AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson Addresses the Racial Tension in American Society

I have worked in the wireless industry as an engineer for decades.  Two years ago, the wireless carrier for which I had worked for the past fifteen years was acquired by AT&T.

The adjustment to such a huge bureaucratic institution as AT&T has been difficult for me. Part of the problem for me is that the culture of political correctness is rampant within the company.

I have worked for several large corporations over my career and it used to be that we would simply get by through treating each other with respect and dignity regardless of our differences, but now we are "strongly encouraged" to toe the line on politically correctness in all of its various iterations.  Now, stating an opposing opinion to the PC doctrine would likely result in a reprimand at best and termination at worse. Dissent is not tolerated these days.

Indeed, I have to fight for a new position within the company as my old company is dismantled.  I figured in the "interview" process that is forthcoming, the first thing that will be done is the perusing of my personal FaceBook account by the hiring manager or HR.  As I tend to be honestly outspoken there too, I figured it would be a good time to suspend that account. Freedom of speech only applies if you don't say anything that can be construed as controversial by the PC progressive elements of society and major corporations such as AT&T.

With all of this said, I have been largely critical of the Black Lives Matter movement since it has, in my opinion, been more about identity politics than anything else, in what I have seen thus far. However, my CEO, Randall Stephenson, did recently speak at a meeting of employee resource groups regarding the recent rise in racial tension we have seen in our society.  I found his comments to be enlightening and thought-provoking and figured I would share them here accordingly.

It is my opinion that we need to have more thoughtful discussions such as this instead of simply shouting our positions over one another.  By doing the former rather than the latter, perhaps we can come to understand each other better and learn to respect our brothers and sisters in society as human beings.  Kudos to Randall Stephenson for leading by example in this matter!

Progressives Attempt to Ban Metaphors

Free0352 from over at John Galt for President wrote another article which I thought was brilliant and thus had to share.  I was mulling over the same ideas for a posting of my own but his posting was so well done, as typical, that I didn't want to waste my time even trying to do better.  You can read Free's often unique and insightful takes on current issues at his blog, John Galt for President. 

Freak'n stupid, Progressives attempt to ban Metaphors

After the shooting in Arizona last week, we can all agree that we've got to pass Obama's agenda immediately and stop using metaphors.

At least I think that's what the mainstream media is trying to tell me. But it also told me I hate black people because I think we as a nation should pay off our debt and balance our budget, so what do they know?

This whole exercise in feigned outrage is just another case study in a long tradition of Progressive Nannyism. Hitler had Nazism, Progressives have Nannyism.

Ask a Liberal- "When the DNC puts up a map for you to donate money with on it's web site that has targets on it, do you get confused and think you're being instructed to shoot people?"

They of course answer no. It's not "they" that need protection from themselves, it's "the other" and by that they mean us. Protection of course is code for denial of our rights to speech. All their nanny laws, from smoking bans, gun bans, alcohol bans, drug bans, salt bans, fatty food bans.... it's all part of the design to seize more control. The motive is for most of them is perfectly benign. Liberal crusaders always need a cause, and the cause seems to always be protecting people from themselves. In this case, protecting Americans from "mean people."

This as always leads to the question of responsibility? Whose responsible for the lung cancer? The cigarette company or the smoker? Whose responsible for this shooting? Is it liberals like Daily Kos and his little map or Sarah Palin and her map?

The answer is neither. The answer is Jared Loughner.

Liberal journalists often get who they should hold responsible staggeringly wrong.

I mean really wrong.

That's why you shouldn't listen to them, not because of hate filled rhetoric. Uber leftist blog Daily Kos attempted to reverse this point on it's site, saying quite breathlessly that since Republicans blamed Marilyn Manson for the Columbine killings (Which was the other way around, truth being Liberal Clinton officials came up with that one) they should take responsibility for the Tuscon shooting. What was the point of this blog post? I wanted to ask Kos, "What side of this are you on?" But there seems to be no side. The post reveals a total absence of principles, and so he and I approach the question in totally different ways. I first ask myself; who was responsible for Columbine, and Tuscon? The answer I come up with of course is the shooters. Kos isn't doing this. Instead he's simply screaming "Hypocrite!" Isn't that what everyone is complaining about in the first place, the nasty "tone" of the national debate?

I'll flip it right back around. Was Marilyn Manson responsible for Columbine? Apparently yes, so say the liberals in 1999 and today. Weather it's scary music or scary speeches, Liberals always want more control to "protect people" from themselves and remember they never waste a crisis to dump more rules on us. In the case of Daily Kos, his only position is the one best to say the very "vitriolic" things he complains Tea Party members use. Whose the hypocrite now?

This is very consistent with liberals ongoing assault on free speech. There were the quaint days of Liberal icon Al Gore's wife Tipper trying to control art and music to today's nightmare of FCC take over of the Internet with net neutrality. This attempt to shut decent up is just another logical step on the road to socialism for Progressives. You can almost hear their logic sneak in between their words. "People are mostly stupid apes who need our guidance to live better, so we'll take control of their lives and force our agenda on them through government. We'll use any crisis to move quickly before they catch on to the beauty of our plan to reshape America."

They then goal in hand go to the tried and true Saul Alensky play book. "Rule 4, Ridicule," and "Rule 5 Trap Them With Their Own Rules," in this case.

First they called us a "mob."

Then we were "Racist."

Then we were "Crazy."

Now we're "Full of Vitriol."

After the ridicule, they want to tie us up in knots bending over to justify ourselves when in reality it's they who should be explaining why they added 6.4 trillion dollars in debt, ran deficits from 200 billion into the trillions, Social Security and Medicare can't keep up with aggregate demand, why we're loosing the war in Afghanistan, and last why there's 9.5% estimated unemployment and likely much more than that. Those are the real problems facing America, not "vitriol." Coming together in a spirit of cooperation and Kumbaya got us this mess. Divisive politics between Rush Limbaugh, the New York Times, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich got us four years of balanced budgets.

I suppose we're going to need a new bumper sticker. Metaphors don't kill people, people do. They call us angry? This use of a national tragedy to slander us and score points gives us a right to be angry. It's a testament to how tolerant we really are, because if our freedom were threatened like this in any other country we really would arm ourselves and kill them in mass! But we tolerate them, because we're not the animals they slander us to be.

The Society of Professional Journalists Calls on Members to Not Use the Term "Illegal Alien" in Their Reporting

Note: It would seem that a "clarification" that I either missed or more likely which was added after my having read the original source material for my posting states that the Society of Professional Journalists has not endorsed the restraining of the usage of this terminology.  Rather, the clarification states that a member of the SPJ has written an opinion piece encouraging such  constraints on members of the SPJ in their reporting.  The Society as a whole has not endorsed this at this date.

It would seem that the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) is trying to improve their "objectivity" as their Diversity Committee is calling on news reporters nationwide to drop the term “illegal immigrant” and "illegal alien" from their news coverage in an effort to “inform and sensitize” people on how “offensive” the phrase is to Latinos.

I would submit to the SPJ that their current efforts to restrain journalists' usage of the terms "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" only goes to show their distinct bias and lack of objectivity in their own reporting.  First, the fact that they claim that the need to change these "pejorative labels" to the milder term "undocumented worker" as the former terms are offensive to Latinos strikes me as quite stereotypical and subjective of the SPJ.  Are all illegal aliens in this country only of Latino heritage?  Are they they the only sub-group of illegals that are offended by these terms?  I am quite certain that there are tens of thousands of non-Latino people in this country that would also accurately be classified as "illegal aliens" and similarly take offense.

Further, the fact that the SPJ finds it necessary to have a "diversity committee" smacks of having a pre-disposed bias in protecting or being supportive of minority groups.  I rather thought it was a journalist's professional obligation to report without editorial comments or implications only the facts of a story.  Who, what, where, when, and why should be the guiding principles to any stories, not changing a "label" (particularly an accurately used label) in order to offer no offense to a certain person or group of people in a story.

Indeed, it would seem that we are further losing our language in America and political correctness has driven us to the point of fearing to use "labels" on people at all.  I would suggest that accurately descriptive labels are a part of our language and are necessary for conveying an explanation or dissemination of a given characteristic of a person.  Of course, it is imperative that such labels be accurate in their attribution towards a given person or group.  It would seem that political correctness has indeed run amok though when fear of "labeling" anyone, particularly of a minority status, is deemed not only inappropriate but exceptionally rude.

Ironically quoted, “[T]his is not about being politically correct,” SPJ Diversity Committee chairman George Daniels says, but about aiming to “minimize harm” when reporting.  I find it interesting that the altruistic SPJ group has concerns about "minimizing harm" to politically-correct-protected sub-groups of people but seemingly show no such similar restraint when it comes to interviewing grieving parents about the loss of their child in combat or other similar situations.

It has been painfully obvious that objective and accurate journalism has long been on the decline and indeed may be close to death.  The SPJ's latest pronouncement places one more nail into the coffin of the once venerable journalistic watch dog for the people.  Is it any wonder why most major newspapers, magazines, and news broadcasts in the mainstream media continue to hemorrhage consumers of their "news"?

Our Politically In-Correct Navy and Marine Corps

A friend and veteran of the Air Force sent me the following. I was unable to vouch for the authenticity of the supposed Navy Directive described below, but being a Navy veteran myself that had the pleasure of serving with Marines from time to time in my career, I would say this is definitely NOT outside the realm of possibility.

Regardless, some of these are quite humorous and definitely not politically correct. In light of the ridiculousness of all the PC garbage I have been inundated with lately, this seemed like a good counterbalance. Enjoy!

The following directive was issued by the commanding officer of all naval installations in the Middle East. (It was obviously directed at the Marines.)

U.S. Navy Directive 16134 ( Inappropriate T-Shirts )

To: All Commands Subject: Inappropriate T-Shirts

Ref: ComMidEast For Inst 16134//24 K

All commanders promulgate upon receipt.

The following T-shirts are no longer to be worn on or off base by any military or civilian personnel serving in the Middle East:

1. 'Eat Pork or Die' [both English and Arabic versions]

2. 'Shrine Busters' [Various. Show burning minarets or bomb/artillery shells impacting Islamic shrines. Some with unit logos.]

3. 'Napalm, Sticks Like Crazy' [Both English and Arabic versions]

4. 'Goat - it isn't just for breakfast anymore.' [Both English and Arabic versions]

5. 'The road to Paradise begins with me.' [Mostly Arabic versions, but some in English. Some show sniper scope cross-hairs.]

6. 'Guns don't kill people. I kill people.' [Both Arabic and English versions]

7. 'Pork. The other white meat.' [Arabic version]

8. 'Infidel' [English, Arabic and other coalition force languages.]

The above T-shirts are to be removed from Post Exchanges upon receipt of this directive. In addition, the following signs are to be removed upon receipt of this message:

1. 'Islamic Religious Services Will Be Held at the Firing Range at 0800 Daily.

2. 'Do we really need 'smart bombs' to drop on these dumb bastards?'

All commands are instructed to implement sensitivity training upon receipt.

Free Speech Versus Political Correctness

It was recently reported by WorldNetDaily that a 15 year old boy went to log on to his Microsoft Xbox gaming console only to discover that his on-line user name had been banned by them.

He was playing under the on-line name of mpeach obama21. A live spokesman for Microsoft Xbox told WND "If you were Obama, what would you feel if you saw this?"

The teenager wants his user ID back stating, "it's the principle of the thing", but thus far Microsoft Xbox is holding their ground and not relenting.

Sounds to me like our next gaming console in my home will be from Nintendo...