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.
I had the opportunity the other day to dine with a collection of Blue State liberals. It was enlightening, not because I actually learned anything from them, but because I learned about them. It was also a reminder of how far I’ve traveled ideologically, because I used to be one of them. Looking at them, I don’t regret my journey.
Most of the evening, of course, was idle chitchat, without any political ramifications. Inevitably, though, politics and ideological issues cropped up. I’ll just run down a few topics.
Antisemitism in higher education:
I was told in no uncertain terms that Columbia University cannot be antisemitic because it’s in New York. My offer to produce evidence to support my thesis was rebuffed. For those of you who, unlike Blue State liberals, feel that facts are valuable, these links support my contention that, New York address notwithstanding, Columbia is in thrall to Palestinian activists and BDS derangement:
And of course, there’s simply the fact that Columbia is one of the more ideologically Left schools, although that wouldn’t have bothered my dinner companions.
The effect of taxes on investment:
One of my dinner companions is a successful investment analyst. I asked him if he’d been hearing about any effects flowing from the Obamacare medical device tax. “No, of course not. It’s — what? — a two percent tax. That’s not going to make a difference to anybody.” Again, my offer of contrary data was rejected, because it was obviously Fox News propaganda, never mind that it’s not from Fox News. Stephen Hay, at Power Line, neatly summarizes a Wall Street Journal article predicated on actual investment data:
Today in my Constitutional Law class I’ll be taking up the famous case of McCulloch v. Maryland, the bank case from 1819 in which Chief Justice John Marshall observed that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy,” which immediately set my mind to thinking about . . . Obamacare. Obamacare’s medical device tax—a tax not on profits remember, but on revenues—is doing its destructive work already.
The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that “Funding Dries Up for Medical Startups,” noting that “Investment in the medical-device and equipment industry is on pace to fall to $2.14 billion this year, down more than 40% from 2007 and the sharpest drop among the top five industry recipients of venture funding.” It seems we have to relearn every few years (such as the luxury boat tax of 1990, swiftly repealed when it killed the boat-building industry) the basic lesson that Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan taught us: tax something and you get less of it. Especially when you tax it like Obamacare, where the tax significantly reduces the after-tax return to investors.
When a 2% tax is on after-tax returns, and it targets a specific industry, surprisingly it does make a big difference to people. Right now, the difference is at the investment level, but soon it will be at the consumer level, as consumers are less likely than ever before to see life-changing inventions such as the insulin pump or the cochlear implant.
American healthcare compared to other Western countries: Everybody agreed that America has the worst health care compared to those countries with socialized medicine. Britain doesn’t count, my fellow dinners told me, because it’s “chosen” to offer bad health care. My attempts to talk about freedom of choice, market competition, declining government revenue, cost-based decisions to deny treatment to whole classes of patients, etc., were rudely brushed aside. “That’s just Fox News propaganda.” Likewise, the liberals also dismissed as “Fox News propaganda” my statement that the studies they’re relying on have as their metric availability of coverage, rather than quality of outcome. I therefore wasn’t surprised when they equally rudely dismissed me when I said that a recent study showed that America has some of the best cancer survival rates in the world.
Since I know that you’d never be that rude, let me just quote Avik Roy, who actually studies the numbers:
It’s one of the most oft-repeated justifications for socialized medicine: Americans spend more money than other developed countries on health care, but don’t live as long. If we would just hop on the European health-care bandwagon, we’d live longer and healthier lives. The only problem is it’s not true.
The problem, of course, is that there are many factors that affect life expectancy. One is wealth. It’s gross domestic product per capita, and not health-care policy, that correlates most strongly to life expectancy. Gapminder has produced many colorful charts that show the strong correlation between wealth and health.
If you really want to measure health outcomes, the best way to do it is at the point of medical intervention. If you have a heart attack, how long do you live in the U.S. vs. another country? If you’re diagnosed with breast cancer? In 2008, a group of investigators conducted a worldwide study of cancer survival rates, called CONCORD. They looked at 5-year survival rates for breast cancer, colon and rectal cancer, and prostate cancer. I compiled their data for the U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, and western Europe. Guess who came out number one?
U-S-A! U-S-A! What’s just as interesting is that Japan, the country that tops the overall life expectancy tables, finished in the middle of the pack on cancer survival.
I’m not doing justice Roy’s article with these snippets, so I urge you to read the whole thing. Suffice to say that my companions were uninterested in data that ran counter to their narrative.
The racist inside every liberal: My dinner companions did concede that culture is a factor in health care, although they stopped short of admitting (as they should have) that a country as diverse as America will never be able to counter cultural differences with socialized medicine. (Or, rather, they couldn’t admit that it would take overwhelming government coercion to do so.)
One of the guests described a patient with a treatable disorder — i.e., one that could be controlled with a carefully regimented plan of medicine and treatment — who was too disorganized to follow the treatment. As a result, this person ended up in the emergency room one to two times a month, at great cost to the system. The healthcare provider finally hired a minimum wage worker to remind the patient to take the medicines and to drive the patient to the hospital. Another guests said, “Black, right?” The person who told the story said, “I can’t tell you that, but probably.” They snickered companionably over the fact that blacks are just too dumb to care for themselves.
Another way of looking at it, though, was that this patient did fine: The patient didn’t have to fuss with drugs (and their side-effects), got emergency treatment on an as-needed basis, and ended up having a dedicated employee to detail with the finicky little details of disease maintenance. Who’s snickering now?
The power that maintains slavery: One of the people at the dinner was a student studying American history. The curriculum had reached the Civil War. The student asked a good question: “I don’t get how the slaves let themselves stay that way. After all, they outnumbered the whites.” Good point. The liberal dinner guests started mumbling about systems, and complexity, and psychology. And I do mean mumbling. They didn’t offer data. They just mouthed buzzwords such as “it’s complex,” or “you have to understand the system,” or “well, there’s a psychology there.” I interrupted: “The slave owners were armed. The slaves were denied arms. The side with weapons, even if it’s smaller in number, wins.” To my surprise, none of the liberals in the room had anything to add.
The food was good and my dinner companions were periodically interesting and charming, so the dinner wasn’t a total loss. Nevertheless, I found dismaying the arrogant ignorance that powers their engines. All I could think of was my own blog’s motto: “Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts.” That was my dinner in a nutshell.
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.
Back in the early 1990s, it was funny when American whites were told “White Men Can’t Jump.” We’re also told on a regular basis that we can’t dance and that we’ve got no rhythm.
I always assumed all of these were gentle cultural jokes. It turns out that, even if they started out that way, now that we have been thoroughly marinated in twenty-plus years of intensive political correctness, all jokes are over. Now we’re getting to the serious part of our re-education.
Gawker, which is hardly a conservative hotbed, is reporting that Hampshire College booted a band because, while it played “Afrobeat” music, its performers are actually white. The band announced its firing by saying it was told “that we were too white to play Afro-beat.”
The college, rather than issuing a statement saying that the band totally misunderstood, blah, blah, blah, made it worse. It proudly announced dismissing the white-staffed Afrobeat band on the basis that its students were concerned “about cultural appropriation and the need to respect marginalized cultures.”
One is tempted, of course, to say that no black person should ever act in Shakespeare or perform Beethoven. Fortunately we, unlike Hampshire College, do not judge people by the color of their skin but, instead, look to the content of their character and their innate skills and passions.
Hampton College’s obsessive, racist, demeaning sensibilities are scarcely unique. In the same vein, in deference to the pathetic and stupid non-white students in their midst, the patriarchal, Progressive students in the University of Georgia’s Student Government Association are planning to honor mediocrity, which they obviously believe is the best to which non-whites (and gays, and women) can aspire. According to them, success is simply too overrated when it comes to non-white, non-male, non-straight people. From the UGSGA’s announcement:
It seems like whenever a minority identifying individual “succeeds”, he or she is identified as a “success story.” We will be featuring successful members of different minorities speaking of their own story and success, with a focus on how this idea of “success story” shouldn’t exist. The idea that minority success is “outstanding” means it’s not the norm–we don’t want “success stories.” We just want stories.
This event will feature different success stories from UGA, Athens, and Georgia, because we believe that hearing stories from our neighbors and friends is truly the most impactful way to humanize these issues.
For however many thousands of dollars their parents (and the taxpayers) spend annually to fund the University of Georgia, the kids have managed not to learn that “impactful” is not a word. They have learned, however, the cool trick of simultaneously demeaning their culture’s accomplishments and looking down on minorities for even aspiring to achieve in this culture.
Remember, please, that there is no one — absolutely no one — more racist than a Leftist.
When I think of elderly people, including the ones naive enough to have believed Obama’s lies (at their age, they should have known better), my heart bleeds as I try to imagine them navigating Obamacare, and that’s true whether the system works or is broken. No matter what, a generation that wasn’t raised on computers, and that may be further hampered by physical disabilities, is not going to find even the best possible site easy to navigate.
My mother, who was born in the very early 1920s, is a very bright woman, but she was never able to master computers. The is true for all of her friends, both the ones I’ve known my whole life and the ones I’ve met since she moved into a retirement community. My father, my mother-in-law, and my father-in-law, alav ha-shalom, all had the same problem. They were old dogs, and computers were a new trick. This cartoon pretty much sums it up:
If you’re laughing, it’s because you know someone — probably a person over 70 — who views the computer precisely that way. Obviously, this isn’t true for all older people, but it’s certainly true for a greater number of them than you’d find in the 50-70 cohort. Moreover, in the under 50 cohort, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn’t have at least some familiarity and comfort with computers.
For the older people, dealing with Obamacare is going to be a nightmare — and they are the some of the ones who will be most intimately connected with it. After all, I doubt that many, if any, of them have insurance with pregnancy benefits. That means that, if they don’t get insurance through some retirement fund, their policies will be cancelled and they’ll be pitched into the Obamacare marketplace. Once there, they’re going to have to figure out the Obamacare exchange.
Robert Avrech, at Seraphic Secret, reminds me that I’ve forgotten another cohort of people who can’t handle the difficulties of Obamacare. Unlike the elderly, who are limited by vision problems or arthritis or dementia or unfamiliarity with a new technology, these people are limited by . . . race, and only by race.
Yes, race. To see why, check this out.
It must be enormously frustrating for the Left that new media no longer means that the Democrat white power structure can be the official and the only voice for black America. Because Democrats’ vested interest is in keeping blacks subordinate to the Democrat party, that Leftist voice has always worked full-time to tell blacks (a) that they are victims and (b) that they can find succor only within Big Government.
Sarah Silverman’s unfunny video about a “black NRA” is the perfect illustration of this paradigm. It attempts to be a satire implying that the NRA wants to kill blacks. The problem is that this world view is so grossly untrue that the video does nothing more than engaging in skin-crawling racism that tells the world that blacks are irremediably murderers who cannot be trusted with weapons. (That is, the only way to save blacks isn’t to change their culture, it’s to keep all of them helpless.) Ouch.
Last week, I posted Colion Noir’s rebuttal (along with Silverman’s video). This week, the honors go to Zo and friends:
What I particularly like about this video is that it acknowledges a problem — black drug use and gun violence — but refuses to fall into the “we are victims, whites are racists, Big Brother is the savior” trope. Instead, it’s a video that speaks about true black empowerment, not by insulting whites into obeisance, but by raising blacks up to the full dignities of all Americans.
Hat tip: Danny Lemieux
This Sarah Silverman anti-gun commercial comes from “Funny or Die.” It’s not funny. In the parlance of comics, “Silverman died up there.” Not only is it not funny, it’s terribly, terribly racist, since the implication is that the only thing that blacks will do if one gives them guns is commit murder:
Aside from being racist, the video the video raises stupidity to epic levels. The wonderful Colion Noir, after delivering a few nicely calculated verbal blows to the video’s participants, gets to the heart of the matter:
It’s worth considering as you watch both those videos that anti-gun efforts in America, going back to the revolutionary war, have been aimed at keeping black people in their place, in part by keeping them away from their right to bear arms.
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.