After too long saying, “I know you are but what am I?” to anybody pointing out that Republicans have frequently behaved in horribly racist ways since President Obama first ran for president, the enabling has reached its culmination. At least I hope it doesn’t get worse than this:
“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have”.
What is there to say? Except too many will not say, because it just seems so improbable that a campaign official would be that openly racist, surely there must be some excuse! But shouldn’t we wait to hear what that excuse is from Mitt, instead of making it for him?
What’s up, Mitt? Do you stand by your advisor’s blatantly racist attack on President Obama?
UPDATE: Romney spokesman denies any agreement with advisor, which is to be expected, I suppose. We can afford it the standard weight any Romney camp denial warrants. Can we find out more about who this advisor was, Mitt? Nobody buys that you don’t know who it was.
This could serve as everything that needs to be said about the increasingly deranged idiot Allen West, who has apparently smelled the money in being the hero of those rabid conservatives frequenting blog comments sections. That he is a black man willing to echo or top the vilest Tea Party rhetoric makes his popularity guaranteed, as there’s nothing white racists love more than a token black to shield them.
One thing Americans could do is stop electing such stunt politicians. Yet they’ve become a Republican staple. Bachmans and Palins and Wests cranking up the crazy and then acting persecuted to raise money when people slap their foreheads in disgust.
How can the Republicans be considered a responsible governing party with such fools as their heroes?
Comments Off on On our skewed political spectrum and how it permits the nuts in the Republican party to rise to power.
Did Limbaugh think playing the race card over true accusations against Herman “black people are brainwashed” Cain was a free pass to utter one of the worst racist slurs towards Michele Obama? No, because he’s been saying racist shit his entire career.
MIAMI — Islam and tea party activism clashed at a raucous meeting Monday night when a group of Broward County Republicans blocked a Muslim activist as a member of the party’s executive committee.
Republicans, who changed their rules to publicly vet Nezar Hamze and then vote on his application by secret ballot, said they didn’t oppose him because he was a Muslim – but because he is associated with the Center for American-Islamic Relations, whose Washington-area affiliate was an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal terrorism indictment.
Hamze, CAIR’s South Florida director, said his local group had nothing to do with the suspect activities in Washington. He said CAIR advocates for civil rights for Muslims, who have been unfairly targeted ever since 9/11.
“I’m aligned with Republican values. And I want to serve the party,” Hamze said, who earlier told a reporter that any effort to block him was the result of anti-Islamic “bigotry.”
At times, when he addressed the packed room at the Sheraton Suites in Fort Lauderdale, a few members shouted out among the crowd of about 300.
“Terrorist!” said one man.
This being Republicans, efforts to make things up were quickly instituted:
Aside from questioning his motives, there was also a dispute about how long he had been a Republican. Party Vice Chair Collen Stolberg said Hamze became a registered Republican only since August and that before then he was registered with no party affiliation.
Hamze said that wasn’t true. He said he changed his address in August, but has been a registered Republican for about a decade.
Of the 11 applicants for the party, only Hamze was rejected – the first time anyone in the room could recall that happening in a county where Republicans complain about how outnumbered they are by Democrats.
Prior to deciding the new-member applications, a Republican successfully moved to change party rules and require that applicants say how long they’ve been a Republican and to take five minutes worth of questions for the crowd.
Hamze called it “The Hamze rule.”
How’d he do? “In the end, the Broward Republican Executive Committee voted 11-158 to block him from committee membership.”
Now one could make the point that this is religious discrimination that just happens to be directed at non-whites (which requires ignoring the implications of the Bush torture regime), but it underscores a larger point easily seen when one adds in immigration or gays: discrimination, exclusion, and vilification of the “other” is at the very core of who the modern Republican party is.
As for those Republicans who would like to avoid getting entangled with racist Republicans, maybe they should spend some time confronting and condemning racist Republicans instead of whining and fueling the white resentment further?
White conservatives really like it when black conservatives draw parallels with ideological and racial persecution in a way that allows them to imagine they’re a persecuted minority even as they assert themselves as the singular, genuine voice of Real Americans. For this reason, remarks like Cain’s go over really well, even though he’s actually saying something profoundly racist (most black people vote for Democrats because they’re practically slaves who can’t “think for themselves”), no one bothers to point that out.
Gay Republicans often face the same kind of pressures that black Republicans do: Why are you on the side of those who have such antipathy towards your ilk? And I honestly sympathize with somebody who identifies with Republican on most issues and wants to change the party from the inside via the power of example. Gay Republicans can do a lot to squash Republican anti-gay tendencies, and black Republicans can do the same for Republican anti-black attitudes.
Except when they traffic in anti-black rhetoric.
Comments Off on Black rightwingers just as dippy as white rightwingers.
Just random rabble, surely, even though there are a few representatives there. Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee, Republican front-runner for the 2012 presidential race, is talking about Obama growing up in Kenya and possibly daring to think poorly of British colonialism.
Of course, if you tune into rightwing radio these protesters and politicians aren’t saying anything new. Let’s listen now and see if any traveling winger will leave a sorry excuse in our comments thread!
For the record, all three made statements that are somewhat defensible as rough yet honest talk among contentious Americans, but when you work for CNN or NPR, you should know you’re expected to be pretty lukewarm. What was especially admirable was NPR applying the same standard to anti-Muslim bigotry. Of course, at FOX that gets you a raise.
But don’t call them racist!
The person who really got screwed this last year was Octavia Nasr:
I wondered if these online pundits expressed similar outrage at CNN’s firing of Middle East editor Octavia Nasr for an offense that didn’t even occur on a major news outlet. CNN’s reason for terminating Nasr in July was for a now-deleted tweet that merely expressed sadness for the death of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, a beloved Muslim leader in the Middle East whose death was mourned even by our own allies. Because Fadlallah had been reported to be a “spiritual leader”of Hezbollah by some sources, neo-conservatives accused Nasr of being a terrorist sympathizer despite the fact that her tweet didn’t include any support for Hezbollah actions or policies.
So how did conservative bloggers’ coverage of Nasr’s firing compare to Williams’? The conservative Hot Air said today that an “NPR opinion journalist had better not admit to having a normal human reaction about potential for terrorism nine years after 3,000 Americans got killed by radical Muslims on commercial air flights, or else.” This was, the blogger said, “an object lesson about the range of opinion tolerated by management.” But with the Nasr firing, this same blog asked whether “after having outed herself as a Hezbollah sympathizer,” CNN owed “its viewers and readers a complete accounting of their coverage in the Middle East and a complete explanation of Nasr’s role in it?”
There’s plenty more in the article, but will you be surprised by any of it? Yes, they try using NPR’s government funding against it, somehow, but that gets swatted down with facts. Go read it anyway, I’m just saying: Anybody could have seen this coming.
“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asked. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”
“This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president,” Gingrich added.
“I think he worked very hard at being a person who is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating — none of which was true,” Gingrich continues. “In the Alinksy tradition, he was being the person he needed to be in order to achieve the position he needed to achieve. … He was authentically dishonest.”
Gingrich knows a lot about cons. His entire career has been one, and he only projects himself onto Obama. Gingrich has his finger in the wind and says the batshit crazy stuff required to pass Tea Party muster nowadays. Unfortunately, Newt does these stunts and it only makes people like him less. Rush Limbaugh is really popular for a radio host, but has 20% public favorability ratings. Newt wants to be thought of as an intellectual, but in the end he can’t hide the mean-spirited lunkhead inside and logic flies out the window. And like Limbaugh, he just can’t resist a racist dog whistle.
p.s. Special credit goes to that special idiot, Dinesh D’Souza, for cooking up this steaming pot of horseshit. Brutally smart takedown of D’Souza’s original piece here.
Comments Off on The intellectual giant of the right, Newt Gingrich.
Michael Steele, picked as RNC chairman for no discernible reason other than being black in the age of Obama, now vexes the GOP, as they fear firing him…because he’s black. The wages of tokenism…
Democrats happen to have a high-profile embarrassment of their own, and he, too, is black. It’s telling that New York governor David Patterson got forced out of his reelection campaign with barely a peep being made about his race. Patterson was judged on the merits, as he should have been, and found lacking. It’s remarkable that Republicans, after a generation of complaining about racial quotas and political correctness, seem paralyzed by Steele’s race. They appear to have internalized the very “liberal mindset” they once warned against. Steele presents a perfect opportunity for them to leave race aside and make a judgment strictly on merit. And they’re flinching.
Really, I do think it might come at any moment. Surely it must! Steele has engaged in so much ass-clownery that even many black people must be wishing he’d be fired. The bigotry of soft expectations is no less apparent.
Limbaugh tries to claim Obama was an affirmative action case at Harvard Law. Does he have any evidence? Of course not, but Obama is black and Limbaugh is a racist asshole. Think Progress has the complete smackdown, including a testament from other members of the Harvard Law Review and an article from 1990. It shouldn’t exactly blow anybody’s mind that being elected president of the Review is the highest honor at Harvard Law, but like I said, Obama’s black, and Rush Limbaugh, one of the GOP’s most powerful leaders, is a racist asshole.
This is one of the most powerful leaders of the Republican Party. It’s because of his “Barack, The Magic Negro,” parody that Republicans can’t simply criticize Harry Reid’s use of the word “Negro” and have to pretend Reid was actually expressing racist notions himself. It’s a party that is still sore over Trent Lott’s exorcism over fond reminiscences of the days of segregation.
There isn’t any more room for doubt. Rush Limbaugh is a foul motherfucker, a dyed-in-the-wool racist who viscerally shudders at the sight or thought of black people. Their suffering, the suffering of innocents, inspires no greater emotion than contempt. The sight of others rising to the occasion and actually behaving in a Christ-like manner befuddles him, angers him. Much has been made of Pat Robertson’s outright Satanic condemnation of the nation of Haiti, but we’ve seen through this crisis that these two birds are of the same feather. This GOP leader, a hero among teabaggers and so-called “conservatives,” is one of America’s most despicable and openly evil human beings.
Recently the cultists stood agog that blacks would protest Limbaugh owning an NFL team. At some point, the dope excuse no longer holds water. If you walk with Limbaugh, you might as well walk with the KKK. You’re no better.
UPDATE: Upon being challenged by a female caller, Limbaugh offered this rebuttal:
“What I’m illustrating here is that you’re a blockhead. What I’m illustrating here is that you’re a close-minded bigot who is ill-informed. If you had listened to this program for a modicum of time, you would know it. But instead, you’re a blockhead. Your mind is totally closed. You have tampons in your ears. Nothing is getting through other than the biased crap that you read.”
Projection (nearly every word could be applied to Limbaugh himself, although Oxycontin abuse is more likely to be the reason for his deafness, not tampons in his ears)) coupled with blatant misogyny.
The amazing thing about talk radio is that this man can be one of the leaders of the GOP, yet most of what he says escapes the public notice.
If only everybody could think like them. Hannity interviewed Limbaugh back in June. Limbaugh:
He’s too big to fail. He’s historic. He’s the first African-American president. They — most of these media people came of age in the civil rights era. This, to them, is Nirvana.
He can’t make a mistake. He can’t say anything wrong.
And from his perspective, they think he’s right, America was mean. It was mean to African-Americans. It was mean to minorities. It was mean. That’s what they think too.
And Rush doesn’t?
It’s one thing that this man is considered a hero for being monumentally vile and stupid three hours a day (although he looks like a Harvard professor next to Hannity), but the continuous barely-veiled racism, a mash-up of resentment against black culture and historical revisionism, seems to be his biggest selling point. And if anybody gets a pass from the media, it’s Limbaugh and the party he leads, Republicans. Unfortunately, they can drop bombs like that and turn on a snap to complain as soon as you point out it’s racist. It’s a transparent one-two punch that has certainly fooled very few black people, but it has our mainstream outlets bound and gagged.
Comments Off on A Fox exclusive: Hannity/Limbaugh do the 69!
One of the first warning signs in arguing with a winger that they’re a racist is the line, “you get accused of being racist for opposing Obama’s policies!”
Nobody gets accused of being racist for disagreeing with Obama’s policies. They get accused of it for saying racist shit. They know Limbaugh’s message for 20 plus years has been, “the darkies will take over because liberals listen to their whining monkey bullshit,” yet they bristle at the suggestion that their views on race have any flaws whatsoever.
There have been a couple of cases involving minority officers shot by white officers in recent years. In 2008, a black, off-duty Mount Vernon, N.Y. police officer was killed by a Westchester County, N.Y. policeman while holding a gun on an assault suspect in suburban White Plains. A grand jury found the victim had failed to identify himself as an officer. In 2006, an Hispanic New York City police officer, Eric Hernandez, was shot and killed by an on-duty patrolman who was responding to a gun call at a White Castle in the Bronx. Dazed by a beating he had just received, Hernandez failed to drop his weapon when asked to.
Now ordinarily my advice to anybody is that when a police officer tells you to do something, you’re only going to fuck yourself if you don’t go along with it. But what interests me is that throttling, and the rage displayed by that trooper. I simply cannot imagine a white face bulging out above that officer’s choking grip with a uniform below.
Neither case strikes me as an accident. Even granting the difficulty of two cops in street clothes wielding guns in the dark, there is too much of a pattern of ethnicity factoring into that “split second life-or-death” situation. And how a cop pulls over an ambulance, and within minutes is choking a black paramedic in the back fails to evoke much mystery. Deep-seated antagonism has a way of manifesting, and all it takes is the slightest pretext.
Comments Off on White people are just having a bad day.
The GOP is the home of white racial resentment towards blacks. It started with resentment that they got equal rights in the ’60s, and today it manifests in resentment that blacks dare mention racism exists or exhibits the psychological effects of being treated differently most of your life.
Whoever wins this election, I understand what Barack Obama meant when he said his faith in the American people had been “vindicated” by his campaign’s success. I understand what Michelle Obama meant, months ago, when she said she was “proud of my country” for the first time in her adult life. Why should they be immune to the astonishment and vertigo that so many other African Americans are experiencing? Why shouldn’t they have to pinch themselves to make sure they aren’t dreaming, the way that I do?
The base of the Republican Party is comprised of people who belong to the majority race, majority religion, and majority sexual orientation who feel brutally oppressed. Yet a black person says, “Holy shit, I didn’t expect this in America!” at the prospect of an Obama presidency, and they fall out of their seats with rage. “How dare they?!”
After 43 white presidents and 200 years of legalized oppression, everybody should be surprised that Obama is on the verge of earning the presidency. To say, like Cindy McCain, “I’ve ALWAYS been proud of my country!!!” or John McCain, “America never had anything to prove to me!” is to look at things only from your perspective (notice the self-centric language). Of course they can say those things, they’re both white heirs of privilege. Get outside your heads, people!
If the Obamas pull this off tonight, I will simply be unable to not see it through their eyes and through the eyes of blacks who grew up second-class citizens, and through the eyes of all Americans who thought something like this wouldn’t be possible for decades. An Obama victory will be a victory for all Americans. Even the Muslim Americans, even though they don’t have a chance in Hell for about 50-100 years of getting here. Or atheists, who are screwed forever. Or gays, screwed too. Maybe on my deathbed, however, we’ll elect a former Muslim atheist lesbian president, and I’ll tell my kids and grandkids, “I just shit myself, can somebody clean me up?”
Then I’ll say, “It was Barack Obama who made this possible.” Though I’ll be a decrepit forgetful bastard who forgot that we the people made it possible.
On the way to work this morning, within five minutes on two rightwing talk radio stations I heard that support for Obama from Powell is all about race. “What else could it be?” asked Mike Gallagher.
It seems like Powell did plenty of explaining, but never you mind, folks. Let it be known that the surest way to get elected President in the U.S. is to be black!
We knew they’d let their true colors shine if it got close. With Obama in the lead with $500 million in the bank, expect two weeks of full-blown White Panic from the right. It’s what has kept them in power for 40 years…what do you expect? This is what they sell. This is what they do.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention listening to Mike Gallagher a few weeks ago as he talked with a caller about Obama’s conspiracy to go get a tan in Hawaii so as to appear darker, because that would appeal more to the black constituency. I’ve written a stack of bizarre fiction six inches high, but I could never write that.
Hilarious…Hugh Hewitt, the idiot Brian Pickrell wants to be when he grows up, has on his blog a series of posts featuring monthly newsletters written by Jeremiah Wright for Trinity Church that somebody dug up. The rub? The newsletters are pissing off his slobbering rightwing readers because they’re completely boring and positive!
The Hewitt posts, intentionally or not, seem to corroborate Obama’s claims (which to many seemed a bit implausible) that, on a week to week basis, Wright was not serving up loopy views or radical anti-Americanism, but was encouraging personal responsibility and the relatively typical forms of social activism that many churches and synagogues encourage. Hewitt’s readers are getting upset with the postings, because they find them boring and because they understand that the postings strongly disprove the contention that Wright was such a monomaniacal radical that no congregant of moderate political beliefs attending the church or reading the bulletin could have possibly maintained his membership.
Ahhh! Narrative interruption, narrative interruption!!! Hugh Hewitt, you should know your readers have no interest in the truth! The question is, since you have no interest in the truth, what is your rationale for having these newsletters on your blog?
Was Hewitt such a bottom-feeder that he thought merely reminding readers of the existence of Jeremiah Wright would be enough to fuel anti-Obama anger?
This is the best comment I’ve read so far:
After reading all these…
The Trinity church really doesn’t seem all that radical. Most of the content is about personal responsibility, charity, compassion, etc. Decent and virtuous Christian values. Sure, maybe some wackyness here and there, but overall, if this makes someone a “radical”, maybe more of us should become a little more radical.
Seems like the ones most threatened by this one black Christian church are other Christians…Why is that?
Hugh/Duane, if you are truly an evangelical Christians, how can you publish all this and trash what are probably mostly good congregational caring fellow Christians. You said those of us who judged Mitt Romney’s LDS faith as bigots?
Is winning that important to you? More than your faith and it’s underlying values?
I don’t believe that racism explains all of it at all. To my mind, the kind of tactics deployed against someone like Obama were deployed against Kerry and Gore and Clinton. Class and gender and age also weighed in the balance. And the fear of another Carter has motivated some. But the insane hysteria over Wright, the racist incidents in Pennsylvania that are only now being aired fully, the “Hussein” and “Muslim” memes, the sense of white entitlement that is so embedded in the Clintons that they don’t even fully see it: you have to be blind not to see the impact of race. Imagine if John Edwards had achieved what Obama has achieved. Imagine if he had won more delegates, votes and states than Clinton. Would Clinton have ever offered him the veep slot? Of course, race has affected this campaign, if only because the white entitlement that infuses the Clintons is invisible to most.
The greatest dogwhistle of the Obama campaign so far is his ability to lay out this urgency to our generation. Viewed in this light, the only thing Obama has to tell me about yesterday’s election is that Pennsylanvia has the second oldest population in the country. After hearing that fact, I get it. He was never going to win.
A lot of statistical games are going on, but the striking differences between the voters over 40 versus the under-40 crowd encompasses a lot of subdivisions. Hillary isn’t just a woman, she’s a boomer, so she gets not only the older more racist voters, but the narcissistic boomers who can’t yet imagine they aren’t the center of the universe. In most states that hasn’t saved her, but it’s frequently created a demographic lump that won’t budge for Obama, and Pennsylvania was just one of them (Iowa, proudly, was not. When will the rest of the nation learn to listen to Iowans who aren’t named Steve King?) Had it been a Super Tuesday state, it would have gotten lost in the mix. Hillary’s had much bigger wins, and Obama’s had many more bigger wins. It’s a strange symptom of our news cycle that every new race is SO IMPORTANT because Hillary’s camp says it is. Is North Carolina important? Unlikely. And with Obama highly favored to win Indiana, Indiana isn’t so important either. Unless Hillary wins it, then it’s tha most important state EVAH!
I guess one could derive all sorts of lessons from Pennsylvania, it’s such a muddled mix…a 9.2 point lead, straddling the line between underwhelming win and double-digit victory…an interminable and stupid length of time until the next primary, when this one will be forgotten except that it gave Hillary license to keep torturing us with her slow loss, hoping somebody’ll just give her the nomination to shut her up…Obama’s need to step up his game fighting gossipy tabloidish junk that has nothing to do with the presidency…
…I mean, honestly. What is crap like Jeremiah Wright and whoever Obama shook hands with? Some image deal? And we’re listening to this after 8 years displaying to the world a President who’d be the loudmouthed guy at the end of the bar sloshed on Budweiser working at the chicken feed plant if it weren’t for his rich daddy? Apparently having a retard as President is okay, but we can’t tolerate one who doesn’t wear his flag pin because he thinks patriotism is something that deserves more than being worn on one’s sleeve!
America has from now until November to grow the hell up, consolidate support behind Obama and give him a nice 5-10 point lead over John McCain. While Republican hacktaculars like Sharon, Dana Pico, and Brian Pickrell are quaking in their boots (and let us not forget the Republican arm-wringing that went on before Bill Clinton won in 1992), in 2012 Barack Obama can run for re-election and we can simply say, “See? He didn’t enslave the white race!”
In the meantime, I’m considering taking up a new hobby, preferably something that involves gin or vodka every night.
It’s unlucky that after 232 years of white male presidents, a political party is forced to choose between a woman or a black man for their first presidential mold-breaking nominee. In a just world we would have had many female presidents and presidents of all races by now. This is not a just world, and our nation has been afflicted with irrational prejudices since before its inception that we have long struggled to shed. Could an atheist Asian-American woman run the country? Of course, to new heights even. Could she get elected? The odds are currently impossible.
Our current female candidate has gotten to her position largely on the coattails of her husband and shamelessly crass triangulating plastic politics. Our current black candidate rose to the top through powerful virtues few presidents have been lucky enough to possess, and has faced an onslaught of racially tinged attacks from every direction (amazingly, much of it from the campaign of the female candidate). It is progress that they are here, but as prevalent are the signs that we haven’t quite gotten “there” yet.
I feel that given the choice between a female candidate and a black male candidate, one must turn the question to their merits and leave the identity politics behind. Either one would be a historic president breaking a centuries-old pattern of injustice, paving the way for future candidates. Either one benefits the other’s cause, because our nation will now recognize that things need not remain the way they were. If we can elect a female president, then we can also elect a non-white one, and vice versa.
Sadly, this idea has not caught on. Some have simply gravitated to the candidate most like them, understandably since that’s what people do. However, some have chosen to take sides and argue that gender trumps race or vice versa. This conflict was avoidable, yet we did not swerve away. (more…)
Here’s the dirty secret all of us know and no one will admit to. There ARE niggers.
Yes, I think people can have conversations about race like Obama asked, and I think we can express our frustrations with some of the things we see coming from the other side, white or black. It can work. But isn’t this possible without calling black people niggers? Having lived in Cali over ten years, I can tell you that the preferred distinction is between those who are “ghetto” and those who aren’t. It gets to the point while avoiding the loaded nuclear bomb of white people calling black people niggers. Rightwingers may be itching for the day they can do so in public again without being called racist, but it won’t happen, ever.
Why is it everything I read from Michael Gerson is stupid stacked on top of stupid?
Barack Obama has run a campaign based on a simple premise: that words of unity and hope matter to America. Now he has been forced by his charismatic, angry pastor to argue that words of hatred and division don’t really matter as much as we thought.
Words of unity and hope aren’t Barack Obama’s premise. Unity and hope themselves are. After hearing a speech in which he recognizes the anger of blacks and whites and still seeks to bring them together instead of ostracizing them, Obama exemplifies unity and hope whereas his detractors ask why he does not lose faith and embrace division. And then they present this as some sort of contradiction on his part. A reader of Andrew Sullivan’s notes a real contradiction:
I thought that one of the few things all us Christians agreed on was the maxim “condemn the sin but love the sinner.”
Barack Obama gave the kind of speech some people will remain diametrically opposed to hearing. The substance of it challenges their rigid calcification. Where he asks Americans to elevate themselves above the old ways, some will refuse. Fortunately, so far, I’ve only seen refusal from rightwing establishment types like Gerson or the bowels of the rightwing blogosphere. The Corner is notable for nothing. How many times have you heard a rightwinger open up his argument with the conclusion, “I am not a racist!” before proving anything? It’s a strategy one should expect first in any sophisticated effort to diminish somebody black.
But do such defensive outward techniques hold water anymore? Or will we start looking inward and see our common faults?
First of all, calling Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war “a fairy tale” right after Bill claimed that he himself had been opposed all along. Now this:
The interviewer, Roland Martin of WVON-AM in Chicago, played Mr. Johnson’s statement Sunday in which he praised the Clintons for having “been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the bookâ€¦” Mr. Martin sounded incredulous about Mr. Johnson’s subsequent denial, in a statement issued by the Clinton campaign, that he was referring to drug use by Mr. Obama. “When you listen to that tone and the inflection, he was not talking about community organizing. It seems to me very clear what he was implying,” Mr. Martin said.
“Ironically, this is the first time I’ve heard it, what you just said,” Mr. Clinton said. “I listened to it on the tape and I think we have to take him at his word.”
Oh, really? You think we have to take him at his word, Bill? An obvious sham of a retraction of Johnson’s crystal-clear implications should be taken seriously?
No, we don’t have to take Johnson’s crap retraction, Mr. Clinton. We can take his original statement for what it clearly suggests, and until that implication is addressed, it shall stand as another example of Hillary’s ground troops hurling slime and mud at Obama while Hillary puts on a smiley face, in clear emulation of King George II and Karl Rove’s election strategies.
If Mr. Rock is facing a dilemma, donâ€™t think he doesnâ€™t know it. During his discussion of Mr. Imus, he laid out some guidelines: White people arenâ€™t allowed to mock black people; rich people arenâ€™t allowed to mock poor people; skinny people arenâ€™t allowed to mock fat people; and so on. The more stuff you have, the less stuff youâ€™re allowed to say.
Librul hogwash. It’s the haves and the have-mores who are allowed to sneer and point and giggle at the less fortunate, the whites who are allowed to mock blacks, straights who are allowed to mock queers, men who can treat women like cattle, and so on. The more stuff you have, the more weapons at your disposal…and you should use them, before somebody uses them on you.
Andrew Sullivan is ever entertained by this lackwit’s neverending attempts to reconcile civility with neanderthalism. The big rage among conservatives lately, and Sullivan has been fanning the flames, is being less than discreet about their feelings regarding race and IQ. Unfortunately, Sullivan seems to fail to realize that the topic is really very subtle and nearly useless, except as an excuse for rightwingers to vent their racism, i.e. descend into degeneracy. Case in point with John Derbyshire, the English idiot who lambasted the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre for not trying to tackle an armed madman:
There may indeed be different kinds of smarts, each worthy in its own way. In the world as it is, though, the kind of smarts that gets you a coherent nation under stable government, with a fair shot at security, prosperity, good health, and comfort for yourself and your descendants, is one particular kind â€” the kind measured by I.Q. tests.
In his lust to go after blacks, Derbyshire suffers amnesia and forgets the existence of the Middle East, much of China, all but the most recent history of Eastern Europe and the former USSR, Indochina, Europe’s long history of poverty and bloodshed, etc. etc. Or that high IQ scores haven’t necessarily done much to give Jewish people security or comfort. If you click and read the extended quote, Derbyshire indeed does rank as less valid the intelligence of those who are conquered or exterminated by other peoples. So indeed, since the Jews have managed to be persecuted throughout their existence, slaughtered en masse, and then decide the solution was to go set up camp in the middle of a bunch of Jew-hatin’ Arabs, how exactly, Derbyshire, is that reflected in their IQs?
Would Derbyshire’s feelings about Iran change because it’s the birthplace of algebra, accounting, highways, etc.?
Such is the Catch-22 of race and IQ…it’s almost impossible to try talking about how much smarter your people are without sounding like a complete moron…and inevitably turning into one. For every one person who can address the subject semi-responsibly, you get a thousand morons who gravitate to the subject out of insecurity borne of their own inferiority.
Personally, one of the only conclusions I can really draw from these still questionable reports are that maybe we should quit underfunding black students and cramming them into 35+ classrooms in factory schools functionally incapable of providing extracurricular activities for all their students. I already disagree with most quota systems (though I think quotas can be useful as smoke detectors to help us find where racism is calling the shots), believe in strict colorblind standards for admissions and job performance, and I think money should hinder nobody’s education. What else is there to add?
UPDATE: Not much, according to Sullivan. It’s all about affirmative action for him, he says in an earlier post I missed. Such are the perils of reading blogs top-to-bottom.
It was understood that when politicians started chirping about â€œstatesâ€™ rightsâ€ to white people in places like Neshoba County they were saying that when it comes down to you and the blacks, weâ€™re with you.
And Reagan meant it. He was opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation.
Congress overrode the veto.
Reagan also vetoed the imposition of sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa. Congress overrode that veto, too.
Throughout his career, Reagan was wrong, insensitive and mean-spirited on civil rights and other issues important to black people. There is no way for the scribes of today to clean up that dismal record.
To see Reaganâ€™s appearance at the Neshoba County Fair in its proper context, it has to be placed between the murders of the civil rights workers that preceded it and the acknowledgment by the Republican strategist Lee Atwater that the use of code words like â€œstatesâ€™ rightsâ€ in place of blatantly bigoted rhetoric was crucial to the success of the G.O.P.â€™s Southern strategy. That acknowledgment came in the very first year of the Reagan presidency.
Reagan’s been caught red-handed. There’s no rational reason to dive into Imaginationland yet again, but the rightwing authoritarians will continue to drive the propaganda of The Dearest Leader of All.
Comments Off on Of course, Reagan exploited racism.
If a person gets tortured, but no one sees or hears him, did he really get tortured?
Stephen Gray, and independent British journalist has a very intriguing documentary,that will be aired on PBS.Â Â Â The documentary is called “Extraordinary Rendition”.Â He interviews some of the victims of rendition, all carried out by the CIA.
Up until now we have heard that our gov’t has been outsourcing torture. That it’s not really Americans who are doing it, that they hand the victims over to authorities in countries where torture is common. However:
The dark prison was run by the Americans,” a former inmate, Bisher al-Rawi, tells Grey. â€œIt wasnâ€™t Afghani people flying the aircraft, it wasnâ€™t Afghani people who sort of shackled me and did whatever they did to me. It was Americans.â€
Although some of the victims of Rendition are genuine suspects of terrorism, there are countless who are not.Â The most famous being Maher Arar, the Syrian Canadian programmer, who was deported to Syria and tortured and then released without explanation or any charges against him.
Amy Goodman interviewed him yesterday about this documentary.
This is what he told her after he had interviewed a victim of rendition in Egypt who was also released without explanation or any charges:
And he also leaves behind dozens of people that he says are still in Egyptian jail, and they all wear a white uniform. The uniform says â€œinterrogationâ€ on it. And that means they havenâ€™t been charged with anything. They are still there, held in secret, without access to any lawyers, and theyâ€™re held indefinitely. And they’re all people who have been sent there by the CIA in the rendition program.
If you live in an area where PBS does not air, or if they aren’t airing this program it will be available on their website later this week.
I am really interested in seeing how NeoCons defend this. I guess the same way they defend the Patriot Act and other erosion of our civil liberties…
If anyone saw it when it aired, please leave your comments, I’d love to hear about it.Â I missed it.
1. Democrats accuse Republicans of using the racist Southern Strategy to turn the South solidly Republican. That’s totally backwards.
2. That is, by the way, historically accurate, and here’s an explanation of how the Southern Strategy worked then and how it still works today.
3. Having lots of Black Democrat politicians drives even more whites to the Republicans.
4. Thus Republicans have actually defeated the pro-segregation Democrats that fled to their own party.
5. Also, Bobby Jindal is an Indian-American who will be the next governor of Louisiana, who has large white voter support. This is unprecedented, but proves that driving “Negrophobe whites” (Kevin Phillips’ term) to the Republican party led to one of the greatest victories for civil rights in our history.
This is an “American Thinker”? Kind of a “logic-optional” thinking, is it?
p.s. slightly re-edited to combat late-night dementia.
Phew. Andrew Sullivan persists on the right to begin a sentence, “…since it’s scientifically proven that blacks are dumber than whites, we should (insert denial of their rights and equality here). He links to Selwyn Duke, who tries to ask, “What is Racism?”
Now granted, reading the article one can see that Duke didn’t just slap the argument together, and proceeds from a fairly prickly scientific perspective: Who cares what offends you, scientists talk about what the results show. They’re not willing to censor themselves whether the issue is race, evolution or global warming. If studies show that smarter humans went exploring the world and evolved beyond the relatively stagnant Africans, then that’s what a true scientist will tell you when you ask him what the science says.
Since my personal agenda places Science as an extension of Reason, and thus paramount in consideration of other beliefs, I have to express some sympathy with this argument. Yes, it’s true. A scientist’s duty is to be objective and to dispel errors in reasoning with information and superior rationality. Questions over the accuracy and method of certain studies are certainly warranted.
Such people shouldn’t exactly be surprised, however, to see that when it comes to going beyond the data and making bigger conclusions about what our test scores say about us, they intrude on territory that many more people lay claim to. After the data is reported, thinkers and philosophers of all stripes, whether they be logical or theological, claim a right to interpret it. Some can point to lower test scores and learning disabilities and say, “See, I was right, this proves it all along, everybody knew the blacks were dumber, and…”
Oh, wait, that’s the first step the GOP white-voter-values base wants to make.
My take is that the science can report all sorts of differences between the loose groups of races, but that one should still avoid constructing sentences that use the premise, “Since it is proven that blacks are not too bright…” Unfortunately, this isn’t self-evident, as in James Watson’s extraordinary display of the tendency of old people to lack inhibition on race issues (“GORMS: Grumpy Old Racist Man Syndrome. Example: Grandpa’s got the GORMS real bad for my half-black children!”). It seems to me that a more educated and elegant mind understands race with more subtlety than that, and is remarkably hesitant to dismiss the value of certain human lives over things like percentile points on math scores.
Scientists have a duty to report what they observe, and to meld it with the best reasoning, but the belief in human equality has a very long pedigree that goes well beyond matters strictly scientific. Prudence suggests being very conservative (the real meaning of the word, not the political monstrosity) about the limits and wisdom of racial proclamations.
Here’s how the First Amendment is revered by the fanatical right wing:
The irony here is that we have an administration that is completely integrated with a regime that is the rats-nest of Wahabist sentiment yet the mouth-breathing base can reflexively identify a peaceful Hindu man like Rajan Zed with the same ridicule and scorn as a Syrian imam.
There ain’t been much for new posts at IL lately, mostly because we’ve been having some raucous comment wars that have taken up most of my spare time. One has been over the legalistic lynching of Genarlow Wilson, a guy who’s spent 27 months in prison for receiving oral sex from a 15 year old girl when he was 17 (he would have been exonerated if they had actually had intercourse, naturally). Our favorite commenter, Dana Pico, has leapt to the defense of Genarlow’s sentencing. I’ve mostly commented on the issue of justice and blamed Georgia’s legislature just as much for this fracas, but one of Andrew Sullivan’s readers illustrates the virtues of knowing something about the law:
However, the comment by your correspondent that the court lacked the authority to release Wilson and that General Baker is the only person standing up for the rule of law is deeply flawed. This was a habeas petition, and Georgia law gives the county containing the prison exclusive jurisdiction to determine habeas petitions. Additionally, section 9-14-48 of the Georgia Code requires that habeas relief be granted “to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” Section 9-14-42 makes clear that the judge has the right to decide the case on grounds of both the Georgia Constitution and, more importantly, the US Constitution. In this case, the judge found Wilson’s sentence to be not only a miscarriage of justice, but also “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the 8th Amendment of the US Constitition. That conclusion, by the way, is one that is supported by a number of US Supreme Court cases, most notably Salem v. Helm (1983), which defined even a prison sentence as cruel and unusual if it was overly harsh compared to the underlying offense, the sentences imposed on other criminals in the state, and the sentences for the same act in other states. Wilson’s sentence would seem to be excessive under each of these tests.
Gosh, I was righter than I knew. Dana has backed away from the morality and justice of Wilson’s sentence, but it turns out his legal justifications were weak also.
I’ve got to stop making concessions to rightwingers. They almost always turn out to be unnecessary.
ATLANTA â€” A man sentenced to 10 years in prison for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17 should have to serve out the widely criticized mandatory term, a prosecutor told a judge Wednesday.
A lawyer for Genarlow Wilson, now 21, asked the appellate judge to throw out the aggravated child molestation sentence on the grounds it is grossly disproportionate to the crime. Defense attorney B.J. Bernstein noted that state lawmakers passed a law to close the loophole that led to Wilson’s sentence.
“It gets back to common sense,” Bernstein said. “This very act is only a misdemeanor with no sex offender registration today.”
But prosecutor Paula Smith argued that the new law cannot be applied retroactively.
“The General Assembly did not make it retroactive,” Smith said. “They had the prerogative to do so; they did not.”
I wonder if they’d be able to muster the stamina to so doggedly pursue a white kid? It seems everybody knows this case is a mistake, but, “honest, Judge, the law just went and done handcuffed us, this nigger’s got to hang!” Ah, but they’re trying to change…
If Wilson had had sexual intercourse with the 15-year-old he would have fallen under Georgia’s “Romeo and Juliet” exception. But under the law in 2003, oral sex between teens constituted aggravated child molestation and carried a mandatory sentence.
Georgia lawmakers changed the law in 2006 to make consensual oral sex between teens a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of one year behind bars. Offenders do not have to register as sex offenders, as Wilson will be required to do.
Them wise old Georgia lawmakin’ men…they’re awfully sorry about that loophole. They’d just prefer it that oral sex between teens only carried a year in prison as punishment. Bless their backwards lil’ hearts. It’s too bad that this black kid got caught in their snare, but honestly, they’d love to throw black and white kids in jail for oral sex, equally.
And people were surprised to see the poverty of New Orleans existing in this country. The moral poverty of Georgia offers even more reason to ask ourselves how this can happen in our country.
UPDATE: Who wants to do a pool on when a rightwing blogger stands up to defend this?
UPDATE II: Blogger Dana Pico steps up to the plate in the comment thread!
Demonstrating the type of political insight and stalwart research abilities most conservatives are known for these days, unemployed Sinatra tribute singer Brian Pickrell had this to say about Joe Biden’s latest boner:
If this were a Republican, you KNOW the far left would be howling about it.
Get it? Libruls are hypocrites because they’re not denouncing Champion of the Left Biden. You just KNOW it! Well, not really considering that Atrios, one of the most widely read librul blogs, called Biden out on his foot in mouth syndrome.
The ony reason anyone on the Left would be mum about Biden is because it’s a universally accepted fact that he is a cretin.
Conservatives can’t seem to understand that in this situation the difference between them and Liberals is that we possess the ability to condemn one of our own if necessary. Conservatives stand beside and defend their racists.