Lack of response to RFFM.org column defending Ozzie indicates conservatives intimidated by pc

I was amazed. On Friday, I released a column defending Ozzie Guillen, titled, "Sox Manager fined, must attend sensitivity training: Someone has to come to Ozzie Guillen's defense--I guess I'll take that job." [To read column, go to www.rffm.org and click on above title] What amazed me was the deafening silence I heard after writing the piece that included some graphic descriptions of what homosexuals do. Now, I am not so big-headed to think the world should stop turning because I wrote a column, but I usually receive a fair amount of feedback--good, bad or indifferent--regarding the subjects I write on.

As a refresher, Chicago White Sox manager, Ozzie Guillen, recently was fined and ordered to attend sensitivity training by Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig. In a press conference, Guillen used the word "fag" in reference to Chicago Sun-Times sports columnist Jay Mariotti. Guillen claimed his words were not meant to be a slur towards homosexuals, by saying the term "fag" has a different meaning in the Hispanic culture. Guillen is from Venezuela, but is also an American, holding dual citizenship.

Tonight my wife and I are writing and editing this piece while sitting near an open window to the gently warming night air. In the distance, we can hear a cricket singing a song of love, in an attempt to attract a mate. By the way, this is a heterosexual call to advance the species. However, I'm digressing. This intelligent design reminds me of God's wisdom while, at the same time, presenting a picture of muted silence where nature is the only thing that can be heard. It's reminiscent of the feeling I got after seeing the lack of response to my column on Guillen. Well, I didn't really hear anything because does a tree make a sound in the forest when it falls--if there is no one there to listen? Sorry, bad analogy. I know some people had to have seen my column.

But what was wrong? I looked back and had my wife re-read the piece to me. It wasn't mean-spirited or misleading. It stated fact concerning the homosexual act and, most likely, many of the conservatives who read my column would agree with me--if we were talking--as one man did on Saturday afternoon, when he called me on the phone about a different subject.

So what else could have been the problem? The only answer I can come up with is that conservatives indeed have been intimidated by the politically correct guardians of our society. It seems no one wants to go on record, to say, "nice job, Dan," or, for that matter, "bad job, Dan." I heard more from the cricket chirping outside my window at this moment. Now, before posting the column, a highly respected conservative leader encouraged me on. The individual gave me even more explicit material to add to the draft I sent that person for review. "Sure, Dan, go with it, we'll even post it on our web site and you can add this and that." Well, I didn't add this and that because it would have taken the column even further, graphically going to a place I didn't want to go. However, the next day, the column was not posted on the individual's web site. I was left high and dry, like a dirty towel hanging on a clothes line after being used to wash the family car.

Now I'm sure there were some who never read the piece. Others may not have had the time to respond. But I get the distinct feeling many did not want to go on the record, one way or another, fearing the unforgiving, permanent nature of cyberspace. However, this argument doesn't hold water because their comments would have only been sent to me. In a way, this proves the point of my column. I believe many fear that one day such words of praise for my commentary might be used against them. We all know that technology exists which makes possible the extraction of all material sent, received or saved on a computer--even if one attempted to delete such communications.

Am I talking about paranoia here? No, because when the danger is real, it's not paranoia. The impression I get is we all, in a way, have been whipped into shape by the p.c. police and that led to the lack of response to my column on Guillen. I do thank my dear friend, R.R., who counseled me not to write the commentary. He had the courage to present a valid point which said all of us know what homosexuals do. I respect him for stating his opinion. My point was that the act of homosexuality has been sanitized and someone needed to define exactly what it was and is. I thank Nedd Kareiva, the founder and director of the Stop the ACLU Coalition (http://www.stoptheaclu.org) for standing by me and telling me the column needed to be written. Kareiva said my words were echoed by Earle Fox, an Episcopalian priest from the Diocese of Pittsburgh, who also spoke out, defining the act of homosexuality during the "consecration" of homosexual Anglican clergyman, Gene Robinson, who was installed as Bishop in the Episcopal Church, in the Diocese of New Hampshire. Robinson left his wife and children for another man before being promoted to this position. [See Fox's testimony at: http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/32Ang/Epis/RbnsnPrtst.htm]

So, I guess I'm going to re-edit my column on Guillen. I'll remove the explicit descriptions of sex for the sake of political correctness. This will allow the wholesome "Will and Grace" image of homosexuality to continue uninterrupted. Then, I might hear, "nice column, Dan, it needed to be said."

By the way, Guillen was fined and is being sent to a re-education camp. Well, they call it "sensitivity training." I predict the grandchildren of some of those reading this column, will find themselves in re-education camps for expressing their religious beliefs about homosexuality. That's why I wrote my original column.

I'm not angry about the lack of response. I'm saddened and disappointed, but it wouldn't be the first time. And to the p.c. police, you've done your jobs very well.

Lack of response to RFFM.org column defending Ozzie indicates conservatives intimidated by pc

Actually, all it indicates is that no one knows what RFFM.org is. The tone of this column is pretty funny--an attempt by a smalltime columnist to portray his lack of visibility as some conservative weakness is lame. Dude, you're not George Will, Mark Steyn, Ann Coulter, MoDo, or any other well-known heavy hitter. Deal with it.

To: The Old Hoosier + DaRKWOLF377:
For your information, the column was primarily meant for my database, which is quite extensive and includes journalists throughout the state and nation. But I did have a point by posting it on the Free Republic. For your information, I've been published in the American Enterprise Magazine, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Washington Times and numerous web sites across the nation. Plus, I put a link to my original column on the Free Republic postings, so all you "dudes" could read what I said. By the way, don't criticize, unless you know what you're talking about, all you ANONYMOUS "dudes." My work is even in published books, "dudes." Chuck Colson has talked about my work. I've been a guest on many radio stations across the country. I could go on forever. Try a Google search and learn something. Don't just participate in this daisy chain blog--while you contribute nothing to advance any argument. Grow up and read a book, "DUDES."
DANIEL T. ZANOZA

If you have to tell us how famous you are, dude, you're not famous.

I read plenty of books--write 'em, too--so your strutting about doesn't impress me one bit.

Grow up and maybe someone will give you the attention you obviously think you deserve.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.