The Taliban has hit Marin County (indirectly). Marin County is headquarters for Roots of Peace, an admirable charity that seeks to advance agricultural development in poverty-stricken areas. It has an outpost in Afghanistan, where it seeks to enable the Afghani people to feed themselves. The Taliban can’t have that kind of thing happening in its country. It therefore sent off some foot soldiers to attack the Roots of Peace Kabul office, killing a child in the process. If radical Islam had a cable-TV station, it’s motto would be “All war, all the time.” One wonders if this will be a bit of reality that mugs that peaceniks who are so self-centered that they cannot envision cultures that have, as their core value, a desire for perpetual warfare.
David Clarke, Milwaukee’s Sheriff, made a splash when he encouraged Milwaukee’s beleaguered citizens to arm themselves:
I think Clarke may have found a kindred spirit in Detroit Police Chief James Craig. During a press conference in which he discussed the rising numbers of homeowners (successfully) using arms to defend themselves, he had this to say:
Detroit Police Chief James Craig said at a press conference last week that in his 37-year career, he’s never seen as many homeowners defending themselves by shooting intruders. Craig told The News in January he felt the crime rate could be lowered if more “good Americans” were armed, because he said criminals would think twice about attacking.
“It does appear more and more Detroiters are becoming empowered,” Craig said. “More and more Detroiters are getting sick of the violence. I know of no other place where I’ve seen this number of justifiable homicides. It’s interesting that these incidents go across gender lines.”
We want more law enforcement like Clarke and Craig, and less like Marin’s Second Amendment-challenged sheriff.
I also want more of this: An Ebony magazine editor went on a rant against conservative blacks; got called on it; claimed that the person calling her out was a white racist; when she learned that the person calling her out was black apologized for calling him white; and then doubled down on rants that were both anti-conservative black and anti-white. (That’s not want I want to see more of. It’s this next thing I like.) Normally, Republicans would run away screaming from this type of confrontation, leaving the racist Leftist in control of the field. This time, the RNC demanded an apology . . . and got it.
Speaking of the Left’s racial obsessions: Any half-sentient being knows that Stephen Colbert’s shtick is that he created a faux-conservative character who is pathologically dumb, racist, sexist, etc., and that Colbert, a marginally-talented generic Leftist, uses this character to claim that all conservatives are pathologically dumb, racist, sexist, etc. That’s why it’s hysterically funny that, when his show tried to highlight (non-existent) Republican racism by having his character ostensibly tweet out a crude anti-Asian stereotype, the Asian community got riled and demanded that Colbert be fired for being an anti-Asian racist. Asians should stop getting their knickers in a twist about stupid TV shows and should start looking at where their real politic interests lie. (Hint: It’s not the Democrat Party.)
Leland Yee has been around forever as a fixture in Bay Area politics. As his name implies, he’s Asian, he’s hard Left, and he represents San Francisco and parts of San Mateo in the California legislature. Since Sandy Hook, Yee’s been very vocal about being anti-guns. He also just got indicted for gun running, including trying to sell arms to Islamist groups. The MSM has been trying hard to ignore his story, as it’s been trying hard to ignore a bunch of other stories about spectacularly corrupt Democrat figures. Howie Carr therefore serves a useful public service when he calls out the media, the Democrat party, and the crooks.
Speaking of crooks, Harry Reid claims never to have called Republicans liars when it comes to Obamacare, despite footage of him calling Republicans liars because of Obamacare. There’s some debate on the Right about whether Reid’s gone senile or is just trying out his version of The Big Lie. My theory is that we’re seeing malignant narcissism in play. As I’ve said a zillion times before in speaking about Obama, malignant narcissists never “lie” because their needs of the moment always dictate the truth of the moment. That is, if they need to say it, it must be true. (It’s nice to be your own God.)
Keith Koffler identifies the four roots of Obama’s disastrous foreign policy. I agree with him, although I would add a fifth, which is that Obama desperately wants to see America knocked down to size as punishment for her myriad sins. Perhaps Obama should read the DiploMad, as he explains why Russia, the country before which Obama is now weakly doing obeisance, has always been much worse than America could ever be, both as a protector and an enemy.
Adm. Jeremiah Denton, Jr. has died at 89. The public learned about Denton during the Vietnam War when, during one of the forced confessions that the North Vietnamese liked to televise to the world, he blinked out a Morse code message — “T-O-R-T-U-R-E” — thereby providing the first proof America had that the Commies were torturing American POWs. During the same interview, he bravely said he supported his country, a statement that led to more torture. Denton was also America’s longest-held POW, spending almost 8 years in the Hell that was the Hanoi Hilton, and various related prisons. During that entire time, he was brutally and repeatedly tortured and he spent four years in solitary confinement (where he was tortured). My heart bleeds when I read what happened to him. But Denton came home and he got on with a full, rich life, including six years in the U.S. Senate. If anyone deserves to Rest In Peace, it is Adm. Denton.
I don’t think much of Stanford. It’s nothing personal. I think all the big universities (and most of the small ones) have become intellectually corrupt. However, Prof. Michael McConnell, at Stanford Law School, has somewhat restored my faith in Stanford by writing one of the clearest analyses I’ve yet seen of the problems facing the government in the Hobby Lobby case. Of course, law and logic will not sway Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer, all of whom are activists much more concerned with making policy than with applying law. As happens too often, Anthony Kennedy will cast the deciding vote — a reality that places way too much power in the hands of a man who seems too often to blow, not where the Constitution takes him, but wherever his fancy for the day alights.
And to end on a light note, two more ridiculously funny Kid Snippets, offering an inspired combination of kid wisdom lip synched by some remarkably talented adult actors:
Thanks to political correctness and multiculturalism, the vast majority of Americans and Europeans would never dream of saying anything negative about a racial or cultural group, other than straight white males or conservative blacks. As to those last two groups, it’s always open season. The rest of us, as I said, have been cowed. But have we been cowed enough? No!!! A thousand time no.
Having weeded out and duly punished all overt statements regarding race, ethnicity or sexual orientation that could in any way be perceived as racist, sexist, or homophobic, the Left was in the scary position of being without a further crusade against free speech. But really, it underestimates the Left to let something little like that stop them.
The newest crusade is the one against “cultural appropriation” (or “cultural misappropriation”). Here’s the sin: no white people are ever allowed to copy another culture.
Harry Styles, the heartthrob singer of boy group One Direction recently put on a feathered American Indian (no, wait, Native American; no, wait, North American Indigenous Person) headdress and Instagrammed the result. It was quite obvious that he was not ridiculing Native American Indigenous People of North America. He was, instead, admiring himself in a warrior’s headdress. The usual suspects, however, went bonkers, accusing him of the newest evil: “cultural appropriation.”
That story is a few days old, and I’ve been hanging onto it, looking for something else . . . and sure enough, I found it. A theater in Philadelphia thought it would be exciting to stage Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar as a Japanese Bushido spectacle. Makes sense. For decades, producers have been putting Shakespeare in the Old West, the new slums, an imaginary 1930s fascist England, etc. Shakespeare, after all, has the virtue of speaking to universal human things.
The race mongers, though, were not pleased. A Japanese actor was absolutely furious that white actors would dare to misappropriate his culture:
Summed up: You racist pig, you, for daring to copy aspects of my culture without (a) using only people from my culture and (b) doing it perfectly.
The theater organization responded as expected, groveling and calling for dialogue, instead of telling Hirano to take his hypersensitive self and walk away.
My translation shows who the real racist is: You dirty white people, you. You’re not good enough to aspire to my culture. I disrespect you solely based upon your skin color. Who do you think you are to pretend to be like me?
I think that’s about right.
(Sorry for the brevity, but I have to run.)
A small cadre of Dartmouth students threatened violence if the school didn’t invest a great deal more money in “diversity” (skin color and gender diversity, of course, rather than intellectual diversity). Dartmouth caved, diverting funds from actual academics to appease the radicals. The theory on the right is that Dartmouth’s administrators backed down in the face of physical violence.
After all, we know that intellectuals can happily contemplate violence in the abstract but they don’t like it when it shows up on their own doorsteps. We’ve seen that reality play out frequently when the West’s self-styled intelligentsia run afoul of Muslim demands. There’s something about staring in the face of a man who thinks beheading you is a really good idea that makes a lot of people second-guess their values.
You and I know, though, that the violence threatened at Dartmouth wouldn’t include beheading. It would be bomb threats, acts of vandalism, low-grade physical assaults, graffiti, office takeovers, etc. (The diversity cadre, thankfully, hasn’t yet gone full sharia.)
Knowing that we’re not talking the full-sharia press here, is it really possible that the Dartmouth powers-that-be can be pushed around simply because they’re worried that their cars will be keyed? I don’t think so. I think there’s something different going on here. In this context, Shelby Steele’s White Guilt makes for illuminating reading.
Steele was part of the 1960s Civil Rights movement, and was there, on the ground, in an Iowa University president’s office when he saw white guilt kick in, rendering the guilty party completely helpless, anxious only for the faint hope of redemption that acceding to extremist demands could provide:
I know two things about Dr. McCabe that help explain his transformation before our eyes into a modern college president: he was a man of considerable integrity, and he did not deny or minimize the injustice of racism. He had personally contributed money to Martin Luther King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference when this was not typical of college presidents. Thus, on some level—and in a way that may have caught him by surprise—he would have known that behind our outrageous behavior was a far greater American outrage.
And in this intransigent piece of knowledge was the very essence of what I have called white guilt. Dr. McCabe simply came to a place where his own knowledge of American racism—knowledge his personal integrity prevented him from denying—opened a vacuum of moral authority within him. He was not suddenly stricken with pangs of guilt over American racism. He simply found himself without the moral authority to reprimand us for our disruptive behavior. He knew that we had a point, that our behavior was in some way connected to centuries of indisputable injustice. So he was trumped by his knowledge of this, not by his remorse over it, though he may have felt such remorse. Our outrage at racism simply had far greater moral authority than his outrage over our breach of decorum. And had he actually risen to challenge us, I was prepared to say that we would worry about our behavior when he and the college started worrying about the racism we encountered everywhere, including on his campus.
And this is when I first really saw white guilt in action. Now I know it to be something very specific: the vacuum of moral authority that comes from simply knowing that one’s race is associated with racism. Whites (and American institutions) must acknowledge historical racism to show themselves redeemed of it, but once they acknowledge it, they lose moral authority over everything having to do with race, equality, social justice, poverty, and so on. They step into a void of vulnerability. The authority they lose transfers to the “victims” of historical racism and becomes their great power in society. This is why white guilt is quite literally the same thing as black power. (Steele, Shelby, White Guilt [Kindle Locations 370-374]. HarperCollins; emphasis mine.)
It wasn’t physical cowardice that drove the Dartmouth decision — it was moral emptiness. The school’s administrators have been steeped for decades in white guilt. That is the new original sin in America. Moreover, there is no Christ the Redeemer to save the individuals burdened by the knowledge that their melanin-free DNA means that they are marked from conception by this original sin. Each of them is responsible for a never-ending cycle of guilt, remorse, and self-abnegation, with no possibility of redemption in sight.
So no, they’re not that chicken at Dartmouth; they’re that morally empty, unable to stand for anything as it relates to who and what they are — or all the great good their fore-bearers — have done for the world. All that they can do is crouch down in a perpetual mea culpa, acceding to even the most outrageous demands in an effort to excuse their very existence.
Words have always changed their meaning over time. Some of the ones that used to have neutral, descriptive meanings came to be seen as insults because of their association with disfavored people in society. For example, a spinster used to mean a woman (usually single) who spun wool or flax into thread. It came to mean a desiccated, embittered, lonely single woman. A bel dam was the French phrase for a beautiful mother. It eventually devolved into “beldame,” meaning an ugly old hag.
Words for people who originated in non-Northern Africa (notice my carefully non-racial phrasing) have long had a similar problem. Southern whites used to call them “colored” or used the “N-word.” People who were not racist came to reject both those words. The former pretty much vanished; the latter has now become more toxic than the formerly toxic F-word. (While “nice” people once used the “N” word in polite company but not the “F” word, that distinction has been turned upside down.)
The next descriptive word to come along was “Negro” (from the Spanish word for the color black), a word that was considered polite and respectful. It too was eventually seen as being a demeaning insult, so the word “black” cropped up. After that, I kind of lost track. There was African-American, which confused my kids who thought it referred to all people with dark skin. They’d see a Ugandan or Nigerian on television, shown in his home village, and lisp “Look, it’s an African-American.” Then there was the phrase “person of color,” which I’ve always thought is unpleasantly close to the Jim Crow appellation “colored person.” In any event, I avoid it, because it’s too non-specific, applying almost randomly to blacks (my preferred word), Asians, Hispanics, Polynesians, East Indians, etc. As a person of pallor myself, I find that vague appellation confusing.
The one constant in the past when it came to blacks and neutral/respectful appellations, was that, as time went by, blacks, supported by Leftist whites (usually in the media and academia) would tell the rest of us that words once used to describe blacks were verboten, and then offer up a new word they preferred. This cycle played out every ten years or so.
In Obama’s America, however, we’re seeing something new. Blacks are now taking any negative word and saying “You can’t use that word any more, ever, because to the extent it’s a negative word, you must be applying it to us.” The latest example of this involves the kerfuffle about Richard Sherman, who voiced a short, boorish tirade against Michael Crabtree. People looked at Sherman’s behavior and sought adjectives to define it. Words such as “gracious,” “thoughtful,” “kind,” and “clever,” just didn’t seem right. Instead, looking at his foam-flecked, maniacal rant, people who cared enough to comment decided that the noun “thug” and its adjective version “thuggish” were more accurate. I would have used “boorish” (as I did above) or “ill-mannered” if I’d been asked.
By using the words boorish or ill-mannered, I would have been commenting on verbal behavior that was the antithesis of gracious, thoughtful, kind, or clever. The same presumably holds true for those who thought “thuggish” more accurate than “gracious.” I doubt it occurred to any of us — it certainly didn’t occur to me — that, by accurately labeling Sherman’s conduct, we were all engaging in dog whistle racism. It’s amazing that we’re all so naive.
You see, it turns out that all of the people who thought that Sherman, an African-American, verbally misbehaved when he shouted out maddened insults at Michael Crabtree, who is also an African-American, are racist. So, if I get this right, people who reasonably expect a well-paid, professionally successful black man to conform to ordinary social standards, and who therefore express surprise when he doesn’t, are racist. From which one can reasonably conclude the opposite, which is that the non-racist approach is to look at Sherman’s hysterical rant and say, “Yup, that’s totally normal behavior for one of those black-toned people of color.”
I am not making this up. According to everyone from Charles Barkley to Bill Maher, being surprised when blacks behave badly means we’re racists. Well, Messrs. Barkley and Maher, I have news for you: You’re the racists and, to put it bluntly, you’re disgusting, low-down, dirty, thuggish, debased racists. My expectations are that people of all races, color, creeds, countries of national origin, genders, and sexual orientations can behave graciously, even when under pressure. I look at content of character. You revolting race-mongers have made it painfully clear that you believe that color is destiny, and that the darker the skin color the more people are destined to behave badly. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves! There is absolutely nothing to distinguish your views from the views expressed by the mid-19th century trader auctioning slaves off under the broiling Southern sun.
It’s already old news now that Eric Holder has announced that schools must stop disciplining minority students because he feels they are disproportionately the subject of school discipline. Many who read his edict thought, first, that a ukase against discipline based upon skin color, rather than conduct, was just about the most racist thing they’d ever seen; second, that this will be a disaster for minority children who are seeking some structure in their lives; and, third, that it marks the end of any discipline at all in schools, as each school drops to the lowest common denominator of possible behavior.
Robert Arvanitis has suggested that there is a different way to achieve racial parity — a way that would also expose how appalling Holder’s ideas are without turning schools into out-of-control war zones:
Holder now complains that valid, objective standards for school discipline are nonetheless racist if the results fall disproportionately on minorities.
Forget the rational rebuttals — it is unfair to all the other kids who are deprived of education; it ignores the root causes such as fatherless homes, causes engendered in turn by failed left policies.
Time to fight back in a smarter way. Let’s frustrate the left’s feedback mechanisms just as they themselves try to hijack and distort the real metrics of society.
For every “favored-minority” student disciplined for real cause, we report the required multiple of non-favored kids on comparable status. I don’t mean lie, I mean we actually do things like “in-school suspension.” No harm to records, which are all sealed for college applications and recorded in aggregate anyway.
Now if Holder catches on and seeks separate categories like in and out of school suspension, then we refine it a bit. Everyone is on “in-school” suspension,” and held in separate classrooms. We spend some extra for dedicated tutors for such separate classrooms. And when the real troublemakers fail to show up, then hey, they’re marked delinquent as well.
My point is that there is no rigid rule system the statists can impose, that we cannot game. I have long experience with such things as tax, accounting, and regulatory frameworks. They all fall because of the algebra — it’s called “over-determined equations.” When there are more constraints than free variables, there will necessarily be contradictions and inconsistencies in the system for us to exploit.
So rule away Eric; check, and mate.
Because I have a high-energy young dog and a bad knee that precludes more vigorous exercise, I walk a lot. I happen to find this very boring and am grateful for whatever entertainment I can get on my iPhone. A lot of trial and error has revealed that the best app is the one for NPR radio. Using this app, it’s very easy to assign radio segments to a playlist and then to listen to them, one-after-another, on demand. The downside, of course, is that I have to listen to NPR, which I no longer find as entertaining as I did back in my Democrat days. Still, it’s rather fascinating to see from an intellectual distance the Leftist shibboleths that once seemed so normal to me.
The segment that caught my interest today was an interview that Fresh Air’s Terry Gross did with Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele, a comedy team on Comedy Central. They are two very talented young men whose entire awareness of self and raison d’etre seems to be race. Both have black fathers and white mothers. Wait! I said that wrong. Terry Gross was oh-so-careful to say “African-American” fathers and “white” mothers. Frankly, I was offended by her skin-color obsession with Key’s and Peele’s mothers. What she should have said if she was going with the skin color was “darkish brown” fathers and “sort of pale peach colored” mothers. And if she was talking continent of origin, of course, she should have extended to the mothers same courtesy she extended to the fathers: “African-American” fathers and “Euro-American” mothers.
Yes, what I just said is totally nonsensical, which is my point. The Left’s racial obsession, as well as the insane racial “sensitivity” Leftist white folks try to show when discussing race, makes all racial interactions uncomfortable. All I could think of was Basil Fawlty, who after being warned not to talk about the war to German guests at his B&B, banged his head and then obsessively (and hilariously) focused on the war. (Imagine my shock when I learned that, in modern Britain, the government almost banned Winston Churchill from a bank note for fear it would offend Germans. The Germans lost that war, but I think even most Germans would agree that, ultimately, if losing wasn’t actually a good thing, Naziism was so foul that they deserved to lose. Churchill helped save them from themselves.)
But back to Key and Peele. . . .
What gave Key and Peele recognition outside of Comedy Central was the first in a series of sketches they did that showed Obama giving a speech in his usual pinched way, with his Luther, his “anger translator” standing behind him saying what he really means. They felt bad for Obama that, because he was black, he couldn’t have a temper tantrum when faced with the slings and arrows of outrageous GOP and Tea Party attacks. This racial view of history ignores pale-peach-colored George Bush handling gracefully the unendingly vicious attacks and lies that came his way. Pale-peach-colored Clinton (aka “the first black president“) was also usually dignified in public, no matter his disgraceful private behavior. To the racially obsessed Key and Peele, though, the black(ish) Obama is the only one who is forced to act dignified when addressing the people of the nation that elected him.
With that horrible handicap in mind, it’s obvious that the following pictures are mere tricks of the camera insofar as they show Obama being anything but dignified and restrained:
Anyway, knowing how Obama suffers in silence, Key and Peele invented Luther, Obama’s “anger translator” (language warning):
Luther is both Obama’s and the Left’s Id. Luther says the truth that the Left dare not say. All Leftists know that when Obama, in his flat, clipped, angry tones is saying bland-ish things, he has a tiger waiting to get out. What’s fascinating about this tiger, as Key and Peele first voiced him in January 2012, is that everything the tiger says is wrong. By that I mean that, when push came to shove, Obama either didn’t have the courage of his alleged anger (the “anger translator” was in error) or he felt free to act upon it himself (the “anger translator” was unnecessary). Need proof? Here:
Obama: First of all, concerning the recent developments in the Middle Eastern region, I just want to reiterate our unquenching support for all people and their right to a democratic process.
Luther: Hey! All y’all dictators out there, keep messing around and see what happens. Just see what happens. Watch!!
Hey, Luther! Obama bowed down before the Muslim Brotherhood, a group open about its goal of denying the “democratic process” to women, Jews, Christians, gays, etc. Obama told Bashir al Assad that he’d drawn a “red line” by gassing his own people. The only problem was that, when Assad essentially said “So what, pretty boy?”, Obama hid behind Vladimir Putin. Put another way, Luther, not only did nothing happen when Obama faced anti-democratic impulses in the Middle East, the reality was that he either sided with the bad guys or ran and hid.
Luther got it wrong about Iran too:
Obama: Also, to the governments of Iran and North Korea, we once again urge you to discontinue your uranium enrichment programs.
Luther: Oh, Mahmoud! Kim Jong! I think I already done told both y’all 86 your sh*t bitches or I’m gonna come over there and do it for y’all. Please test me and see what happens.
Uh, Luther! We’ve got another little problem here. In fact, when Iran tested President Obama, he told them to go right ahead with their enrichment — but to be sure to stop just a few minutes before creating the nuclear warhead with Israel’s name on it. To help this program, Obama un-froze a whole bunch of funds the absence of which had been helping to destabilize the Mullah’s regime. Obama pretty much failed that test. (With regard to North Korea, the whole world is watching in fascinated horror as an allegedly drunk Kim Jong Il nukes his own family.)
Obama didn’t do so well at home, either.
Obama: On the domestic front, I just want to say to my critics, I hear your voices and I’m aware of your concerns.
Luther: So maybe you can chill the Hell out for like a second, and maybe then I can focus on some sh*t, you know?
“I hear your voices.” Really? Does anyone remember January 2009?
After listening to a critique of the nearly nine hundred billion dollars stimulus package from Republican Congressional leaders, along with some helpful suggestions on how to fix it, President Barack Obama had a two word answer.
“I won,” President Obama said, indicating why the Republicans were not going to have any significant input into the bill. President Barack Obama was echoing sentiments by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who had explained by the House Democratic leadership version of the stimulus bill was going to pass with or without Republicans.
Funnily enough, Obama’s words don’t sound much like “I hear your voices.” They sound a lot more like “Shut the eff up!!” Luther, Obama lied to you, his beloved anger translator.
But wait, there’s more:
Obama: That goes for everybody, including members of the Tea Party.
Luther: Oh, don’t even get me started on these motherf*ckers. Right here (slamming a fist into his palm).
Obama didn’t need Luther to call the Tea Partiers nasty names. When someone recently wrote Obama a letter complaining about his treatment of a group the author called “Tea Baggers,” the President didn’t blink. Instead, he called them “Tea Baggers” too. For those out of the loop, the MSM’s beloved Anderson Cooper (who told the world about the time he proofread his mother’s ruminations about oral sex) coined the term soon after the Tea Party first appeared on the political scene (although he was only one in a long line of immature gay Leftists sniggering about the Tea Party’s name). Given the giggles with which his words were received, it was clear that Cooper, who is gay, and his fellow TV folks all knew that he was referring to a gay sexual practice involving oral sex and testicles.
And so it goes with the rest of the comedy sketch. You can watch the last minute of the video, which is pretty much more of the same.
As fascinating as the video is the reason that Key and Peele felt compelled to give voice to Obama’s id is just as interesting:
We know we’re frustrated when a person like [Rep.] Joe Wilson had , when he was like, “You lie!” to the president. And we were like, “The president can’t react the way millions of Americans right now are going, ‘Ugh!’ He can’t say anything. He can’t rail at this man, he can’t get upset. What if we had a surrogate who could get upset for him?” And that was the embryonic state of creating Luther [the anger translator].
Peele: The way we’ve described it before is that he couldn’t come off like an angry black man, especially early on, so what Luther says are things that ring true to us, and we felt like we were giving the truth a voice in a lot of ways.
First of all, let me say again that Obama isn’t the only president who has to suffer insults in silence. It’s part of the job. He’s not special. Second of all, to the extent that Key and Peele appear upset that Obama had to stand silent as he was being slandered, they’re a little confused. Joe Wilson called out “You lie” when Obama promised that the monies from Obamacare (which Key and Peele, per Democrat party directive, now call “the ACA”) would never go to illegal aliens. The problem (for Key and Peele, at least) is that, while Wilson was rude, he was also accurate. Obama did lie:
Now [August 11, 2011], Wilson’s indictment seems to have been proven right.
On Tuesday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced it was awarding a $28.8 million Obamacare grant to 67 community health centers, many of which offer free care to ‘migrant workers,’ in other words…illegal aliens.
HHS spokeswoman Judy Andrews told CNSNews.com that “approximately $8.5 million will be used by 25 New Access Point awardees to target services to migrant and seasonal farm workers.”
Andrews continued: “Health centers do not, as a matter of routine practice, ask about or collect data on citizenship or other matters not related to the treatment needs of the patients seeking health services at the center. The Program’s authorizing statute does not affirmatively address immigration status.”
In other words, while Obamacare ostensibly excludes illegal immigrants, the HHS has already handed out Obamacare money to organizations that serve illegal immigrants. Obama’s lie wasn’t white, so much as dark grey.
Watching Key and Peele perform, it’s obvious that these are two extremely talented men. They’re also one-dimensional. To them, the world is solely about race. That’s why Obama gets a pass. Better to lie about his policies and spin fantasies about his accomplishments than to acknowledge that the man is dishonest and inept. A black (darkish brown) president cannot be seen as less than perfect.
This race-obsessed duo is as boring as my once-dynamic high school friends who, when they came out of the closet, defined themselves solely by sexual practices. All their friends were gay, they only went to gay themed entertainment, their politics boiled down to their bedroom proclivities, etc. It wasn’t “Hi, I’m a dentist, and I have two children, and my hobby is archery.” It was “Hi, I’m gay.” Key and Peele don’t introduce themselves to the world as creative thinkers who are talented mimics, wry observers, and quick-wits. Instead, the Fresh Air segment title says it all: “For Key And Peele, Biracial Roots Bestow Special Comedic ‘Power’.” Gawd, how dull!
In a healthy society, race is an incidental, culture is something interesting, and natural talent and hard work are what count. To the NPR crowd, though, it’s all about a person’s “biracial” African American-Euro American status (or, as linguistic purists should be saying) their “biracial” darkish brown-pale peachy pink status. The way in which two talents have been compressed to do service to a party’s continuing racial obsession proves more clearly than anything I’ve seen that the Democrats have had a straight-line racial continuum from the KKK crowd to the NPR crowd. When all is said and done, they are defined by (and, eventually, one hopes undone by) their unsavory racial obsessions.
We don’t know who HuffPo contributor and Obama apologist Jason Linkins is, but HuffPo had better get rid of him pretty quickly. An online publication with HuffPo’s impressive Progressive credentials can’t afford to have racists on its writing staff, and Linkins’ sin was pretty egregious.
Linkins’ racist attack on Asians comes early in a 1,900 word long article explaining that Obama didn’t really, actually, totally lie when he said 24 times that, if you like your insurance, you can keep it. Given the fact that millions of Americans have already been told that they’ve lost their policies and tens of millions more (both those with individual and those with group coverage) will soon hear the same message, Linkins’ really has to sweat to achieve this equivocal, but still Obama-friendly, conclusion. Ultimately, what Linkins seems to say is that Obama and his minions just sort of lied, rather than really lied, but they did it for your own good, to get you out of that horrible ghetto of people who own cheap plans that contain only provisions they actually want. Talk about being damned with faint praise.
This type of prevarication — which Linkins honestly terms “spin” — is not newsworthy. What’s noteworthy is Linkins’ use of demeaning pidgin English (emphasis added):
Well, the news today is that lots of people aren’t going to keep the plans that they are on, and are receiving notice from their health insurance providers that they will be shunted onto different, perhaps more expensive plans. And they no likey.
Wow! What’s with that dig at Asians? I mean, who can forget 1935′s Charlie Chan in Paris, when the nefarious Max Corday insults the sophisticated Chan by speaking to him in pidgin:
Max Corday: [in a condescending pidgin English/Chinese accent] Me happy know you. Mebbe you likee havee little drinkee?
Charlie Chan: Very happy to make acquaintance of charming gentleman.
Charlie Chan: Me no likeee drinkee now – perhaps later.
Think about that: Even in 1935, when Hollywood was still creating segregated movies and engaging in the worst types of stereotyping regarding blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc., Hollywood and America understood that the pidgin phrase “me likee” or “you likee” was deeply disrespectful and demeaning.
I think it’s pretty disgusting that Linkins sends out a dog whistle to HuffPo readers tying discontent with Obamacare to Asians. This is especially suspect when one realizes the growing number of Asian Americans practicing medicine and attending medical schools. Is Linkins trying to blame Asian doctors for Obamacare woes? We won’t speculate further, because we can’t pretend to know what Linkins was thinking. All we know is that this kind of despicable subliminal racism taints everything it touches. Linkins needs to be disciplined immediately, both as a punishment and an example.
For those unfamiliar with my sense of humor, the above is, of course, satire. It’s true that Linkins used the phrase “they no likey,” and it’s true that this phrase is associated with the worst kind of anti-Asian racism. I strongly suspect, though, that Linkins’, typical of his political class, is completely oblivious to the linguistic history behind that distasteful phrase. I’m therefore equally certain that Linkins didn’t intend in any way to be racist.
My point in writing this post has nothing to do with Linkins. It is, instead, to heighten awareness of the fact that, for malevolently-minded people, as I just pretended to be, finding and attacking these “dog whistles” in good Alinsky fashion is easy. It’s a cheap, down-and-dirty way to smear ones political opponent. I didn’t have to bother reading what Linkins wrote, so I didn’t need to challenge it on the merits. Instead, I called him a racist and considered my job done. Were I actually to write this way seriously, rather than as satire, my real theory would have been that people who are racists can’t make good arguments and they certainly cannot make arguments that deserve to be considered on their merits. (If you’d like to see an intelligent, substantive challenge on the merits to Linkins’ argument, check out James Taranto.)
When I hear about blacks complaining that Lordes’ The Royals is a racist insult to black people because she talks about “Cristal (champagne) and Maybachs”; or that Blurred Lines is “rapey” (making Robin Thicke a rapey-ist) because it takes a fairly honest look at today’s hypersexualized club scene; or that any negative remarks about Obama’s politics are an unerring indicator that a critic is racist, I can only say that we’ve crossed a line.
Indeed, it’s something of a time line, because we’ve effectively returned ourselves to the Middle Ages, where small cadres of scholars tainted intellectual discourse by wasting their time debating the numbers of angels that could fit on the head of a pin. While these arguments were always reserved to a minority, they bespoke an intellectual narcissism, frivolity, and incestuousness that makes intellectual growth impossible. It’s as if the whole world has fallen prey of Wallace Stanley Sayre’s dictum that “Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low.”
In terms of cries of racism, the stakes are certainly low as to each individual combatant. Linkins doesn’t care about me and I don’t care about him. Were he to call me a “right wing wacko,” I would sneer right back at him that he’s a “delusional Marxist.” We’d then retire to our corners in the proud consciousness of duty done, at least when it comes to the battle of ad hominem attacks. But while we’re congratulating ourselves on the quality of our insults, ordinary Americans are tuning out. They know I’m not a right-wing wacko, but am instead, a nice neighborhood soccer mom, who believes “that government is best that governs least”; just as they know that Linkins is an ordinary working stiff who truly believes that redistribution of wealth, if it’s only done right, could work. Their verdict as to both of us is “They’re mean and stupid, and I’m not going to listen anymore.”
Dog whistles are for dogs. Most people are poor communicators at best, which means that we should give them the benefit of the doubt before rushing to the worst conclusions. Failing that, the marketplace of ideas is effectively dead.
Defending what is good about your country is racist. So is describing Islam and its cultural and political practices.
Regarding Islam, let me be clear that this is not the same as the antisemites making things up about Jews, as they have since time immemorial. Instead, what we know about Islam comes from the Muslim world itself: from their concrete (and bloody) acts, from their media, from their speeches, and from their houses of worship. They are open about what they are. It is we who bury their true nature under platitudes and lies.
(This post originally appeared in slightly different form at Mr. Conservative.)
Just because your father was a great man doesn’t mean you will be a great man. Exhibit A for this truism is Martin Luther King III, son of the great racial harmonizer, Martin Luther King Jr. Standing in Washington, D.C., where his father stood 50 years ago to state that people should be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character, MLK III proved himself to be just another two-bit race hustler. And so a dream dies in one generation.
Several thousand people gathered in Washington today to remember Martin Luther King Jr’s brilliant “I have a dream” speech, which he delivered exactly fifty years ago this month. In stirring tones, the elder King set forth his vision of an America in which people are judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Martin Luther King, Jr., a Republican, would have wept if he had lived long enough to see what the Democrat party has done to his legacy. His greatest sorrow might have been that his son, Martin Luther King III, has turned his back on his father’s inclusive, color-blind ideology, and become one with the race hustlers.
This is pretty strong language, but it’s the truth. Here is what Martin Luther King III said as he stood where his father had once stood.
And so I stand here today in this sacred place, in my father’s footsteps. I am humbled by the heavy hand of history. But more than that, I, like you, continue to feel his presence. I, like you, continue to hear his voice crying out in the wilderness.
The admonition is clear: this is not the time for a nostalgic commemoration, nor is this the time for self-congratulatory celebration. The task is not done. The journey is not complete. We can and we must do more.
The vision preached by my father a half century ago was that his four little children will one day live in a nation where they would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content up their character. However, sadly, the tears of Trayvon Martin’s mother and father remind us that far too frequently, the color of one’s skin remains a license to profile, to arrest, and even to murder with no regard for the content of one’s character.
Regressive Stand Your Ground laws must be repealed. Federal anti-profiling legislation must be enacted.
John Adams, another famous American, once said “Facts are stubborn things.” Here are a few facts to challenge MLK III’s infantile remonstrance against “racism” in America:
1. Content of character: The undisputed facts show that Trayvon Martin was a hulking thug who used drugs, played with guns, got into fights, skipped school, and talked trash. The same undisputed facts show that George Zimmerman was a neighborhood favorite who went the extra mile for everyone, regardless of the color of their skin – so much so that he spent enormous time trying to help a young black man he believed the police had unjustly targeted.
2. Stand Your Ground laws: Neither the prosecution nor the defense breathed a word about Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law (also known as the Castle doctrine). Instead, this was an out-and-out case of old-fashioned self-defense. The evidence showed that Trayvon was sitting on top of Zimmerman trying to bash his brains out on the pavement. Zimmerman didn’t have the choice of standing his ground or trying to flee when he was shot. The situation had devolved in “it’s either him or me.”
3. There was no profiling. Police profile. Zimmerman is not a police officer. He is an ordinary citizen. Ordinary citizens observe, make decisions, and react as they see fit. You cannot enact federal laws imposing on all ordinary citizens some bizarre standard by which they’re not allowed to defend themselves against black aggressors, because to do so is “profiling.”
The only thing the MLK III got right is that racism lives today. But the racism in the Zimmerman case wasn’t Zimmerman’s racism against Trayvon. Every bit of evidence introduced at trial or revealed by fact-finders showed that George Zimmerman was a mixed-race man who treated all races with respect.
The real racism in this case was that shown by the race hustler’s in the Democrat party and the media (but I repeat myself), who made the decision to lynch George Zimmerman during that brief window of time when they thought he was white. Even when they were corrected, and learned that Zimmerman self-identifies as Hispanic, they created a bizarre new racial classification called “white-Hispanic” so that they could play out their revolting racist fantasies against him.
Martin Luther King (did I mention he was a Republican?) would be shocked at the way in which his son and the Democrat party have perverted his color-blind message and turned it into as aggressive a form of anti-white racism as was ever practiced in the old days in the anti-black south.
This post poses a very provocative, even inflammatory, question: “Is the mainstream media the spiritual heir of Charles Manson?” Will you be too surprised if I answer “yes”?
Let’s start with Charles Manson. Manson had a goal: he envisioned a new world order, with himself and his followers as the leaders. To bring about this new world order, he first had to destroy the existing one. He came up with an idea that he called “Helter-Skelter“: he was going to incite race warfare because he was pretty sure that would bring America down, leaving room for him and his followers to take over. He figured that the best way to start an apocalyptic race war was through violent murder. He wasn’t going to do the murder himself, of course, but he did incite his dumb, sexually-opiated, often drugged followers to commit the deeds on his behalf.
Now, let’s think about the mainstream media. The MSM has a goal: a completely Democrat-dominated political machine, with the MSM and the politicians it’s created in total control. Because this will be a statist new world, the MSM must first destroy completely America’s current, still vaguely capitalist market and individualist ideology. To that end, the media has decided that it will incite race warfare, because it’s pretty sure that race warfare will destroy existing institutions and allow it and its political class to take over. Media members figure that the best way to start this societal breakdown is to sow so much division between blacks and whites in America that the country becomes dysfunctional and, if necessary, bloodied. The media elite are not going to sully their own hands, of course, but they will work hard to incite their followers to commit the deeds on their behalf. (And sadly, to the extent they have followers in black inner cities, these are young people who are minimally educated, inundated with unhealthy sexual messages from movies and rap songs, and too often on drugs. Just think of Trayvon….)
I can’t prove the MSM’s goal, but I can prove its tactics.
Exhibit A is the way the MSM has used Obama’s presidency to paint every single American who opposes his politics as “racist” — so much so that the MSM dictionary defines “racist” as “someone who expresses any disagreement with Obama’s policies or conduct while in office.” Since roughly 50% of the country doesn’t like what he’s doing at any given time, 50% of the country is therefore by definition racist. (Here’s just one example, but it’s remarkably easy to cull dozens or even hundreds.)
This “opposing Obama” message is pounded home through relentlessly repeated and embroidered stories about rodeo clowns; Obama’s fellowship with murdered black teens; and even the obscenity of referring to Obama as “Obama,” rather than as President Obama. By the way, this last one is a dilly, because Chris Matthews, rather than admitting that other presidents have been called “Carter,” “Reagan,” “Bush,” “Dubya,” or “Clinton,” compares the casual approach to Obama’s name to the way non-believers refer to Jesus Christ as “Jesus” or “Christ.” Wow. Just . . . wow.
Exhibit B is the racial incitement that permeated every bit of the MSM’s coverage of George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting. It began when NBC doctored Zimmerman’s 911 call to make it sound as if he was a racist; picked up steam when the media coined the phrase “white-Hispanic” to cover-up their problem when they discovered that Zimmerman identified as Hispanic; entered the world of farce when the media only reluctantly revealed, when trial court motions made it impossible to ignore, that Martin wasn’t a 12-year-old choirboy but was, instead a husky, drug-using, gun- and violence-obsessed, thug; and just kept rolling with homages to hoodies and Skittles. Bill Whittle does the best summary I’ve seen of the media’s “hi-tech” lynching of a non-black man:
Exhibit C: Oh, I don’t know. Take your pick. How about the new movie “The Butler,” which takes a real man’s quite distinguished and interesting life, and turns a star-powered movie into a parable about white and Republican racism? The director, incidentally, makes it clear that these racial accusations are no accident. Or maybe look at the way Oprah, the PETA-admiring “woman of the people,” makes a national incident out of her claim that a Swiss salesclerk was “racist” for suggesting that Oprah might like something cheaper than a $35,000 animal-skin purse.
Or maybe, as Rush pointed out, you just want to notice how the media completely ignores any violence that doesn’t fit in the narrative. Rush pointed to the recent murder of Chris Lane, a (white) baseball player from Australia who was shot dead by thug-addicted three teenagers because they were bored. Rush points out that the media assiduously refrained from commenting on the killers’ race (two were black and one is white, or white-Hispanic, or white-black, or whatever).
The media did exactly the same thing, incidentally, with the even more heinous 2007 murder of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian in Knoxville, Tenn. That young (white) couple was so brutally murdered by five (black) people that it’s nauseating even to think about what was done to them. The killers outdid animals in their savagery, since they added a fiendish human imagination to their feral brutality. The national media said as little as possible about the murder and nothing about its racial implications.
Nothing restrained the media, however, when it went out of its way to destroy the lives of the (white) Duke lacrosse players after a (black) prostitute falsely accused them of rape. The media played that every day, every way, on every air or piece of paper over which it had control. When the players were vindicated, the media was remarkably silent, failing even to issue an apology for yet another “hi-tech” lynching.
The fall-out from the media’s relentless racial harangues is more racial tension in this country than at any time since the peak of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Despite the fact that there are no racially discriminatory federal laws in America; that there are no overtly racially discriminatory state laws in America; that there is a black man in the White House who got reelected (although Gawd alone knows why); and that compared to other nations in the world (including the Europe the Left so loves) America is a remarkably inclusive nation, blacks feel deeply that whites are bad people. By this I mean that blacks don’t simply note note that, occasionally and unfortunately, they have the misfortune to run into some idiot who spouts stone age nonsense. Instead, with relentless prompting from the mainstream media, they feel very strongly that whites view them negatively and are their enemy. As such, too many of them believe that whites, at most, destroyed and, at least, humiliated.
The MSM has worked its hard to convince blacks and many other minorities, including the LGBT crowd, Hispanics, and, increasingly, Asians that the status quo is bad for them, that there needs to be a new world order, and that the evil white people (excluding, of course, all the white people on MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc.), must be done away with.
And that is why I say that the MSM is the spiritual heir of Charles Manson. It’s “helter-skelter” all over again.
The clown kerfuffle — a rodeo clown dons a presidential mask available at any Halloween costume store and is instantly transformed into a fiery member if the KKK — has helped clarify something about the Left’s response to any non-Democrat generated references to Obama. I found this clarification in yesterday’s Best of the Web, in which Taranto takes apart a CNN post in which Judy Quest, a “professional” clown, discusses the rodeo clown’s breach of “clown ethics.” (Keep in mind, incidentally, that a rodeo clown isn’t a real clown, because his primary job isn’t to entertain but is, instead, to keep the bull from trampling a downed cowboy. Looked at that way, he ‘s more of a gladiator, but whatever….)
The key language in Quest’s article revolves about the first entry in the clown code of ethics:
1. I will keep my acts, performance and behavior in good taste while I am in costume and makeup. I will remember at all times that I have been accepted as a member of the clown club only to provide others, principally children, with clean clown comedy entertainment. I will remember that a good clown entertains others by making fun of himself or herself and not at the expense or embarrassment of others. (Emphasis mine.)
And here is Quest’s interpretation of that language (emphasis mine):
We have a code of ethics that we adhere to so that our life of making the world smile goes on without hurting people. Among the ethics is a ban on “blue humor.”
This mean [sic] no sexual or racial humor. The joke always needs to be on us and never on an audience member. If someone is offended or made the “victim” of a joke, it is totally against what the clown community would consider funny. . . .
Think back to what Tuffy the Rodeo Clown did. Do you recall any racial component to his humor? Traditionally, of course, a black racial component would have involved:
3. Lots of “yassir, yassir, I’se doing it, sir.”
4. References to laziness.
5. References to obsessive sexuality.
6. Hugh, grinning white mouths.
7. References to criminality.
8. Clear intimations of stupidity.
9. Eyeball rolling.
11. References to uncontrollable (and inappropriate) rhythm.
Tuffy did none of that. Instead, he donned a mask of a white-black man whose skin happens to be blacker, rather than whiter. (I use the term “white-black” to describe Obama because, if George Zimmerman, who is half Hispanic and half Caucasian, is “white-Hispanic,” than Obama, who is half Black and half Caucasian, is “white-black.” Precision is important, right?)
In Quest’s world review, any mention of or reference to Obama, even without any mention of his race or any use of traditional negative stereotypes about blacks, is ipso facto racial and, therefore, racist. In other words, Obama, just by being, is racist.
To liberals, there is no “Obama the man,” or “Obama the president,” or “Obama the Democrat politician.” There is only “Obama the black,” a man devoid of personality, accomplishments, foibles, passion, or anything that makes him a person, not a stereotype — and if that’s not racist, I honestly don’t know what is.
Incidentally, this is what “racist” humor actually looks like, and this was the “clean,” “wholesome” family variation:
(There are no YouTubes of the traditional racist patter that preceded the dance.)
Putting aside all the racist rhetoric flying around from the Left, the uncontroverted evidence coming out of the Zimmerman trial proved that (a) a hooded figure was sitting on top of another man brutally beating him and (b) the man being tried for murder showed all the signs of someone who was on the receive end of a severe beating, from the broken nose to the bleeding back of his head. Putting aside the racist rhetoric from the Left, the incontrovertible facts that the court refused to admit (incontrovertible because they came from the dead man’s own phone), showed that the dead man was a drug user and fighter who was fascinated by guns and violence.
Now, Florida’s state capitol has announced that you (and you and you and you and you!) are Trayvon! This assault on American (and Floridan) integrity and decency takes the form of a painting unveiled at the state captiol, purporting to show a hooded figure being shot in the back of the head (which avoids the fact that Trayvon wasn’t running away but was, in fact, intensifying his full front assault) by a man who looks like a cross between George Zimmerman and Stalin. However, instead of seeing Trayvon’s face in the hoodie, it’s a mirror. (This ham-handed propaganda device somehow made me think of “Soylent Green” — you know, the bit where he says “It’s people!”):
In other words, says the State of Florida, we’re all drug addled thugs who try to beat people to death. Even worse, if you look at the wall sign behind the painting, it says that we’re looking at the Florida Civil Rights Hall of Fame.
If you’d like to let the State of Florida know that you find this fact-free, racist at of political propaganda offensive, you can contact the capitol building at the building’s website. As always, remember that a polite, firmly worded message is effective. Obscenities, personal attacks, and threats only make you look bad and strengthen the other side’s sense of self-righteousness.
As you’ve probably realized, I have very limited access to news and the Internet on this vacation. My shipboard Internet plan gives me about five (very expensive) minutes a day, which is just enough to make sure I don’t have any emergencies in my inbox, to write to my family, and to post one article. Today, however, I got hold of a Canadian newspaper and got to see how President Obama once again stirred the racisim pot with his Zimmerman trial comments.
First, I should tell you my point of view: the verdict was entirely appropriate. The prosecution was unable to prove that Zimmerman did anything other than act in self-defense — and that was despite the judge’s decision to exclude all evidence about Trayvon’s thuggery, and the prosecution’s efforts to paint Zimmerman as a crazed, cop-wannabe racist.
The riots that followed the verdict were the logical outcome, not of a corruk racist jury verdict, but of the ground work laid by the professional race-baiters, Obama included. Obama continued that race-baiting with his comments following the trial.
You may recall that, when the killing went national, Obama opined that Trayvon, a drug using, gang-emulating slacker, could have been his son. I think Sasha and Malia were probably surprised to hear that, while they’ve been raised to be as good as gold and as pure as Ivory Soap, their imaginary brother would have been a thug.
Obama has now upped that rhetoric. In his latest foray, he announced that, 35 years ago, he himself could have been Martin. Apparently Obama’s youthful escapades with dope and “smack” were more serious than he let on. And maybe I wasn’t crazy when I surmised that, based upon pictures of Obama at Occidental, he had a coke nail.
As for the rest of his little talk, all Obama did was add fuel to the racial fire. He said that the judicial system is unfair to blacks, that there’s profiling, and that racism continues to corrupt our justice system. Way to go, Obama.
In a way, it seems that Obama is trying to finish the work Charles Manson started. As you may recall, Manson’s whole goal with that horrible night of Helter-Skelter murder was to start a race war between blacks and whites. He believed that war was a necessary predicate to a complete collapse of the American system, with Manson and his followers emerging as victors at the end. Obama, with his divisive talk, also seems intent upon sparking an America-ending race war, with the obvious belief that he and his apparatchiks will be the last men (and women) standing.
It’s going to be a long three and a half years until Obama’s reign of racial terror finally ends. I only hope that there’s something left standing when it’s all done.
Sometimes the ACLU remembers what it’s about and actually defends civil rights. Most of the time, though, it’s just another hard-core Leftist organization. Take its reaction to a Marin County Fair edict, for example.
The Marin County Fair in past years has been plagued with gangs from the Canal District, which is the large Hispanic area in San Rafael. To try to crack down on violence, the Fair announced this year that it would ban gang-style clothing (which, incidentally, some of the “nice” boys in Marin wear too in an effort to look cool).
The ACLU has stepped in, and its theory basically says that cracking down on gang-wear is racist. That is, it says that, since most gang members are Hispanic, banning their gang paraphernalia isn’t anti-gang, it’s racist:
Marin’s new ordinance cracking down on gang attire at the fair means that “hundreds, and probably thousands” of fairgoers will run the risk of violations, according to a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, adding that as a practical matter Latino youth are the real targets of a code that in effect formalizes racial profiling.
“Given this county’s identified gang population, it is Latino youth who will be taking a risk … not white youth wearing the identical items,” declared Alan L. Schlosser of Mill Valley, legal director of the ACLU of Northern California.
Undersheriff Mike Ridgway begged to differ, saying the county law does not discriminate and was “carefully crafted by attorneys to pass constitutional muster” while providing a more transparent process that includes advance notice of the gang insignia at issue.
BTW, it’s not a hardship for these young men (they’re always young men) to avoid gang wear. It’s just that the ACLU is claiming that it is inherently racist to ban clothes that lead to open warfare if the majority of those wearing them are minorities — never mind that they’re also the same young men who engage in open warfare. The syllogism is sick: Gang members wear gang clothes that are triggers for violence; these gang members are a subset of the Hispanic population; therefore it’s racist to ban gang clothes that are triggers for violence.
I’ve already admitted to my crush on Elbert Guillory, a crush that formed when he was still a Democrat, although he must already have been planning to leave that party. My political crush has just deepened into a full-blown, out-and-out case of political passion. If you haven’t yet watched this short video Guillory made to explain why he switched parties, you must. I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say it’s one of the most important videos I’ve ever seen. The only thing that saddens me about it is that it won’t be run on MSNBC, or ABC, or CBS, or NBC, or NPR, or on any other major media outlet. I think everyone should see this video, no matter their race, creed, country of national origin, or gender identity. It’s that good:
I don’t know about you, but I’m still cheering.
Watch this video at Power Line and keep a close eye on things at around the 2:06 mark. Then try to tell me with a straight face that you haven’t suddenly developed a little political crush on Democrat Elbert Guillory.
By the way, I know nothing about Rep. Guillory other than what I saw him say in the video. Please don’t crush my tender little romantic moment by telling me things about him that will make me sad.
You don’t really have to work hard to know what a “Progracist” is. Indeed, it’s surprising, once you think about it, that nobody invented this neologism before. I mean, it would have applied as perfectly to Woodrow Wilson and Margaret Sanger as it does to today’s Progressives. Please check out Zombie’s post and add the word to your vocabulary.
I’ve written before about one of my favorite writers, Paul Fussell. He wrote a wonderful essay entitled Thank God for the Atom Bomb, about the righteousness of dropping the atom bomb. He was in the Army when Truman dropped the bomb, so Fussell wholeheartedly approved — and had the data to back up his personal opinion. (More recently released data completely backs up his 30 year old hypothesis.) I also wholeheartedly approve, as my Mom was a few weeks away from dying in a Japanese concentration camp when the bomb dropped.
Fussell also wrote what I think is one of the greatest books ever about WWI, The Great War and Modern Memory. I just bought the Kindle version to reread because my copy, which I bought in college, has disintegrated. It’s a beautifully written book that looks at both the war and concurrent war literature to track a vast paradigm shift in intellectual thought during the four years the war lasted. Young men went in imbued with Victorian ideas of chivalry and honor; they came out jaded, cynical, and completely unable to accept that aggression is sometimes necessary and could have been useful in preventing Hitler’s rise. It is a triumph of both military writing and literary writing.
What you might not know about Fussell was that this iconoclast was a university professor. Nowadays, the phrase iconoclastic professor is an oxymoron. Not so in Fussell’s heyday. Wikipedia sums up his military and academic career:
Fussell attended Pomona College from 1941 until he enlisted in the US Army in 1943. He landed in France in 1944 as a 20 year-old second lieutenant with the 103rd Infantry Division, was wounded while fighting in Alsace, and was awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart. He was honorably discharged from the army in 1946, returned to Pomona to finish his B.A. degree in 1946-7, married fellow Pomona graduate Betty Harper in 1949, and completed his MA (1949) and Ph.D. (1952) at Harvard University.
He began his teaching career at Connecticut College (1951–55) before moving to Rutgers University in 1955 and finally the University of Pennsylvania in 1983. He also taught at the University of Heidelberg (1957–58) and King’s College London (1990–92). As a teacher, he traveled widely with his family throughout Europe from the 1950s to 70s, taking Fulbright and sabbatical years in Germany, England and France.
As his writing shows, Fussell was an entirely original thinker who didn’t march to the beat of anyone’s drum. Indeed, he delighted in challenging what was already becoming stifling academic orthodoxy:
Fussell stated that he relished the inevitable controversy of Class: A Guide Through the American Status System (1983) and indulged his increasing public status as a loved or hated “curmudgeon” in the rant called BAD: or, The Dumbing of America (1991). In between, Thank God for the Atom Bomb and Other Essays (1988) confirmed his war against government and military doublespeak and prepared the way for Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War (1989). The epiphany of his earlier essay, “My War”, found full expression in his memoir Doing Battle: The Making of a Skeptic (1996), “My Adolescent illusions, largely intact to that moment, fell away all at once, and I suddenly knew I was not and never would be in a world that was reasonable or just”. The last book by Fussell published while he was alive, The Boys’ Crusade: The American Infantry in Northwestern Europe, 1944-45 (2003) was once again concerned with the experience of combat in World War II.
Fussell was never petrified or brainwashed by his academic career. I wonder what Fussell would have thought if he’d been a teacher at Bowdoin in the last twenty years or so. Bowdoin found itself in the news lately because of what David Feith calls “The Golf Shot Heard Round the Academic World.” It all started when Barry Mills, Bowdoin College’s president, had a golf game with investor and philanthropist Thomas Klingenstein. During the game, the subject of academic diversity came up. Both Mills and Klingenstein would agree that Klingenstein didn’t like it. According to Mills’s retelling at a subsequent graduation ceremony, Klingenstein was hostile and, in a word, dumb. Writes Feith:
In his address, President Mills described the golf outing and said he had been interrupted in the middle of a swing by a fellow golfer’s announcement: “I would never support Bowdoin—you are a ridiculous liberal school that brings all the wrong students to campus for all the wrong reasons,” said the other golfer, in Mr. Mills’s telling. During Mr. Mills’s next swing, he recalled, the man blasted Bowdoin’s “misplaced and misguided diversity efforts.” At the end of the round, the college president told the students, “I walked off the course in despair.”
Klingenstein got word of this graduation address, which implied that the anonymous golf-companion was a troglodyte and racist, and knew that Mills was talking about him. Klingenstein decided to set the record straight. Rather than just saying “that’s not what I meant,” or offering his opinion about diversity, Klingenstein took his money and funded a National Association of Scholars project that carefully examined Bowdoin’s curriculum, especially in the last ten years. The results were eye-opening, to say the least — or, saying a little more than the least, eye-opening to anyone who hasn’t been paying attention to what’s going on in, and the product (i.e., graduates) coming out of, these academic “gatekeepers of civilization”:
Published Wednesday, the report demonstrates how Bowdoin has become an intellectual monoculture dedicated above all to identity politics.
The school’s ideological pillars would likely be familiar to anyone who has paid attention to American higher education lately. There’s the obsession with race, class, gender and sexuality as the essential forces of history and markers of political identity. There’s the dedication to “sustainability,” or saving the planet from its imminent destruction by the forces of capitalism. And there are the paeans to “global citizenship,” or loving all countries except one’s own.
The Klingenstein report nicely captures the illiberal or fallacious aspects of this campus doctrine, but the paper’s true contribution is in recording some of its absurd manifestations at Bowdoin. For example, the college has “no curricular requirements that center on the American founding or the history of the nation.” Even history majors aren’t required to take a single course in American history. In the History Department, no course is devoted to American political, military, diplomatic or intellectual history—the only ones available are organized around some aspect of race, class, gender or sexuality.
One of the few requirements is that Bowdoin students take a yearlong freshman seminar. Some of the 37 seminars offered this year: “Affirmative Action and U.S. Society,” “Fictions of Freedom,” “Racism,” “Queer Gardens” (which “examines the work of gay and lesbian gardeners and traces how marginal identities find expression in specific garden spaces”), “Sexual Life of Colonialism” and “Modern Western Prostitutes.”
Regarding Bowdoin professors, the report estimates that “four or five out of approximately 182 full-time faculty members might be described as politically conservative.” In the 2012 election cycle, 100% of faculty donations went to President Obama. Not that any of this matters if you have ever asked around the faculty lounge.
“A political imbalance [among faculty] was no more significant than having an imbalance between Red Sox and Yankee fans,” sniffed Henry C.W. Laurence, a Bowdoin professor of government, in 2004. He added that the suggestion that liberal professors cannot fairly reflect conservative views in classroom discussions is “intellectually bankrupt, professionally insulting and, fortunately, wildly inaccurate.”
This is an intellectual, academic paradigm shift of almost incomprehensible magnitude. Since its inception, regardless of the reality on the ground, America’s self-image (which was sold to generations of school children and college students right up until the 1950s) was of an inclusive nation, a melting pot, dedicated to the principle that all American citizens are entitled to equal treatment under the law; have a right to equal access to American opportunities (with it being up to the people whether to take that access); and are subject to the downside risks should they refuse to seize the opportunities or violate the law. With slavery and Jim Crow, we deviated from the principles, but the principles were sound.
At Bowdoin, though, and others like it, the paradigm has shifted. Young people are taught a new, ugly paradigm about their country: America is composed of disparate groups, with a few select groups made up of white men (and, probably, Jews) controlling the nation and doing what they can to exploit, denigrate, and impoverish a never-ending, every-growing list of victim classes, ranging from women, to homosexuals, to non-white races, to Muslims, to fat people, to anything that can be brought under the umbrella of victim. There is no such thing in this world as equality of opportunity. There is only equality of outcome that can be attained by using the government to strong-arm the ruling class of white males (and, possibly, Jews) so that they redistribute their ill-gotten gains to the victims.
I was talking the other day to a friend who works at elementary schools in a large, urban ghetto. These schools have no white children. The schools are dreadful, and the children — innocent victims all — suffer terribly. They grow up in abysmal poverty, and they don’t have role models within their homes showing education or wealth. Their neighborhoods are rife with crime (especially gun fire) and substance abuse. Almost all come from broken homes.Their streets are dangerous because of gangs. The message one receives from those brave enough to work in those neighborhoods is that these children can succeed only if we pour government funds into their schools. And if those funds don’t work, then we need to pour more in, and still more in.
In my mind, I compared these children — and they are so sad, since they are bright little lights that are blinking out — with the immigrants who came to this country between, say, 1850 and 1950. They lived in ghettos; they lived in abysmal poverty; their parents didn’t speak the language of wealth (many didn’t even speak English); the streets were dangerous, not because of gunfire, but because of knives, disease, and starvation; there was significant substance abuse (alcoholism and opium); schools were grossly underfunded, etc. And yet these children became working class, their children became middle class, and their children became upper class. It wasn’t a 100% success rate at every generation, but it was a substantial rate at every generation.
They went from this:
What’s the difference between then and now? I don’t believe that it’s because American blacks (and it’s mostly blacks stuck for generations in ghettos) are forever developmentally disabled by slavery. John McWhorter points out that blacks were ascending rapidly, both socially and economically, before Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society enticed them into welfare and single parenthood (welfare pays single mothers better than two parent families). Starting in the 1960s, the increasingly Left-leaning white leadership in America told blacks that, the end of slavery and Jim Crow notwithstanding, they are not created equal and they are not equal under the law. They are different — they are needier. Without Mama and Papa government, they are nothing.
I think it’s this paradigm shift, one that starts in the Ivory Towers by creating infinite victim classes, all of which that can be raised up only by government intervention and control, that trickles down into the streets. In the old days, you had to do it yourself, so you did. Nowadays, the government is supposed to rescue you. Homes don’t emphasize education, self-sufficiency, and upward mobility. They emphasize “Why isn’t the government helping?” This is not about race, or slavery, or poverty — it is about an intellectual environment that explicitly educates future leaders that government needs race-victims, and slave-victims and poverty-victims to fulfill its purpose. Without those classes, government is meaningless and by definition a vehicle of evil.
Paul Fussell, who thought outside the box, would not have approved. (Or at least I like to think he wouldn’t have approved.)
D. Lee is the author of a short (17 page) monograph called Race-Baiting Insanity: Liars and the Romney Campaign (Race-Baiting Insanity Series #5). It is part of a series of monographs about the way in which the Left uses race to advance its political agenda. Lee wanted us to know that, for the next few days, you can download his ebook for free at Amazon. I’ve already jumped on that offer.
Lee also gave me permission to reprint an essay he wrote explaining the genesis of his book:
Race Baiting In America
The Ridiculousness Of The Modern Democrats
I was born about a decade after the Civil Rights Act was officially signed into law in 1964 by President Lyndon Johnson – a Democrat. This legislation was called for by the previous President, John F. Kennedy – also a Democrat – during a speech that he gave from the Oval Office on June 11, 1963. I find it very strange that in only 2 generations, the Democratic Party of the United States has gone from one of working to eliminate racial issues to one that accuses others of racial issues without cause, and even going so far as to fabricate lies out of whole cloth. It’s a very astounding and sad thing, but one that needs to be revealed in the light of truth so that it can be eradicated, and we can be the country that we have always strived to be.
I began to notice race and race baiting when I really got interested in politics on a daily basis, which was a few years ago. At the time, I didn’t give it much thought, other than to bemoan the fact that we were so many years beyond 1964 and hadn’t we grown up yet. However, as the 2012 Presidential election cycle got going, I listened more intensely to what was being said. Often times I heard a story, and just couldn’t believe what I was hearing. That got me to dig deeper into the story, to learn if what I heard was correct. Watching other channels, reading blogs, newspapers, and magazines, and checking a number of different websites, all in the name of getting to the truth.
What did I find? I found that often, the story that I was getting from the main stream media wasn’t accurate. In some cases, they were really stretching the truth to try to achieve a particular story angle or narrative. And in at least one case, I found that things were entirely made up, bald-faced lies that were created in order to continue the narrative. I knew that the national media were, by and large, on the side of the Democrats. What I didn’t know was just how far they would go to try to keep themselves in a position of power and authority. I was incensed, I was angry, and I needed to do something. But what? Then, I had an epiphany: I could write.
Now, I’m a fiction writer, I have a novel and 2 short stories currently published under a different name (Darren Kirby). I had never written anything like a non-fiction book before. But I was just too upset not to do something, so I chose to write my first non-fiction book, “Race Baiting In America: How The Left Use Race As A Means To Keep Power, Drive The Narrative, & Tear This Country Apart”. As I was making my way through it, I couldn’t believe just how wide-spread this was, from the national media to politicians, celebrities and others. They all were using race as a means to denigrate and diminish conservatives, to paint them as hillbillies and thugs, and to relegate their political position to the trash heap where they figured they belonged. That just made me want to keep exposing them more.
When I was done with the book (it was published just a few weeks before the Presidential election in November), I figured that some of what I had found and wrote about was due to it being an election cycle, that come the new year there wouldn’t be nearly as many incidents of race baiting by the Left as there was in 2012. Boy, was I wrong! There was just as many of these incidents happening after the election as there was before. By this time, my book was in print, ebook, and audio book format, but I realized that there needed to be much, much more work done in order to expose things. So, I’ve put together a series of booklets that continue to feature these problems and to call attention to them so that we can collectively tell these race baiting jerks to “knock it off”! In order to help get the word out to as many people as possible, I am making one of these booklets FREE as a Kindle ebook this week. I want to share this with you, and I ask that you share this with as many people as you can. Post a link on Facebook, tweet like crazy, let your friends at work and in your neighborhood know, and have your family get a copy as well. You’ll be amazed at what you read, and hopefully you’ll get angry like I did and decide to do something to help set the record straight. The booklet is titled “Race Baiting Insanity, Volume 7: Academic Goals, “White Privilege”, & The NRA”. It will be FREE on Amazon from March 25 through March 29, so you’ve got lots of time to tell as many people about it as you can. The link to Amazon is below, and let’s stop the Democrats and the Left from lying about things any more!
Alec Baldwin was in the news this morning for having another rage attack on New York’s streets, this one complete with foul racial epithets. The easy line to take with this is that Alec Baldwin is a racist.
I’m not sure it’s quite that simple, though. Instead, I see Baldwin’s problem being one of racial (not racist) obsession. To liberals, everything in their world gets run through a racial prism. Nothing is neutral. It’s either about race or . . . it’s about race.
Even when something couldn’t possibly have anything to do with race (e.g., dog food), the absence of a race discussion is itself racist. After all, there are probably poor children somewhere, who are probably black, who are possibly eating dog food in lieu of human food, almost certainly because of racist Republican economic policies or attacks on welfare.
What this means is that, when a cosseted, undisciplined, rage-filled Progressive gets angry, there is only one way to lash put: In racial terms. Just as a dog’s thoughts are ball, ball, food, ball, food, food, ball, belly rub, nap, ball, food,, the sum total of the Progressive’s thoughts are race, black, white-Hispanic, racism, racist, black, and, when angry the n-word.. Truly, aside from a continuous background loop of “me, me, me” sung by a Hollywood-inspired celestial chorus, the racial soundtrack is the only thing filling Baldwin’s brain.
The problem for all of us, of course, is that too many Americans, both black and non-black, have been taught for the last 40 years that this racial paradigm/prism is the only lens through which to see the world. Until this changes, we will not find common ground, and we will continue to live in a racially-obsessed society, with the worst racists being the ones who obsess most about the subject.
Justice Sotomayor came to San Francisco and inadvertently made the case that affirmative action terribly unfair — and, moreover, that people are right if they believe, not that it gives qualified minorities a chance, but that it handicaps non-minorities at the expense of any minorities, qualified or not.
What we don’t like is a system that says to completely ordinary kids who make no specific effort: “You! Yeah, you. Although you are undistinguished in all relevant ways, you’re going to get a leg up simply because of your race.” In the old days, that sentence, more fully written, read “Although you are undistinguished in all relevant ways, you’re going to get a leg up simply because you’re white.” Looking back now, we realize how heinous it was to spread opportunities unevenly simply because of race.
Yet that’s precisely what affirmative action does — spread opportunities unevenly because of race. The government, rather than being magisterially even-handed, has taken sides. Instead of funding scholarships for accomplished young people, it funds scholarships for racially appropriate people (emphasis mine):
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in town Monday to promote her newly released memoir, said she couldn’t talk about affirmative action because of a pending court case. In the next breath, she talked about what it had meant to her – admission to Princeton and Yale Law School and the launching of a legal career.
“I was given the chance to get to the start of the race and it changed my life,” the 58-year-old justice told a sold-out Commonwealth Club audience at the Herbst Theatre in San Francisco.
When she entered Princeton on a scholarship in 1972 despite unspectacular test scores, she recalled, the school was in only its third year of admitting women and had barely a handful of minority students.
Isn’t that nice for Sotomayor? She got into Princeton despite the fact that she didn’t qualify. And doesn’t it just suck for the hard-working white or Asian kid who, in that same year, had spectacular test scores (not to mention good grades), but was nevertheless barred from Princeton because Sotomayor took her place? If Sotomayor had been a brilliant student, it’s probable that none of us would have cared that she, a kid from a dodgy New York neighborhood, was granted admission over a kid from somewhere suburbia. What grates is that Sotomayor hadn’t earned her place academically.
I recognize that Sotomayor’s opportunity came about in 1972, when affirmative action was meant to be a quick fix — a head start — to make up for the decades of discrimination that immediately preceded those first few years of affirmative action. What rankles is that, two generations later, we’re still giving a hand up to mediocre people in the name of race. In other words, we’ve institutionalized racism just as certainly as those Jim Crow people did. We now frame it affirmatively, in that we boast that we’re pulling some people up, as opposed to pushing other people down, but it’s the same thing: too often race, not merit, determines who gets to grab the educational and employment gold ring.
Sotomayor seems like a nice, hard-working woman, although I couldn’t disagree more with her approach to the law. She also seems like someone who benefited from an inequitable program at a time that at least gave some credibility to the program, but who now seeks to use the extraordinary power granted to her to make Leftist Jim Crow laws a permanent part of America’s racist landscape.
*I’d originally written “economically disadvantaged children,” and then thought, “Why am I cluttering my writing with this lardy PC jargon?” So I changed it to “poor children,” which makes the point just fine.
My father, alev ha-shalom, had forgotten more about English — his third language — than most people will ever know. In addition to reading novels and non-fiction for pleasure, he would amuse himself reading dictionaries, grammar books, and stories about the English language. (In that last genre, my favorite was one called Word Origins and Their Amazing Stories, a book that, sadly, is no longer in print.)
One of my father’s pet peeves, going back to the 1970s, was the way the word niggardly had been banished from most vocabularies, because people assumed that it had the same root as a vulgar and disrespectful word for black people. In fact, niggardly, which means miserly, or stingy, has an honest Anglo-Saxon etymology:
1325–75; Middle English nyggard, equivalent to nig niggard (< Scandinavian; compare dialectal Swedish nygg; akin to Old English hnēaw stingy)
This honestly rooted English word even shows up in Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales:
We all desiren, if it mighte be,
To han husbandes hardy, wise, and free,
And secret, and no niggard, ne no fool,
Ne him that is aghast of every tool,
Ne none avaunter, by that God above!
Having now proven the word’s bona fides, let me step down from the soap box. Given the two words’ auditory and spelling similarity, despite one being an Olde English word calling someone stingy, and the other a rude bastardization of a Latin word for the color “black,” I’m more forgiving than my father was when people express discomfort upon hearing the word niggardly. It just looks and sounds wrong.
The question remains, though, how far a culture should go to challenge honorable traditions that coincidentally run afoul of modern sensitivities. In Sweden, for example, modern sensibilities are chipping away at the traditional Santa Lucia celebration, which has seen children, since forever, parade around dressed up as stars, gnomes, Santa Lucia, or gingerbread men. The politically correct brigade is now worried about those gingerbread men. You and I think of them as tasty, spicy cookies that all sensible people love; the PC crowd knows that they have a darker symbolism (pun intended):
Schoolchildren in Sweden have been banned from dressing up as gingerbread men for a Christmas parade because their teachers fear the costumes could be considered racist.
[H]eartbroken 10-year-old Mio Simiv was told he could not wear his gingerbread man costume to the celebration because it might be seen as ‘offensive’.
Angry mum Jenny Simic told local media: ‘I thought he had to have got it wrong so I called the school and they said people might find a brown gingerbread character offensive.
Mrs. Simic also went on to make a larger point, which is that the other costumes, when taken out of context, can be forced into equally ugly interpretations. You see, those gnome costumes really don’t stand up to close scrutiny ….
‘I said, well then my son won’t participate. He won’t support some Ku Klux Klan procession – because that’s what the little Lucias look like when they all come in with white hoods and white dresses.’
Also, I’ve heard that gnomes are vertically challenged, so it won’t be long before the Little People start voicing their objections. (I feel I have a say in this one, as I just learned that my statuesque 5 feet tall is a mere two inches above official Little People status. Funnily enough, I’ve never felt short, and most people who know my are surprised to learn what my actual height is. As one man told me, to my great delight, “You have the most beautiful posture I’ve ever seen. You carry yourself like a queen.” But back to my post….)
The Swedish school tried to backtrack by claiming the absence of gingerbread came down to student allergies, but I’ve yet to hear of someone being allergic to a gingerbread man costume:
In my experience, one of the best ways to get past differences between people is to stop focusing on them so obsessively — or at the very least, to stop focusing on the marginal things that irritate petty people, so that you have energy and credibility to deal with the things that really matter. Aesop knew that crying wolf is counterproductive. After decades of backing down in the face of the Leftist war cry of “racist,” more and more people are looking in their hearts, recognizing that they’re not racists, and fighting back. That’s the good thing. The bad thing is that, in this swirling sea of “racist” caterwauls, the real racists will suddenly find themselves able to blend in with the crowd so that they can spread their poison.