Mar 27 2010

Racing to racialize everything

Category: media,politics,race,racismharmonicminer @ 4:16 pm

I have already expressed my skepticism that “tea partiers,” protesting the government takeover of healthcare, actually used the N-word on African-American congress critters.

And now Andrew Breitbart shows that it looks less and less likely that it really happened, though it seems the Black Caucus members tried mightily to provoke an incident they could cry over.

I wonder what would have happened if the tea-partiers had marched through South LA carrying signs denouncing Obama-care and and video cameras to record their treatment by the community?  Because that’s about the level of provocation these congress-critters provided (apparently unsuccessfully) in an attempt to get the tea-partiers to react on film…  as if the congress-critters just couldn’t find another way to get where they wanted to go.

“Gosh!  Did I just happen to march through the middle of your demonstration?  I’m SO sorry.  I just didn’t see you until it was too late.”


Nov 01 2009

Race: Issue or non-issue?

Category: race,racismamuzikman @ 8:46 am

There is an article in the Washington Times today, describing the current mayoral race in Atlanta.  From the headline to the last paragraph, the content of the article is almost entirely about race – the race of the candidates, the racial mixture of city residents, the race of past mayors in the city, etc. What generated the article is the fact that Atlanta may be about to elect the first white mayor in 36 years.

After reading the article I was struck by its misleading tone. In fact I think the headline, “White candidate scrambles vote, attitudes in Atlanta race” is not only misleading, it is just plain wrong.   What is most newsworthy about the article is the fact that race of the leading candidate, a white woman, seems to be a non issue for most voters.

So why not a headline that reads, “Race plays little or no role in current election”?  The answer of course is that there are many who simply don’t believe such a thing is possible.  Loud voices remind us daily how our racial past is the lens through which all things must be viewed.  But what if it’s just not true anymore?  What if racism is no longer a major factor in elections?  Will our current climate of color-coding and color-obsession even allow us to acknowledge such a thing?

I can’t help but think Martin Luther King would be rather disappointed if he saw what his great civil rights struggle had become, for in some ways his dream seems even farther off today than it was in 1963.  For in spite of significant evidence that people are being judged by the content of their character, there are many in the public forum who would have us believe it is all about the color of their skin.

Sep 17 2009

The boy who cried, “Wolf!” er… I mean, “You’re a racist!”

Category: racismamuzikman @ 1:25 am

“I thought Michael Jordon using his Basketball Hall Of Fame induction speech to settle some old scores was embarrassing and demeaning, both to him and to the game of basketball.

Does that make me a racist?

I thought Serena Williams recent on-court outburst at the U.S. Open tennis match was shameful and humiliating.

Does that make me a racist?

I thought Kanye West’s unscripted drunken antics on stage at the MTV awards was repugnant and offensive.

Does that make me a racist?

I thought Van Jones history and recent inflammatory comments were an embarrassment to the Obama Administration.

Does that make me a racist?

I thought California State Assemblyman Mike Duvall’s recently recorded comments concerning the sordid details of his sexual affairs was pure filth, the speech of a hypocrite.

Does that make me – Oh, wait…Duvall is white.  That’s different…or is it?

An ever increasing number of United States citizens are discovering they disagree with President Obama over several very significant issues: federal spending, cap and trade, and  government-sponsored health care to name a few.  Are all of these citizens racists?  According to a recent chorus of mainstream media and administration voices the answer is, “yes.   In some yet-to-be-explained fashion we have revealed our ugly racist nature because we dare to speak in opposition to this President and his policies. Have we arrived at a place where the mere appearance of disagreement will trigger the dreaded “racism” accusation?  Do those who hurl such accusations really believe we are witnessing a racism renaissance because Obama is president, or has it simply  become an expedient and admittedly effective way of shutting up the opposition.  After all, no one wants to be labeled as racist, and there are many who will simply refrain from speaking rather that have to defend themselves in a public forum.

So what are we to say or do? Are certain races exempt from criticism ? Are there those among us who are above reproach by merit of their skin color?  This country has made perhaps it’s most significant statement about how far we have moved away from racism by electing a black President.  But then must we march in lockstep daily with everything Obama has proposed for fear of “backsliding” into our racist past?

And if every word and deed is racist, then nothing is racist and the term itself has no meaning. If everything is an expression of racism then there is no possible contrast with that which is not racist. Just like the Aesop fable about the boy who cried “wolf”, with each repetition of the accusation, the issue becomes increasingly diluted and we all sink back into a sort of racial ennui.  In the story, when the real wolf came no one paid any attention to the warning cry, they had heard it so many times before.  In our world the ability to recognize and deal with real racism will be equally hobbled because we have heard the accusation hurled so many times it will have ceased to hold any meaning.

Aug 02 2009

The Beer Summit Protocol

Category: humor,Obama,race,racismamuzikman @ 1:41 am

(NOTE: All beers mentioned in this blog are actual brand names.)

As everyone knows the White House just concluded the so-called Beer Summit.  The Acting Chief of Protocol Laura B. Wills, must have had her hands full last week in preparation for such an austere Presidential event.  Just the selection of the correct beer alone have been pretty tricky business.  I’m sure Chief Wills had to summon all of her considerable suds-selection experience in order to pull this one off.

I think one of the biggest challenges would be in selecting beers with an appropriate name, given the seriousness of the occasion (a White House Summit) and the sensitive subject matter (racism).  Just a cursory investigation into the world of beer and breweries reveals there are literally hundreds of beer names in the world, running the gamut from mundane to clever to rude.  But not just any beer will do and I’m certain the selection process was handled with great care, since so much was at stake. For example, imagine what kind of message would be sent if the President greeted Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley while holding a frosty cold can of Arrogant Bastard Beer.  Not good, (Though I wouldn’t put it past someone like Hugo Chavez to stock up on cases of The Ugly American the next time Obama stops in for a Western Hemisphere Summit).  Other beer names are just so outrageous they were probably never considered.  There is just no place at a White House beer summit for Santa’s Butt Porter or Seriously Bad Elf, (Say..that reminds me…Whatever became of Robert B. Reich?).

Since so many beers are identified by their color, this presents serious potential for offending someone on the basis of their race. Given the fact the entire affair has been racially charged one would think that any light or dark beer would have to be removed from consideration.  Yet the President apparently drank a Bud Lite – and he is to be commended for such a significant demonstration of magnanimity.  Furthermore any beer with a color in its title would have to be carefully considered, especially if it is a color used in describing certain races.  So Red Kite, Red Label, Red Rooster, and Red Ass Ale are out – wouldn’t want to offend any American Indians.  Likewise say good bye to Amber Bitter, Yellow Belly and Yellowstone Pale Ale in order to avoid any Asian pejoratives.  Red Neck beer is also disqualified for it’s own reasons though it’s inclusion would certainly have been tempting to Obama had any of the guests been Republicans.  Sgt. Crowley maneuvered gracefully to a solution, selecting Blue Moon, (I can’t help but secretly wonder if this was a subtle, silent fist-pump to the men and women in blue) but only time will tell how this move will be received in the Smurf community.

With P.E.T.A. always lurking in the background I figure any beer mentioning animals would be off-limits.  This eliminates quite a few; Moosehead, Moose Drool, Cobra, Dog’s Bollocks, Elephant, Fat Weasel, Golden Eagle, Lion, Snowgoose, Old Speckled Hen, Sick Duck, and Pig’s Eye just to name a few.

We know the Second Amendment is not popular with the current crowd in Washington so I’m fairly certain Colt 45 was ruled out. For similar reasons relating to gun violence Valley Forge, Veterans, and Old Chicago were also probably put on the Do-Not-Serve list.

There are a couple of beer names that I thought would surely show up at a beer summit hosted by Obama.  What better message for him to send than to have everyone hoist a Robin Hood.  If ever there was a man who robbed from the rich and gave to the poor….  The other brand is 1984 Golden Choice simply because the Orwellian similarities are so profound.

Let’s face it, the choice of beer is fraught with potential peril.  The name must be politically correct, so naturally I assumed the White House would be serving PC beer.  That’s right, there is a PC beer.  It gets better – the initials stand for “President’s Choice”.  Wow! talk about your two-for-one acronym!!!  It seemed like a sure thing until I discovered PC is brewed by Whitewater Brewing Co.  Disqualified based on color.  I really feel for this company too.  If they had decided to pick a more politically correct name, it might have created other problems.  I mean, who would buy a beer brewed by the Brownwater Brewing Co.?

Perhaps the biggest surprise came from Professor Gates who consumed a Sam Adams Light.  That is a double faux pas, first for the aforementioned “light” connotation.  But even more important than that is the name, Samuel Adams.  Yes he was a brewer back in the day.  But more significant is the fact that he was white, he was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and an unabashed patriot.  He is partially responsible for the creation of this country and it’s most cherished founding documents.  I thought Gates would gag if he drank a beer named after someone like that!  I guess it just goes to show you how all those Harvard alums stick together through thick and thin.

This blog entry is silly – intentionally so.  But sadly no less silly than some of the claims that are made and things that are said in the name of racial diversity in this country almost every day.  Maybe if enough of us actually spoke up and called them silly it would help us put the nonsense behind us.  We will never get past the issue of race and racism as long as we are continue our obsession with color coding everyone and everything.

Finally I must acknowledge Vice President Joe Biden, who drank a non-alcoholic beer called Buckler.  There’s not much to say here except that drinking a non-alcoholic beer is like kissing your sister.

Jul 20 2009

Obama, Sanger, Ginsburg and Holdren: the common thread

Category: abortion,government,healthcare,Obama,race,racismharmonicminer @ 9:49 am

Read it all.

Jun 04 2009

Seeking identity in the USA

Category: affirmative action,diversity,left,race,racismharmonicminer @ 9:29 am

Lost in the Labyrinth of Race  (much more at the link)

One of the unexpected results of the Sotomayor nomination is a refocusing on the politics of racial identity and the fossilized institutions of affirmative action-or the belief that the U.S. government should use its vast power to ensure an equality of result rather than a fairness of opportunity.

In the last fifty years, United States has evolved into a complex multiracial state. Race no longer is necessarily an indicator of income or material success-as the record of, say, Japanese-Americans or, indeed Asians in general, attests.

And what criterion constitutes race itself nowadays, when almost every family has someone who is half-Hispanic, a quarter-Asian, one-half black, or part Pakistani? What percentage of one’s lineage ensures purity of race, or qualifies for minority status? Are California Hispanics minorities, or so-called whites that are now a smaller percentage of the state population?

And what constitutes racial authenticity? Lack of income? An absence of success in the American rat race? Is the fourth generation upper-class Cuban an “Hispanic” who should qualify for affirmative action because his name is Hillario Gonzalez? Does the one-quarter aristocratic Jamaican qualify for American redress on account of his partial blackness?

And how does affirmative action-or even the fuzzy notion of “diversity”- adjudicate all this without mirror-imaging the statisticians of the Old Confederacy who could precisely calibrate the 1/16 drop of black blood? The university where I taught was full of South Americans and Europeans with Spanish surnames that allowed their various departments to be considered “ethnically diverse,” while others, having Russian émigrés, or the foreign born from New Delhi, Israel, and Egypt, struggled to satisfy the dictates of diversity czars.

In other words, affirmative action, and the racial identity politics that fuel it, are swamped by their inherent racialist contradictions-and made irrelevant by the dynamism of popular culture of the last three decades in which intermarriage, assimilation, and integration have challenged the notion of racial fides itself.

So begins an article from Victor Davis Hanson on the state of race in the USA, including affirmative action, “diversity,” racial preferences, racial identity, the nature of privilege in modern USA, the whole nine yards in the current race discussion and its political and social implications.  It’s all worth reading and difficult to summarize, a sign of pithy, concise writing.  Suffice to say that it highlights all the inner contradictions of the race conscious, and the futility of policies that were designed to redress grievances and correct imbalances, but cannot even identify who should qualify in any rational way.

Here is what’s clear to me: the election of a president of African ancestry has done nothing to satisfy the Left.  It has not convinced the Left that America is no longer significantly racist in its average viewpoint.  Instead, it appears simply to have placed the Left in the driver’s seat for every race-based preference and accommodation that it can construct.

We’re a long, long way from the “content of his character” vision of Martin Luther King, Jr., and getting farther away every day.

Tags: , , ,

May 30 2009

An age now fading

Category: diversity,economy,environment,government,Group-think,Obama,race,racism,societyharmonicminer @ 9:04 am

Reflections On an Age Now Fading… Read it all.

On matter of race, one detects beneath the therapeutic calls for inclusiveness, an unfortunate renewal of identity politics with a new harder edge-we saw that in the campaign with the slips about reparations and oppression studies, the clingers speech, Rev. Wright, and the ‘typical white person’ put down. Then with Eric Holder’s blast about Americans as “cowards” and now with the Supreme Court nominee’s somewhat derogatory remarks about the proverbial white male judge. We are not hearing praise of the melting pot ideal of intermarriage, assimilation, or integration-even if such elites in their private lives do not predicate their daily regimens in terms of racialism. I spent 21 years in a university in which quite affluent elites sought any multicultural patina possible for an edge in professional advancement and general leverage–the hyphenated name, the addition of the accent mark on the name, the non-American accentuation, occasional ethnic dress, the relabeling of one as a designated minority who otherwise had not previously emphasized race, etc.—that would suggest they were not part of the popular capitalist culture-supposedly centered on the white male-around them. Yet I left sensing the industry of race was doomed, due to the power of popular culture, the unworkable labyrinth of racial identification due to intermarriage, the laughable contradictions (the jet-black immigrant from India got no favored treatment, the light-skinned Costa Rican name Jorge piggy-backed onto the Mexican-American experience), the son of the Mexican father who used his name Gomez was authentic, the son of the Mexican mother who carried his non-Mexican father’s name Wilson was not. And on and on with this ridiculous neo-Confederate practice of adjudicating percentages of race to the sixteenth, and drops of targeted minority blood—a racist enterprise to the core. The only constant? The white male was fair game. It mattered little that more women were graduating than men, that under the racial spoils system we were beginning to see white males in less percentages than those found in the general population at the university; instead, it was sort of OK to trash, as in the manner of Sotomayor’s comment, the proverbial white male, as if we are collectively ashamed of everyone from the Wright Brothers to Lincoln to John Wayne to JFK.

When so close an observer of history and modern life as Victor Davis Hanson is this pessimistic, I feel the need to go see an escapist movie or something.

Read his entire article. Then go get a massage or a pedicure and try not to think about it.

May 16 2009

The REAL story of Samson and Delilah?

Category: arab,Islam,Israel,multi-cultural,music,politics,racismharmonicminer @ 8:52 am

It seems that there is no story where the demands of art cannot be impressed into the service of politically correct “creativity,” and this “SAMSON” AND OPERATIC INSANITY appears to be on the same general plain as a crucifix in urine, or maybe a star of David in pig blood.

In Belgium, a government-funded opera company is presenting a bizarre reworking of the Biblical story of Samson and Delilah. This “updated” version of a nineteenth century Saint-Saens melodrama depicts Samson as a Palestinian “freedom fighter”, not an Israelite, and portrays Delilah as a despicable Israeli agent, not a Philistine temptress.

In the climax of the production, Samson straps on a suicide vest and blows-up the Israeli “oppressors.” This politically-correct operatic indulgence follows announced plans by La Scala—on of the world’s most prestigious opera-houses—to produce a full-scale musical version of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and by the Shanghai opera to offer a lavish, five hour singing-and-dancing adaptation of Marx’s “Das Kapital.” As the composer Franz Liszt once aptly observed: “All music is an insane asylum, but opera is the wing for incurables.”

Just a couple of observations, and a plug:

It WOULD be a government-funded opera company producing this trash. What private company would do it with the intent of making a profit? Of course, the Saudis will fund nearly anything that puts Israel and Jews in a bad light, and I’m just guessing that, much like Washington D.C., the Belgian government and lobbying apparatus is full of people on the Saudi payroll, who seem to own 1 out of 3 former congress critters and state department drudges.

As far as a Jewish Delilah goes, it would make more sense to cast Tokyo Rose as General MacArthur’s secret lover.

And the plug. The REAL story of Samson and Delilah, a story about sex and violence, and yet rated G.    “God Brings Down The House” is a particular show stopper.  At the link, just click the cover of Samson and Delilah, and then at the linked site you can play excerpts of the tunes.  Eat your heart out, Belgium.

May 13 2009

Is the real problem “White Male Privilege,” lack of “Diversity,” and discrimination against “people of color”?

It has become common to berate institutions of all kinds that are deemed to be insufficiently “diverse,” as if there is automatically some institutional barrier preventing “people of color” from associating with them, and is if some kind of unfair “white male privilege” is the problem.   While there were significant institutional barriers in previous decades, those barriers are now largely gone, and civil-rights activists are busily fighting a war they’ve already won, almost in a manner reminiscent of Civil War re-enactments.   Nevertheless, the removal of those barriers isn’t enough for diversity activists, who now insist that institutions pursue essentially quota-based strategies to “diversify.”  The latest set of institutions engaged in self-flagellation for perceived failures of diversity are Christian colleges and universities, many of whom are scrambling just as fast as they can to “get diverse.” It is as if these institutions believe that if only they are more diverse, then the problems of minorities in American society will go away, or at least be ameliorated.  Or perhaps, if they are more diverse, they can at least feel less guilty about it.

The two biggest problems of injustice in black — and, increasingly, Hispanic — America are abortion and the epidemic of fatherless children.
Blacks abort their babies at a rate five times that of whites.  Nearly 70% of black children are born into fatherless households.  The first of these issues is directly traceable to the national legalization of abortion in 1973, an act of a left-leaning, activist court.   The second of these issues is directly traceable to the creation of LBJ’s Great Society programs in 1965, the act of a left-leaning congress and president.  These two problems cannot be primarily attributed to racism, for the historical reason that abortions were far less common before it was legalized, and the “illegitimacy rate” of blacks in 1960 was about 25%, not 70%.  What changed was government policy, in legalizing the murder of the unborn for essentially any reason at any time in the pregnancy, and in providing incentives to make babies out of wedlock by paying more for each one.  It is arguable that left-leaning governmental policies did more harm to black America than Jim Crow.  And it’s worth noting that blacks were climbing out of poverty rather steadily in the period from 1940-1960 (Thomas Sowell writes very clearly on this), while Jim Crow was still the norm.  Progress slowed dramatically with the beginning of the Great Society, proving that you can indeed offer someone too much help.

“Social justice” activists are fond of pointing to the disproportionately high representation of black men in prison as evidence of white injustice in law enforcement, the judicial system, the economy, etc.  But when the statistics are controlled for the presence of a father in the home, blacks raised with a married father in the home are no more likely than whites to be in jail.   So the “justice” problem is a society that discourages black families from forming, let alone failing.  The Left will say that “there are all kinds of families” and imply it is prejudice to promote the traditional understanding, but the sociologists and criminologists know better, if they have the courage to look at their own data.

The third biggest social justice problem for blacks is the state of the schools, but that cannot be fixed without addressing the issue of black families at the same time.   All too often, the family values are missing that will produce children with whom schools can work effectively.  Schools, no matter how well intentioned and well funded, can’t replace successful parents.  Churches can certainly help, but not when they are basically apologists for the status quo, and are used as platforms for leftist politics as much or more than for faithful transformation of inner-city culture along Godly lines.  None of this means the schools can’t be better, and various experimental schools have shown that typical inner-city black children can benefit greatly from improved schools, provided those schools don’t have to keep the most troublesome students enrolled, and are allowed to pursue educational techniques and policies of their own choosing.  But no one believes that schools alone can make up for deficits in parenting, even in experimental schools that shuck the usual pieties of the education lobby, even when the schools simply do what works, without trying to be social laboratories and places to park troubled children.

The real “white male privilege” with which we should concern ourselves most is that of white doctors killing black babies in the womb, or just barely out of it, for profit, in abortion clinics placed conveniently near inner city neighborhoods to encourage repeat business.  We would submit that the apparent nature of “black male privilege” does more damage to blacks than anything white males are doing, or saying.  Finally, there is the “white male privilege” of mostly white politicians who depend on the black vote, and buy it with government benefits and promises of more, the new form of sharecropper oppression, because by taking the deal, blacks have crippled themselves as a group in being able to improve their own circumstances by their own efforts, though there are obviously many individual exceptions.

These problems will not be solved by whites.  They will not be solved by a black president, leading a government made up mostly of whites, unless that black president is determined to undo the government incentives that encourage bad behavior.  That seems unlikely in this case, doesn’t it?  These problems will only be solved by black leaders “on the ground,” who must spend more time challenging their own communities, straightforwardly demanding better behavior, teaching skills and values for successful living, than they spend twisting the arms of “white” institutions to be more “diverse.”   They need to be teaching their people to reject government handouts that weaken their motivation to lift themselves up, tempting them to lower standards for personal and public behavior.  We need ten thousand people like Jesse Peterson, Clenard Childress and Johnny Hunter for every Jackson/Sharpton shakedown artist and/or community organizer whose idea of service is to take a young woman who shouldn’t be pregnant to city hall to apply for benefits (to “find her voice”), or, even worse, to provide rides to the local abortion mill, and in either case protecting from any responsibility the man or boy who made her pregnant, and in many cases the parent or guardian (usually only one) who failed to provide her with adequate supervision.

Inner-city black America is suffering not from being non-diverse, not primarily because some colleges and universities are not diverse, but because it is killing itself. We have just inaugurated a president who will encourage much, much more of the same, judging by his record, his public statements, his political commitments to his supporters, and his chosen advisers.

In the meantime, those Christian colleges and universities that are in a headlong rush to “diversify” are learning that it is very difficult to avoid all the Leftist influences that accompany diversity activism.  Some of these schools, which were once unabashedly pro-life, pro-traditional-family and pro-American, are now finding that with diversity comes the choice between promoting life or lionizing Obama-as-symbol, between being pro-traditional-family or endorsing all kinds of other arrangements as being “just as good,” and between acknowledging the strong Judeo-Christian ethic in the American founding and social ethos, or seeing America as “just another nation” with no uniquely important religious elements shaping its heritage, values and behavior.

It’s a choice these institutions are making, this decade.  The faculty they’re hiring now will be the ones who decide the directions of those institutions in the next decade, not today’s adminstrators and board members, who may make policy statements attempting to “hold the line,” etc.  Adminstrators and trustees come and go, but faculty have tenure.  Unfortunately, it seems no more possible in the current environment for prospective faculty to be asked, “Are you anti-abortion?” than it is to ask a prospective supreme court judge about future rulings.  That’s because, somehow, abortion has been relegated to being a “political question” instead of the frankly moral one that it is.  Somehow, it has become acceptable in some quarters for Christians to vote for pro-abortion politicians, and for that choice, and campaiging for such, to be seen as a valid “political choice.”  Yet I’m quite sure that most Christians would consider it a sin to vote for a pro-slavery candidate.

We are in a grim place, and those of us who see it that way need to be deep in prayer over it, and then we need to work within our institutions to improve the situation.

UPDATE: Walter E. Williams on Race Talk

Race talk often portrays black Americans as downtrodden and deserving of white people’s help and sympathy. That vision is an insult of major proportions. As a group, black Americans have made some of the greatest gains, over the highest hurdles, in the shortest span of time than any other racial group in mankind’s history. This unprecedented progress can be seen through several measures. If one were to total black earnings, and consider black Americans a separate nation, he would find that in 2005 black Americans earned $644 billion, making them the world’s 16th richest nation — that is just behind Australia but ahead of Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland. Black Americans are, and have been, chief executives of some of the world’s largest and richest cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. It was a black American, Gen. Colin Powell, appointed Joint Chief of Staff in October 1989, who headed the world’s mightiest military and later became U.S. Secretary of State, and was succeeded by Condoleezza Rice, another black American. Black Americans are among the world’s most famous personalities and a few are among the richest. Most blacks are not poor but middle class.

On the eve of the Civil War, neither a slave nor a slave owner would have believed these gains possible in less than a mere century and a half, if ever. That progress speaks well not only of the sacrifices and intestinal fortitude of a people; it also speaks well of a nation in which these gains were possible. These gains would not have been possible anywhere else.

Oct 23 2008

Get out of the kitchen

Category: election 2008,McCain,media,Obama,politics,racismharmonicminer @ 8:44 am

The main stream media continues to pursue its “Obama the victim” narrative, portrying him as the victim of hate in some unusual way, and consulting only left-leaning organizations and think-tanks to confirm its thesis.  Of course, if they actually did due diligence and interviewed both sides equally, and compared actual research from both sides, they would discover that there is…  no story!  Can’t have that, and the election isn’t quite in the bag for Obama yet, and so:

An ugly line has been crossed in this presidential campaign, one in which some people don’t mind calling Barack Obama a dangerous Muslim, a terrorist and worse.

And this is somehow worse than the term Bushitler? Let’s just add up the Hitler references to Bush, and compare numbers. But, of course, that would require real research and reporting, and we can’t expect that, can we?  Just count the lawyers and reporters parachuted into Alaska to defame Palin, and compare the numbers to those who have really investigated Obama’s past and alliances, and you’ll get the idea.

“To me, this all feels much worse than we’ve seen in some time,” said Kathryn Kolbert , the president of People for the American Way , which monitors political speech.

Well, yes, because this time it’s YOUR guy on the receiving end of the very kind of hatred that People for the American Way and its allies have stirred up against Bush and Republicans. Except that it isn’t, for the simple reason that no mainstream Republican organization, conservative outlet, commentator or website has used the kind of language being reported here. Rather, it’s a very small fringe of over-the-top extremists, and the Left would love to paint the entire Right as that extreme… but it just won’t wash.

Experts agree on the reasons: Obama, the Democratic nominee, is different from any other major presidential candidate in history in many ways, and people often don’t accept such change gracefully.

Come on, just say it. Obama is black, and we all know those wascally weepublicans are wacists. Oh, and by the way: which “experts”? This is journalism school mumbo-jumbo for “this is what I think, and if I phrase it this way I can pretend it’s straight news”.
Continue reading “Get out of the kitchen”

Tags: , ,

« Previous PageNext Page »