Truth be told, political-correctness has gone completely haywire these days.  Nothing new there, I know.  The difference now is that it has devolved into a new, dangerous phase.  During its initial stages, the “P.C.” philosophy involved rewording so-called “insensitive” phrases and dancing around topics that were designated as taboo.  But what we have now is the result of years of such controversial topics being restricted to hushed tones: Any mention of them now sounds extreme, and is dismissively labeled as malicious fallacy.  And worse, the speaker is often unjustly maligned.  This, friends, is wrong.

There is nothing rewarding about being, or pretending to be, blissfully ignorant.  As the saying goes, the truth shall set you free.  We mustn’t be ignorant of the truth, or be afraid to explore ideas, for the sake of some phony utopia based in denial.

Now, saying things that one knows will be hurtful or offensive, for the sake of doing so, IS insensitive and most certainly wrong.  However, there is a distinction between such behavior and the outright suppression of discussion.  When honest people stating opinions are scorned, we have a problem.  Being politically-correct doesn’t have to equate to being stupidly-ignorant.

With that in mind, let’s scrutinize five of the more fashionable blissful lies that are posing as prevailing wisdom today in our mainstream society.  The opinions that follow may bring jeers at their very mention, but perhaps they have enough supporting evidence to at least make them valid points for discussion.  And maybe, we’ll discover the unabashed truth.



Blissful lie #1:  The NFL is colorblind, and is morally above those who bring up the race issue.

Truth be told, the NFL, and the media that cover it, are more guilty than anyone of perpetuating racism.

Make no mistake.  The NFL is all about the race card, and it plays it in a freewheeling manner and with astonishing regularity.  And it does so amidst its own loud and constant protests to the contrary.  But Queen Gertrude would have caught on to this one, too.

We need look no further than the NFL’s “diversity committee,” which has instituted a policy that any team seeking a new head coach is required to “seriously pursue at least one minority candidate.”  The NFL would have us believe this policy preserves their place as firmly planted, unsullied residents upon the moral high-ground.  The truth is that activists Jesse Jackson and Jonnie Cochran have threatened to sue the NFL on the grounds of racial discrimination.  Even if such charges are unfounded, the NFL, as many organizations are prone do in such circumstances, decided to capitulate in the face of these strong-arm tactics, because they fear being branded “racist” by these opportunists. 

The result is a policy that has had nothing but detrimental results.  The Detroit Lions were fined $200,000 for deciding to hire the highly-respected Steve Mariucci when word came down he would be released from the San Francisco 49ers.  The Lions claimed they contacted a number of minorities for the job, but the candidates declined to be interviewed because they’d already heard about Mariucci.  And that makes sense: Who wants to play a game of charades as a token candidate?  Yet, calling this policy asinine brings accusations of racism.

Does it matter to the NFL that this policy might cast aspersions upon black coaches who are hired?  The policy all but ensures that black coaches will face speculation over whether the decision to hire them was made simply to avoid scrutiny, regardless of their credentials.  And there is already fear among management of hiring a black coach, because of the media onslaught that will inevitably occur the day he is fired - even though coaches are fired with regularity in the NFL.  Recall the swarm of media vitriol when Ray Rhodes was fired in Green Bay.

Speaking of the media… One of the most frequently covered glamour stories in the NFL over that last several years has been the emergence (time and again), of the black quarterback.  After Doug Williams became the first to win a Super Bowl in 1988, predictions of a new era have repeatedly been trotted out as the feel-good story-of-the-month in sports.  But, is there really a story here, or is a story being manufactured?
 
Quarterbacks from Randall Cunningham to Kordell Stewart to Daunte Culpepper have been adorned as media darlings from the time they came into the league, and were bequeathed as the forerunners of a new era.  The insinuation is that the position of quarterback is now required to be played by a more “athletic” and “mobile” player.  Yet, Super Bowl rings continue to be won by the likes of slow, immobile quarterbacks such as John Elway, Brett Favre, and Kurt Warner.  So, is it fair game to question the validity of the media trumpeting this new era over and over again?  Is it fair to point out the media may have been wrong about this? 

With that in mind, let’s examine the recent controversy over one person’s speculation that Donovan McNabb might be overrated, and may have received preferential treatment by the media.  Agree or not, at least the case can be made: McNabb is the highest paid player in the league.  The defense supporting him has ranked in the top 10 during his entire tenure.  His offense ranked only as high as 10th, once.  His replacement last year during his injury won five of six games during their run for the playoffs.  McNabb’s career QB rating is lower than his 2003 playoff nemesis Brad Johnson, who went on to win the Super Bowl, but is much less publicized and isn’t considered by most experts to even be in McNabb’s league.  I think it’s safe to say there is enough evidence that the mere suggestion that McNabb is overrated is at least debatable, and certainly that it’s not necessarily malicious or racist.

What did Donovan McNabb have to say about the controversy?  “It’s sad that you’ve got to go to skin color.  I thought we were through with that whole deal.” Oh, if only we were, Mr. McNabb.  But since you’ve now learned otherwise, perhaps you will direct similarly condescending complaints to Johnnie Cochran, the NFL’s diversity committee, and the reporters who vilified the management of the Green Bay Packers.

Even the NFL television ads (amongst which actual games are sometimes fitted around) have a history of displaying and promoting racism.  Last year, a beer commercial featured a gathering of “minorities” dancing to hip-hop (the music of black people, apparently).  When two of them spot a couple of white guys dancing awkwardly (the way white people dance, apparently), they point and shout “Hey, how’d they get in here?”  Did the media point out any stereotypes or racism here?  That’s the sound of silence you hear.  I wonder, would the media have given a pass to such a commercial if the racial implications were reversed?  Would such a commercial even make it on the air?

Let’s also note that the NFL’s racially-slanted promotion goes both ways.  Is it at all possible that, in an ill-conceived effort to appease the less-tolerant among its white audience, the NFL has hyped players like Brian Urlacher and Jason Sehorn, in the tradition of the “great white hope?”  Urlacher’s #54 jersey has been the top-seller for years.  How close do you think he is to being the top player in the league?

Despite all this, the NFL, its players, and its reporters react in outrage at the mere mention of this issue.  This is among the greatest hypocrisies of all time… and that’s really saying something.  It reminds one of the old saying about the pot and the kettle, double entendre not withstanding.


(Next)
Viewpoint:
Truth Be Told