Nobody hits my brother but me….
Bookworm on Apr 11 2007 at 9:39 am | Filed under: African-Americans, Leftist morality, Liberal blogs, Multiculturalism
Long time readers may recognize the following, which is a recycled post from February 2005 (when I was still on Blogger). At the bottom, I’ll explain why I’m resurrecting it:
Remember from playground days how, when someone was picking on your little brother, you’d rush over to defend him, and announce to the perpetrators, “Only I get to call my brother names”? I thought of that when I read this Hindrocket PowerLine post (which I reproduce here in its entirety, although I’ve omitted the original internal links):
The ‘Jeff Gannon’ affair has been a mini-cause celebre on the liberal side of the blogosphere over the past several days, to the point where we have gotten several belligerent emails from lefties demanding to know why we aren’t covering the story. My response has been that I can’t figure out what the story is. ‘Gannon’ wrote for the Talon news service and was occasionally cleared to participate in White House press briefings. He apparently is a conservative, and on some occasions he asked questions with a twist that was friendly to the administration. The ’scandal’ that has erupted over the past few days involves the following elements: 1) ‘Jeff Gannon’ isn’t his real name; it’s James Guckert; 2) Guckert is alleged to be a homosexual (Markos Moulitsos of the Daily Kos has made a big deal out of this); and 3) several gay porn sites are registered in Guckert’s name. Gannon/Guckert has now resigned from Talon due to the attention. The first actual news story I’ve seen on the Gannon affair is this AP report, which quotes Scott McClellan:
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Guckert did not have a regular White House press pass but was cleared on a day-by-day basis to attend briefings and used his real name. ‘He, like anyone else, showed that he was representing a news organization that published regularly and so he was cleared two years ago to receive daily passes just like many others are,’ McClellan said. ‘In this day and age, when you have a changing media, it’s not an easy issue to decide, to try to pick and choose who is a journalist. It gets into the issue of advocacy journalism. Where do you draw the line? There are a number of people who cross that line in the briefing room.’
I still don’t get it. Gannon has been attacked for not being a ‘real’ journalist–as compared to whom, Helen Thomas? He called himself a “voice of the new media” on his web site, and it seems passing strange to me for bloggers to suggest that only journalism school graduates are qualified to ask questions at press briefings. As far as I can tell, the only thing that distinguished Gannon from the other reporters is that he is a partisan conservative, whereas they are nearly all partisan liberals. I’d be happy if the administration threw the whole lot of them out and took questions from people on the street. Inasmuch as I still don’t see that there is much of a story here–apart, of course, from the somewhat entertaining strangeness of it all–I’ll stop writing now.
I can’t add anything better to what Hindrocket already said about the core issue (i.e., Gannon’s right to appear at press conferences). What surprised me was that the left is apparently terribly upset about Gannon’s purported homosexuality. Indeed, as far as I can tell from this comment at DailyKos, Claude Raines-like, the Lefties are “shocked, shocked” that Gannon might have a homosexual past — one, indeed, that might include prostitution. That’s sordid, I agree, but two things: that accusation might be false, and, if true, Gannon may well have reformed his wild ways.
My real point, though, is how the Left appears to feel that, while the right cannot comment on race, mental abilities, or sexuality, the Lefties can, with impunity. How else to explain their despicably racist comments regarding Condi Rice, the “cartoons” depicting George Bush as mentally retarded, and now this “homosexual agenda” attack on Gannon? Does being the self-proclaimed champion of people of color, the mentally handicapped, and gays mean that you get to insult them with impunity? I certainly wouldn’t want such offensive people to speak on my behalf. Indeed, I might prefer someone else’s tender mercies to those of my ostensible benefactors.
This old post keeps circling around to the forefront of my brain and reminding me of its currency. A month ago, there was the uproar that Matt Sanchez had a past in gay porn, although I think that outrage was more about perceived hypocrisy than about his actual gayness. (Dennis Prager handled that point here.)
Showing that the Left never learns when it comes to exposing its deep, deep disdain for those who deviate from identity politics servitude, Confederate Yankee points out that a liberal blogger has made racially demeaning comments about Condi Rice, calling her “Brown Sugar,” a manifestly sexual term reserved for African-American females. Apparently tbogg, a fairly well-ranked liberal blogger, figures that the monthly uproar quota for inflammatory racial remarks has been used up, and that he’s free to say what he wants. Or, more likely, he knows that, because his comment is directed at a conservative black, he’ll get a free pass.
Be that as it may, it shows once again that the liberals’ ostensible concern with racial or sexual identity has little to do with compassion, and everything to do with driving home ideological points and political demands.
Email This Post To A Friend
7 Responses to “Nobody hits my brother but me….”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Witness the joys of applying a hasty generalization! which in this case followed a particularly generous strawman antipasto. The thing about our poor Bookworm is that her views are mostly unsupportable, except by deploying one logical fallacy or another.
I explain it as, people who are controlled by entropy and the desire to destroy, ends up destroying everything, including themselves and that which they claim to fight for.
Only good people can resist evil and advance human progress. Human rights is part of human progress. If someone tries a con game of saying he will provide a service and a benefit to you, then he has to make good on his promise, or else he simply destroys.
Whenever I heard people talk about Neo being this that or the other, back when she was blogging at blogspot, I just went back to irreducible fundamentals. Using inductive logic, I traced evidence down concerning people’s comments and actions. A statistical sheet so to speak. After I had collected memories or current data on Neo’s comments and actions, and on the comments and actions of her accusers, I would then use deductive logic to choose one course over another. Basically I had to decide which was on the path to furthering human progress and who wasn’t. So I decided Neo was furthering human interests, rights, and progress, while her accusers were undermining and destroying things of value.
Then all you need is to wait for verification. If Neo wishes to promote human progress and does promote human progress, then in the future we can expect her actions on these subjects to be A, B, and C but not Z. If Neo is acts as I predicted she would act, this strenghtens my deductive logic and the premises I based it upon.
This seems like a simple process to me. When people have to decide whether the Left is the real deal or not, they have access to logic to work it out. But obviously it doesn’t seem to be easy, because most people don’t use logic. Not of the formal kind certainly.
You take what the Left said and did about race and sex and equal treatment, combine it with their actions in a spreadsheet matrix. Then you take what the Right has said and done, combine it. And then you choose which side is on what path. Are people like Book on the path of human progress? Or are people like Gridlock greg furthering human progress and protecting lives against entropy’s encroachment?
Book said before that she used to vote the Democrat party/ticket line. So obviously Book had previously decided that the Democrats were the party of progress and goodness, but also obviously Book must have eventually found out that her expectations and assumptions about what a party of progress should do, was inconsistent with the reality and behavior of her party. So she rechose.
Rechoosing is good, it is an exercise of free will and human freedom. Neo brought up this question about why there are so many “changers” from the Left to the Right, but few if any changers from Right to Left (Ramsey Clark). My answer is rather simple. I tend to see it as people in the South (Democrat powerbase) becoming more cosmopolitan and less racist and evil. As the people in the Democrat party became better human beings, their expectations for the party increased. And if you had good Democrat leaders like Truman or JFK, then the expectation of classical liberals were fullfilled. But Jimmy Carter and Johnson… well. As time went on, the Democrat party sort of regressed back to its slavery and KKK roots (Robert Byrd)
The Left has talked for so long about they and only they are the crusaders for GOOOD against Republikkkan that they actually produced some true believers. (KKK Kleagle Robert Byrd is the most senior Senator therefore third in line for the Presidency after Vice and Pelo, but he’s a Democrat not a Republikkkan) True believers are people who believe in the things that the propaganda masters of the Left espoused. They believe it is true, therefore true believer. But there’s a difference. You could have true believers in the party line, but they aren’t “classical liberals” like Book here. No, to get a classical liberal from Leftist indoctrination, you have to combine equal parts true belief with honesty and curiosity.
So the result of this is that the Left creates people like Book, who then starts questioning why the behavior of her party is inconsistent with what she believes to be the cause that her party is fighting for. This creates political demographic changes, like the South voting Republican during and after Reagan.
Southerners had learned much from their failed Confederacy and slavery roots. They produced better people because of such experiences, as time went on. Those more cosmopolitan and humane people desired and demanded a political party that was true to their beliefs, their cause, and their purpose.
I’ll sum this up with some basics that I use to build most everything else on. Basically, people who are weak and cannot resist the desire to blow stuff up and hurt others, cannot serve the cause of Good or preserve/advance human rights. The Left is weak, weak in their souls, in their hearts, spirits, and minds. This is the primordial assumption, which reality rather supports.
The Left says they fight for environmentalism and progress and all these other goodies. Con Game, of course.
Street theater is not strength. It saps energy better put to other uses. The focus we’ll be dedicating to the next gaffe sometime in (this time I’ll give myself a little more wiggle room) May will mean that much less commitment to addressing black people’s real problems.
People know this already. They know the Left is weak and promotes weakness. And they KNOW that weakness and being susceptible to entropy’s decay of human values and works, is a bad thing for human progress. They know this already, as should we all. But the Left doesn’t seem to know, now do they.
I wrote the above comment before i read Gridlock’s piece, just so people know.
Btw here is another good illustration of the behavior Book is writing about.
The bottom line is that, to support their pain-killing delusions, malignant narcissists just pretend they are true. They also train everyone around them to play along. How? By simply making your world as obnoxious as a raging three-year-old throwing a temper tantrum makes it, if you say or do anything that reminds the narcissist that he isn’t a god.
Narcissists play that part by pretending that THEY are all-important, just as a three-year-old does. This means that they must pretend they deserve all available attention.
Which means that you must get none. So, they pretend you should get none. No hearing. No affection. No consideration. No deference. No respect. No compassion. No praise. No thanks. No regard. - Let’s just sum it up to say that you must get no form of ATTENTION.
Like a fly on the wall, compared to God Almighty.
Now, anyone who thinks it’s no big deal to be treated like that deserves a daily dose of that treatment for awhile. Let’s just say that it would be an “educational experience” for them.
This is where many people fail to think the next logical thought. What does it mean if you think no one else should get any of this stuff? that you must have it all?
It means that you fight to keep others from getting any and that you attack others to take it away from them.
That is malignance.
So, if a co-worker is getting praise for doing an excellent job, you must put a stop to that. You must bring him down.
That is malignance.
Or, if your child acts like she deserves your attention, you must give her the kind of attention she will never want again.
That is malignance.
That co-worker and that child have a right to what they have and want. They NEED the credit due them for their work and they NEED to be treated as worthy of attention. They NEED these things as much as people NEED the food they eat and the air they breathe.
But a narcissist doesn’t want them to have these things they need. Is he any different then than someone who tries to keep another person from getting any food?
http://narc-attack.blogspot.com/
A lot of people on the Left try to starve people of sustenance that they need to grow, learn, and progress on the road that is the human condition.
It is basically a cover for their own weakness, their own doubts. Check out George Soros, the Jew hating Jew, the guilty Nazi and Halliburton collaborator trying to de-Nazify and de-Haliburton things with his money.
I mean it isn’t that hard to check out whether the Left is the real deal or not people. But none of this matters to the true believers on the Left, for they adopted dishonesty and the decay of their individual will a long time ago. Perhaps too late for them now. Many people who believed in the Leftist mantra have moved over to the Republican side. Many. Which means that those who are left are the die hard fanatics.
Well, after a strawman antipasto, I prefer something a little more substantial to my taste, perhaps a veal picata Pelosiana with its subtle hint of appeasement upon the palate, accompanied by a vivacious Vouvray. Of course the Agnello Syriana with California pine nuts and couscous is also quite good, provided the lamb is fresh.
Greg,
Your logic is interesting. If your logic told you that the ground in front of you would support your weight, would you step onto it?
Al
I love watching Partisans bicker back and forth, to and fro about “who is” and “who is not” etc etc, ad infinitum, repetend.
To continue the food metaphor, it’s akin to watching red and green seedless grapes argue over who has the “prettiest” skin.
I will admit, it must be comforting to believe that all the worlds problems are the responsibility of “them”.
But the superfluous nature of this discussion, while impressive, reminds me of a House Salad with too much Ranch Dressing. You can’t taste any of the vegetables.