the same one that made him very wealthy and allowed him to live a life of privilege) pales in comparison to the contempt he holds for responsible historical research.

Zinn sees both the writing and teaching of history not as what it is: a noble profession bearing responsibility to transmit an accurate retelling of past events to new generations, but rather as a weapon to use in advancing a social and political agenda.  Announcing that "objectivity is impossible...and it is also undesirable," Zinn attempts to absolve himself of any duty to accurately portray the events of the past.  As author Dan Flynn points out, what results is the worst kind of revisionism that only the ignorant or indoctrinated could embrace:

Maoist China - the most murderous state in human history - is praised as the closest thing to a "people's government" China has known; the oppressive Sandinistas in Nicaragua were "welcomed"; Castro's Cuba "had no bloody record of suppression"; the American revolution was a clever trick by the Founders to ensure oppression of Americans; emancipation of the slaves was motivated only by greed; America, not Japan, was responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor.

And of course this is only the beginning.  Zinn's pathetic retelling of the settler/Indian disputes would be embarrassing to the point of laughter if it were not for the fact that this pseudo-history is being taught as fact to countless students.

Following its initial printing, respected historian Oscar Handlin dismantled Zinn's book in a review as being "deranged...fairy tales."  Yet, regardless of his shoddy methodology, apparently non-existent research, and glaring bias, Zinn has become a cultural hero for the American left.  They see his as the voice that gives historical justification to what they have always believed about America: that she is a force for wickedness and evil, a country that should be ashamed of itself.

Perhaps the real shame we should feel is that people like Zinn can still find such success in using the openness, opportunity and freedom that this country provides to belittle it.  Upon his passing, it is important to remind ourselves that America is far greater than Howard Zinn, and her inspiring story overwhelms the feeble attempts of radical ideologues like him to erase or dismantle it.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 03:40 pm   |  Permalink   |  15 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, February 07 2010

The story is both heartbreaking and infuriating.  Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council recently wrote a column telling this painful account that is being completely and totally ignored by the mainstream press.

 

Lisa Miller, a Virginia woman, is the mother of a beautiful seven year old girl named Isabella.  Isabella was the product of artificial insemination, meaning that her biological father was an anonymous sperm donor making Lisa her only known biological parent.

 

At the time Lisa had Isabella conceived in her womb, she was practicing homosexuality with a woman named Janet Jenkins.  For the first year of Isabella's life, Lisa and Janet maintained a relationship, even traveling to Vermont to obtain the legal recognition known as a "civil union."  As time went by, however, Lisa began to realize that her effort to find fulfillment in sexual depravity wasn't working.  She began to attend a Christian church again and soon decided to end the relationship.  She and her biological daughter then moved back to Virginia where Lisa has raised her for the last six years.

 

Initially, Isabella was taken to Janet for visitation, but many times would return from those trips emotionally distressed, confused, and sometimes experiencing severe anxiety.  Concerned for the well being of her daughter, Lisa ended the visitation sessions with Janet...and set into motion a series of events that prove the backwards and radical nature of the homosexual lobby. 

 

It also proves the utter foolishness behind the notion advanced by the homosexual movement that a person's identity should be defined by their chosen behaviors.  The fact is that homosexuality is what a person does, not who a person is.  And failing to understand that has tragic implications for both the family and society at large.

 

Because the state of Vermont gave into the bullying tactics of the homosexual political agenda, they wrote utter nonsense into their law that is now upending any rational approach to the Lisa-Janet-Isabella saga.  Vermont's highest court has ordered that Lisa surrender Isabella to the authorities, who will then give custody to Janet as the rightful parent.

 

As Sprigg wrote, "The very legal principle on which Janet rests her claim to Isabella has historically been described as the "presumption of paternity" (i.e., fatherhood). It absolved men and women from having to legally prove what was almost always true anyway?that the father of a child born to a married woman is her husband. Now, the same principle is asserted to support something that can never be true since a female partner can never be a father. A usually-true legal assumption (the presumption of paternity) has been twisted into a complete legal fiction."

 

It's interesting how "civil unions" are always portrayed as the happy middle ground in the battle over same sex marriage.  Even some pro-family advocates are willing to accept the legitimacy of civil unions as some sort of victory for them since they stop short of conferring the semantic title of "marriage" upon homosexual partners.  And yet, this tragic story involving the innocent Isabella demonstrates that "civil unions" are not effective compromises, but rather weapons used by social activists to assist in their ongoing struggle to undo cultural norms and moral standards through legal confusion.

 

Consider also that Janet's attorneys are attempting to use the 1980 Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act to benefit their client.  The PKPA was enacted to prevent a disgruntled parent who lost a custody hearing from taking their child into another state to try to get a different custody ruling.  In other words, this law was intended to prevent a rightful biological parent from having their child taken from them.  Yet, thanks to what the homosexual lobby has accomplished, this law is now being twisted into a tool to do exactly what it was intended to prevent.

 

When Hollywood portrays or the mainstream media reports on those practicing homosexuality, they paint a picture of normalcy that does not exist, and they engage in grotesque mischaracterizations that equate sexual behavior (that is always a choice) with genetic identity (that is never a choice).  The consequence is a fundamental reshaping of society - families reconstituted, laws rewritten, mores restructured.

 

Despite the propaganda campaign to portray homosexuals as passive victims and those with traditional moral values as aggressive oppressors, the "gay rights" movement is seeking this very type of cultural revolution.  But don't take my word for it.  Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director for the homosexual Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund said, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so...Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."

 

Indeed it does.  And little girls like Isabella have their lives ruined in the process.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 03:40 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
    common sense makes a comeback
    site designed by Keith Parker   --  sign up for Peter Heck Mailing List here