C. Scott Shields is mayor of Rutledge. He’s also a frequent letter writer to this newspaper.
He had another offering in the Sunday paper. Shields has problems with Sen. Barack Obama, specifically his middle name. For those of you who don’t know, that name is Hussein.
Shields spent much of his op-ed piece offering his thoughts on Obama’s middle name. It smacked of the same kind of thought process as a talk show host who was introducing Republican candidate Sen. John McCain a few weeks back. The man went out of his way to emphasize the “Hussein” part of Obama’s middle name. Now Shields has done the same.
To his credit, McCain immediately repudiated the move and said he wanted no part of such a dialog. Now I get to do the same.
I don’t agree with what Shields wrote. I don’t know what Obama’s middle name has to do with the relevant issues in this campaign. For some reason, Shields and some others are for some reason threatened by that name, which of course is the same as that of the Iraqi strongman this country went to war with to remove from power.
It seems almost as if the belief is that if they say it enough times, this kind of fear-mongering will seep through to the voting public. It’s just one more sign of how much effort we are willing to expend on things that are not really important in this race.
Interestingly enough, I received a voice-mail from a woman in Media on Sunday who was livid about the Shields’ piece. But her anger was directed at the newspaper, not the writer.
She was assuming that since it appeared on our Opinion page, that it was our opinion. Not so. I could not disagree more. But that does not mean I won’t run the piece. I’m not big on censorship. I believe our Opinion section should be a forum for all ideas, including those I would vehemently disagree with.
I’m not buying into any of the venom dripping from Shields’ piece. But I am willing to offer a forum for him to make it. I suppose some people would rather I did not. That is a very dangerous slope, one that can come dangerously close to censorship.
I assure you C. Scott Shields does not represent the Daily Times. He did, however, appear on our Opinion pages. If you don’t like what he had to say, I suggest you join in the discussion.
Write a response, and I will make sure it hits print. That’s the whole idea. More ideas, more thought, more opposing views.
Not less.
He had another offering in the Sunday paper. Shields has problems with Sen. Barack Obama, specifically his middle name. For those of you who don’t know, that name is Hussein.
Shields spent much of his op-ed piece offering his thoughts on Obama’s middle name. It smacked of the same kind of thought process as a talk show host who was introducing Republican candidate Sen. John McCain a few weeks back. The man went out of his way to emphasize the “Hussein” part of Obama’s middle name. Now Shields has done the same.
To his credit, McCain immediately repudiated the move and said he wanted no part of such a dialog. Now I get to do the same.
I don’t agree with what Shields wrote. I don’t know what Obama’s middle name has to do with the relevant issues in this campaign. For some reason, Shields and some others are for some reason threatened by that name, which of course is the same as that of the Iraqi strongman this country went to war with to remove from power.
It seems almost as if the belief is that if they say it enough times, this kind of fear-mongering will seep through to the voting public. It’s just one more sign of how much effort we are willing to expend on things that are not really important in this race.
Interestingly enough, I received a voice-mail from a woman in Media on Sunday who was livid about the Shields’ piece. But her anger was directed at the newspaper, not the writer.
She was assuming that since it appeared on our Opinion page, that it was our opinion. Not so. I could not disagree more. But that does not mean I won’t run the piece. I’m not big on censorship. I believe our Opinion section should be a forum for all ideas, including those I would vehemently disagree with.
I’m not buying into any of the venom dripping from Shields’ piece. But I am willing to offer a forum for him to make it. I suppose some people would rather I did not. That is a very dangerous slope, one that can come dangerously close to censorship.
I assure you C. Scott Shields does not represent the Daily Times. He did, however, appear on our Opinion pages. If you don’t like what he had to say, I suggest you join in the discussion.
Write a response, and I will make sure it hits print. That’s the whole idea. More ideas, more thought, more opposing views.
Not less.
Comments
To be clear, my opinion was about being bullied into not mentioning his middle name and how ludicrous it is to allow the politically correct police to dictate the topics for debate. Personally, I could care less about the man, his name or the color of his skin. However, watch out because the PC police will be knocking on your door soon too, and not just because of people like me.
Lastly, can you post my column online so that others outside of this area can read it?
Thank you.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
I'm glad that you are "not buying into any of the venom dripping from Shields’ piece." and "I assure you C. Scott Shields does not represent the Daily Times."
I can understand your not wanting to spread his bile further through the Internet, however, I would like to see a copy of what he is spewing as I might have something to offer in rebuttal (in addition to the many letters you are probably already receiving on the subject).
If you can't post it on the main site, can you just cut/paste it here on the blog or email me a copy?
Shields has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be among Earth's lower lifeforms, and light can be a disinfectant.
Although I believe that Diano is a trouble maker, I also asked you to post my column on the website. It seems as though my Opinion was the only one omitted, yet you even take a shot at me without giving your readers the benefit of what I wrote. Obviously, Diano and many others don't buy your newpaper, so please post it.
By the way, this will be the third time that I requested that it be posted.
Thank you.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
I find it extremely interesting how "over the top" negative Obama rhetoric has made its way onto the Editorial pages of the Daily Times. Does one need to be a politician like conservatives C. Scott Shields and Joseph Breslin to be published? The term "Guest Columnist" gives far too much credit to the factless, smearing nature of the articles. Does the Daily Times adhere to the concept of Fox News' "Fair and Balanced"? Give me a break......
Scott and Joe, bring some facts next time, please.
Shields hardly needs additional venues to display his reprehensible views. I've had a few letters published, and not all of them made the online edition either. I didn't cry about, though.
Shields seems to have a desperate need for attention to validate his discredited and regressive ideas. There are several hundred thousand other citizens of Delaware County. I would suggest giving each of them a turn before printing Shields' next letter. It seems only fair.
You wanted the column posted too, as you do not want to spend the $1.75 for the Sunday paper. I wanted it posted as my column was the only one that wasn't posted.
Last time I checked the Delcotimes is an open forum for good honest debate. If you feel so strongly about your views and are not afraid to be public about them, write, speak, do tv, etc...
Anonymous:
It drives me crazy that people like you will offer your 2 cents without identifying who you are. Are you afraid, timid, or just not sure where you stand on a particular issue.
If you want facts read what I write. Not only was the Obama article loaded with facts, it appears that the simple fact that I will not be bullied into not using Hussein's real name that gives you the problem.
I am getting very positive feedback on that column as it is true. People are sick and tired of this charade called political correctness. Why can't we be truthful and engage in open and honest debate? I don't ask that my detractors be silenced like you and Diano suggest. I love it when people like you engage in debate and state your views. That gives me the opportunity to engage you with my viewpoint. That is how it works.
As for the column, feel free to give me feedback about what you felt was not factual. However, remember that your disagreement or dislike of what I wrote does not make it untrue.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
Why would I spend $1.75 to read the same drivel you post on Spencer's blog? To claim that your are engaged in "honest" debate requires a definition of "honest" opposite to the meaning in any dictionary I've read.
The facts and your writings have little in common. Even "facts" out of context are easily twisted into lies. The undue emphasis you put upon someone's middle name carries with it your supposedly believe that it is a relevant "fact" and that one can draw valid conclusions from it (definitely NOT fact). My middle name translates to "Saint", but I doubt you would argue I have a saintly nature as a result.
You also seem to suffer from the delusion that ignorance is a valid viewpoint. Ignorance is the lack of a viewpoint.
The lack of truth in your writing does not derive from the disagreements that I or other have with it, but rather the disagreement with reality. It's not political correctness that people tire of as much as bigotry, propaganda and ignorance masquerading as free and noble speech.
It's not that you should be silenced, but rather that you should not given a microphone to amplify your voice or lend it legitimacy.
The whole point of what I wrote was that political correctness has stifled speech, not promoted it. That should never be the desired effect of any rules. Moreover, your side of the debate, as evidenced by your numerous posts on this blog and others, has redefined disagreements as hate. People like you seek to stifle any speech that is not part of your agenda.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
I submitted a response to your factless article. I will not be anonymous if the Delco Times prints my response. If it does not make it by Sunday, I'll post it here. Would that suffice?
The hate speech and bigotry purveyed by you and your Bible thumping ilk is not merely "politically incorrect". It is completely incorrect. I'm not defining disagreements as hate, but rather exposing you for branding hate as mere disagreements.
If someone wanted to make an argument to bring back slavery or to establish an official religion for the US, neither argument would be worthy of print or birdcage liner. The only use I can see for your blather is so future teachers and students can have something to shake their heads about when study the level of ignorance that still persisted in our era. One would hope you could find a loftier goal than being an embarrassment to future generations.
Most of your arguments rely upon the Bible as if that one religious text trumps all the secular laws and other religions in our free society. I don't see YOUR name written in the Bible, Constitution or any stone tablets as the ultimate moral authority in this country (or anywhere else).
It's not that people are trying to silence you as much as they are trying to tune you out. The frequency dials on our mental radios are set to the 21st Century, not the 19th and we are tired of your static.
You are so brave! What is factless about my column?
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
Lastly, I don't recall ever telling you that I was imposing morality on you. I have, however, suggested that you pay attention.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
In response to C. Scott Shield's article Political correctness, 'Hussein' undermine values in America from Sunday, April 6, 2008.
I applaud you for screaming Senator Obama's full name. Free speech is a right provided to all United States citizens under the first amendment of our constitution. I say United States citizens to clarify your reference to Americans. Are United States citizens the only constituents good enough to be called Americans? A good number of our worldly brothers and sisters also have the right to be called Americans. Contrary to your opinion, it is politically correct to identify him by his full name. I do have a problem with the derogatory nature of the tone of your column, which has absolutely nothing to do with political correctness.
The truth of the matter is that a good number of Senator Obama's supporters warmly embrace conservative republicans' negative connotation of his middle name. It reflects that fact the republicans have nothing of substance to run against the democratic platform. Anyone who is paying attention this primary season realizes the presumptive republican nominee's ideology is more closely identifiable with the democratic platform, which is precisely why conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have been leaning into Senator McCain for not being "conservative" enough.
The audacity of Senators Obama and McCain for being a party to producing nonpartisan legislation that will actually provide direction that will help in getting things accomplished in Washington!!
Senator McCain has not been browbeaten by political correctness into denouncing the use of Senator Obama's middle name. He practiced solid Christian values and sound judgment to disagree with the derogatory natured comments by conservative republican talk radio host Bill Cunningham. Senator Obama does not think America stinks, rather he loves this country and understands the further greatness to which we can aspire. Loving your country does not mean you have to agree with all actions taken by your government. Our right via the first amendment to disagree with our government without retribution represents one of the greatest gifts we have as United States citizens. Not only is the freedom speech not a right in many countries, daring to speak your mind against the government if often punishable by death. The first amendment also states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This provides all United States citizens with the freedom of religion, which represents another one of the strongest cultural elements of our nation.
The Christian values you claim to be running side by side with American values represents merely one of the many that do. Not only is the freedom of religion not a right in many countries, daring to celebrate a non-government aligned religion it is often punishable by death. As it relates to religion, there is a double standard being applied to commentary of Senators Obama and McCain's pastors.
Senator Obama denounced statements that were made by his pastor, not because he was pressured to do so, rather he exercised Christian values and sound judgment to disagree with nature of the comments. The snippets of the Rev. Wright's faith footnote after September 11, 2001 being looped on broadcast and Internet news outlets have been taken grossly out of context. One of the most controversial statements was when Rev. Wright mentioned "chickens coming home to roost." He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. He was quoting Peck as saying that America’s foreign policy has put the nation in peril.
I find it hard to argue with the Rev. Wright's statements, as they were based on accurate reflections of our nation's history. Rev. Wright's key theme for that sermon was September 11th presented a time for self-examination of ourselves and our families, and that we should thank God for all that he has provided and that he gave us another chance to do His will.
In the meantime, Senator McCain has not denounced statements by a pastor he has embraced, Rev. John Hagee, who compares the Roman catholic church (the epitome of the Christian values you profess) to the reign of Adolph Hitler's Nazi party. Why are the conservative talk radio hosts not up in arms over the Rev. Hagee's remarks, which speak directly against the Christian values they claim to embrace?
If you are coming to the table with statements that Senator Obama believes in abortion on demand (Obama believes in a balance of the moral elements of abortion and a woman's right to choose), the elimination of the second amendment's often misunderstood and debated right to bear arms (Obama believes that while the second Amendment creates an individual right and that the Constitution permits federal, state and local government to adopt reasonable and common sense gun safety measures), the use of government to suppress religious freedom (Obama has clearly stated that we are a nation of many faiths, those with no faith at all, and that the religious practices of all must be respected), and the elimination of private-property rights (Obama is actually a strong supporter of private-property rights), you have got to come with facts (which are lacking in your column). Mark Twain once said "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Your agreement with Glenn Beck's suggestion that Senator Obama's vision for the United States is similar to the vision of fascists of the 1930's is absurd. The first lesson in every history class I have attended is "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them." The most prevalent fascism I recall through those history lessons was Adolph Hitler's reign, whose Nazi party did not allow for racial integration through ethnic cleansing, and purportedly successfully instilled German nationalism in 1933 by setting fire to the Reichstag building, which proved to be a valuable exercise for the Nazi party to suspend most human rights provided for by the 1919 constitution via the Reichstag Decree. Draw your own conclusions on how this history might be applied to events that have occurred since a "conservative" George W. Bush took office in 2000.
Your concept of our nation being taken over by Islam is quite possible, however, not as an effect of the election of Senator Obama, rather the policies of the administration of the conservative republican hero, Ronald Reagan, who embraced the concept of joining forces with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other Muslim nations to support the Mujahideen resistance in the Soviet-Afghan War. Our chickens coming home to roost, so to speak.
Barack Obama will represent the interests of United States (as have all past Democratic and Republican presidents), regardless of his Pastor's position on matters of the government, theology, politics, and race. He will need to undo the damage to our diplomatic relationships that have been deeply scarred by our current administration.
The difference in Senator Obama is his real life experiences as a community organizer, his judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, his intuition on foreign policy with Pakistan, his ability to engage people to be more involved in our community and government, his calling our country to strive for greatness, and his promise of working with all of us to accomplish greatness. Many people I know, who had given up on our government and politics, are re-engaging and demanding more from themselves, others, and their government. Senator Obama has kick started their passion for this country, as he is prepared to lead with us at his side on day one.
God bless Barack Hussein Obama (screaming) for embracing the values that embody the spirit of the United States of America.
In response to:
Letter: Cutting through political correctness with Obama
By C. SCOTT SHIELDS, Times Guest Columnist
His name is Barack Hussein Obama, and he wants to be the president of the United States of America. No one denies that Hussein is his name, yet political correctness dictates that it is not nice to call him by his full name, specifically the Hussein part.
It is being called Obamaphobia. Like homophobia, you will now be called Obamaphobic for merely speaking the truth, which in this case is using his middle name, Hussein. Speak his real name and you, too, risk being called a racist, a bigot, or a hater. What would the liberals have done if President Bush’s middle name was Adolph when he was running?
Anyway, I have been desperately trying to put my years of politically correct training into practice so I will refer to him simply as Hussein. All right, so I fail at the politically correct training thing. Being truthful does that. Referring to Barack as Hussein does not make me a hatemonger or a bigot, but there is something special about the goose bumps I get when liberals call me those hateful names as they tend to be so tolerant of my viewpoints.
I have some thoughts about Hussein the man. He thinks that America today (stinks) and he wants change through hope. What that means is that Hussein thinks our system of freedom and more importantly, economic freedom, needs to be changed. You see, Hussein is a Marxist, and his vision for America is a shift towards communism, despite his own economic situation which has him earning millions on book deals and living in a multimillion dollar home.
This is the same Hussein who refuses to wear an American flag pin, who voted against English as our national language, who voted to give illegal aliens amnesty and Social Security benefits, whose minister (the person from whom Hussein seeks spiritual guidance) is a cheerleader for Nation of Islam founder Louis Farrakan, and whose Princeton- and Harvard-educated wife has never been proud to be an American until now.
Hussein is farther left than Hillary “I will never cooperate with a criminal investigation” Clinton and Ted “I can swim with the fish” Kennedy. Hussein wants to be a champion of “humanity” and the “rule of law” with beliefs that advance more abortion on demand, the elimination of the individual constitutional right to keep and bear arms, the use of government to suppress religious freedom, free speech and conscience, and the elimination of private-property rights.
So why has much less than half of America embraced Hussein and his vision for hope and change? Beats me, but I suspect it is because Republicans and Democrats are becoming more alike in a rush to run high on sensitivity and feelings, and very low on core American and Christian values.
American values used to run side by side with Christian values, but thanks to political correctness and people like Hussein, we have lost both, all in a push to spread misery equally to all. Isn’t progress great? At least one of the most prominent Democrats until recently, Eliot Spitzer, will never be president.
Even the Republican nominee for president, John McCain, is having a heck of a time criticizing Hussein and his policies, and not just because they have many of the same ideologies. McCain has been browbeaten by political correctness into denouncing the use of Hussein’s real name, as even he is afraid of being called names. However, it was the Democrats early in the primaries that took issue with Hussein’s real name, his race, his religion.
Glenn Beck recently did a piece about how eerily similar Hussein’s vision for America is to the vision of the fascists of the 1930s. Oops, am I allowed to say that? The truth is that even a cursory glance at the similarities of the fascists of the 1930s and Obama today reveals they both start out so nice and compassionate, but then turn and crush the will of the people who resist against the forced indoctrination of the ideologies of their ruling class.
If Hussein gets elected, our nation may even get taken over by Islam, or held hostage to one of their nuclear weapons. Life will then be good, especially since we know that Islam is so friendly to liberalism.
Hussein is his name, and I just cannot help myself in pointing out how utterly ridiculous it is to refrain from mentioning his middle name. In fact, there is a tinge of intellectual dishonesty when you refuse to use that middle name, Hussein. Next you will not be able to say he is black, and if things get real nasty, you won’t be able to say that Hillary is a woman. If Hussein gets elected he may even want to change the name of the White House.
Our Republican Party, both nationally and locally, needs to change course and go back to espousing core conservative values, and stop being afraid of expressing the ideological differences between conservatism and liberalism. A good start would be to stop worrying about all of the intolerant liberal labels and to start screaming Obama’s full name, including his middle name, Hussein.
C. Scott Shields, Esq., is mayor of Rutledge.
No response to my response?
Thanks.