GOING GENERIC? Labelling Chicken — and Radical Islam

The president has decided that it is reasonable to justify the actions of a violent group because there are others peripherally located within the same group who are not violent.
In the case of ISIS, it is simply tomato or tomah-toe.

There are good, peaceful Muslims, therefore the radical, violent extremists could be or could not be out to kill all Christians and other non-believers in Islam.

As pointed out by Bridget Gabrielle, who was on a panel to determine the catalyst for Benghazi and our government’s action or lack thereof, in answer to a law students question of what about peaceful Muslims, “of course not all of them are radicals.”

Being that it is the radicals that kill, they are the problem that needs to be addressed.
As Ms. Gabrielle pointed out, most Germans were peaceful during the Nazi era, however, 60 million people were allowed to be killed.

The majority of the Russian people were peaceful, but 20 million people were allowed to be killed.

In summation of her many excellent examples, the peaceful majority are irrelevant.
They do not stand up to the violent, extreme leadership, therefore, they are guilty by acquiescence.

In the words of Christ, “If you are not with me, you are against me.”

The current leader of the free world is not ready to “quibble” over labeling who is a killer and who is not?

Can we take this lack of “quibbling” a step further?

In an effort to be PC and not stereotype or “label” anyone or anything, let’s see where this policy could take us.

Why call chicken a chicken, or any other types of poultry by specific names? Let’s call it bird. Maybe the turkeys would be offended by the label of “chicken.” The connotation is that a chicken is often a cowardly sort, and no one wants that to be hung on them.

If you tell a co-worker what you cooked the night before, it could be bird and potatoes.
Oh, but wait, let’s not label potatoes, call them browns, or brown eyes.

The meal consisted of bird and brown eyes.

Maybe the act of cooking itself is a label that could be considered sexist, being that for many years it was women who ran the kitchen. Maybe you caused the bird and browns to become consumable through thermal induction?

Why bother naming, or labeling your children.

If you have more than one, you can use 1, 2, 3 etc.

Of course, it will be confusing at school and in life, but no need to quibble about 300 “ones” in your local high school, or office complex.

What about “Twos” and “Threes”?

No fans ever encouraged their team by shouting, “We’re number two!”

Then there is the saying, “If you are number three, why try?”

It is easy to see why “quibbling” about labels is unimportant.

What the United States needs is a leader who can say what needs to be said, and stand for what needs to represented.

The safety of us all is much more important than rhetoric.

Image: http://rbort.wikispaces.com/Names