Today is MLKJr. Day, which replaced Presidents’ Day, which was eased in for Washington’s Birthday, which is where it started and should have remained. Not to bad-mouth Reverend King, of course. It always comes as a shock to remember he died at the age of 39. Given his accomplishment and influence, that doesn’t seem to compute.
This blog only exists because: 1) I was once in love with a black woman, as meanwhile 2) Democrats kept tarring opponents with the “racist” label while coddling racist S.O.B.s like Robert Byrd and Spike Lee.
So screw you, Democrats. Screw you screaming “racist” while treating black people like retarded children. Your slimy hatred of blacks comes through every time a non-leftist or non-statist black person raises his head. (Or hers, when Condi Rice pops up. You being as misogynist as you are racist.)
So up yours sideways, Donkey Ass Party, now and forever!
The irony, of course, is that King world-famously longed for the day that his people “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” With today’s shin-dig, our government “honors” him by rubbing salt into America’s racial wounds.
Do you know when we had your dream, Doc? In the epic span between the end of Jim Crow and the beginning of federal quotas. What was that, five minutes? The span between separate drinking fountains and separate standards. The first was wrong, unconstitutional, and pride-damaging. Its replacement is wrong, unconstitutional, and morally poisonous.
At this country’s beginning, black people were morally superior to everyone else because they had to be. Slaves are always better than the so-called “masters”. But the government didn’t end that policy; it reversed it. Blacks are now held to a lower standard of behavior. Spike Lee can bad-mouth interracial marriages and suffer no loss; you try that, whitey.
(A reminder about labels–replacing the inaccurate but one-syllable label “black” with the even less accurate, seven-syllable mouthful “African-American” is a personal insult to me. Seriously. Your acceptance of that monstrosity is yet another reason why we will always be two different camps: W.O.R.M., and humans.)
“Your people”, Dr. King, are just like every other sufficiently large group: no better than they have to be. And your towering example, Reverend, is used to justify our nation’s current policy: holding black people to lower standards.
This is how our government honors you.
I was just reading up on the Port Chicago Incident (where the ammunition went up while being loaded.) I read that the Democrat representative from Mississippi was against Congress giving the families of the victims 5,000 USD (as the Navy had suggested), but only wanted to give them 2,000. They eventually “settled” for 3,000.
Oh, the sailors killed were primarily black, except the officers, of course.
The black sailors also didn’t get 30-day “survivor leave”, which was usually custom for crewmen surviving horrifying incidents. Not even those hospitalized received it. The white officers, however, got a lot of leave.
Oh wait, that’s the same wartime Democrats who locked up roughly 150,000 Japanese-Americans simply because they weren’t white.
You expected otherwise from the Dixiecratic Party?
Nah. Apparently my glands needed a good airing out. Figuratively, I hope.
By the by, MLK Jr. Day was signed into a federal holiday by Reagan in 1983 and then celebrated first in 1986 during non other than the Reagan administration, so if anyone “replaced” President’s Day you can blame the GOP. I mean according to them Reagan did everything right, this must have been the same. LOL!
I thought about writing a bit about the ridiculousness of the post and all the comments about the evil Democrats and how racist we are but then my words here would be futile, if we really want to talk racism we can just take a look at the present day GOP run House and Fox News, the president has been drug from pillar to post with shots being taken because he’s black and they HATE it. Even his wife gets the digs as being the “angry black woman.” Why not a day goes by the the racist remarks aren’t in full affect, but like I said deaf ears here so I won’t bother.
Please give specific examples of how President Obama has bee drug from pillar to post by the House GOP and/or Fox News. Please give specific examples of how the 1st lady has been portrayed as an “angry black woman”.
Thanks and I hope you respond,
1. Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) may have crossed the line when he said that being associated with President Obama would be similar to touching a “tar baby”. Here’s the quote, “Now I don’t want to even have to be associated with him. It’s like touching a tar baby and you get, you get it, you know… you are stuck and you are part of the problem now and you can’t get away.”
2. In illustrations many of which have been sent through email by fellow politicians in the House the president has been portrayed as a shoeshine man, an Islamic terrorist and a chimp, to name a few. Prime example was that of HOUSE Republican Marilyn Davenport of California who sent an email with the image of three chimps posing like a family portrait of dad mom and baby, superimposed face of Obama was on the baby and the email read, “Now you know why there is no birth certificate.” But I’m sure you’ll say the Birther movement is NOTHING racist right?
3. Kansas Tea Party, which boasts lots of HOUSE GOP members had a picture of a skunk on their website claimed to be “satire” which said, of Obama: “It is half black, half white, and almost everything it does, stinks.” Sure funny ha ha but nonetheless with racist overtones. Why but hey those must be all those Democratic KKK members doing that in Kansas right? 😉
4. Brent Bozell was a guest on Fox News’ Hannity show where he said “How long do you think Sean Hannity’s show would last if four times in one sentence, he made a comment about, say, the President of the United States, and said that he looked like a skinny, ghetto crackhead? Which, by the way, you might want to say that Barack Obama does…” Wow “you might wanna say” this is racist stereotyping too but then again…
5. Then there is Mr. Eric Bolling, Fox Business host of “Follow the Money” where in June he used racial overtones in his comments about President Obama inviting a certain political leader to the White House which he must of thought was a bad move because he had this to say, “Guess who’s coming to dinner? A dictator. Mr. Obama shares a laugh with one of Africa’s kleptocrats. It’s not the first time he’s had a hoodlum in the hizzouse.” HIZZOUSE? Nice Eric Bolling, NICE! He went on to say, “What’s with all the hoods in the hizzy?” Now we all know how that was intended.
Need I continue with Mr. President? how about we focus on the First Lady being tagged as “an angry black woman…” for your “specific examples.” The best part is those were their exact words many times. When she came out in an interview with Gayle King making a calm statement about what she thought of the media attacks she was depicted by Jim Hoft a GOP pundit blogger as “playing the race card.”
1. LIMBAUGH (now I know he’s not Fox nor in the House but they all play in the same playground – influencing the same people): “She’s tired of the angry black woman image that she’s got. She’s mad at the New York Times reporter for stereotyping her as an angry black woman. Imagine that.” The next year he went on to bring it back up (probably for the umpteenth time): ” Now, I firmly believe that Barack Obama has, as part of his agenda, to cut this nation down to size. And I believe one of the reasons for it, aside from whatever ideological beliefs he has, is that he’s angry. This is a mad guy. He hung around people who were mad all of his life. His wife is angry all the time. Sonia Sotomayor is angry.” RANT RANT RANT.
2. Bill O’Reilly FOX NEWS: “Now, I have a lot of people who call me on the radio and say she looks angry. And I have to say there’s some validity to that. She looks like an angry woman.”
3. Sean Hannity FOX NEWS: “This raises the question, why does Michelle Obama sound so bitter and angry as she campaigns for the White House?”
4. John McLaughlin: First says, “she has a chip on her shoulder,” and then when pressed by another pundit asks, “You don’t think she’s a black militant?” A black militant? REALLY? COME ON!! Yes planting all those carrots in the garden is quite a black militant statement. Why that evil no good.
Are you seeing the examples here? Need we continue?
5. Have t say O’Reilly once (backhandedly) tried to stand up to Mrs. Obama when a caller into his radio show called her “very angry” and an “angry militant,” (which I’m sure he didn’t pick up watching Fox News at all 😉 ) O’Reilly tried to have NO SPIN and said, “not fair to Michelle Obama” [to level those charges without direct evidence.] He went on to say, “That’s wrong. And I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that’s how she really feels — that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever — then that’s legit. We’ll track it down.” WELL, I’m certain you wouldn’t think saying a “lynching party” would be appropriate now would you?
At the very least completely insensitive, but more likely straight up racist.
Now again I gave you what you asked for. I’m going to doubt it is enough to even get you questioning but I gave you what you asked for.
Hmm. Both sides in this have ~100 million folks, it’s a given that both have horrible, horrible people. My overall point is that almost all small-government folks denounce hateful behavior on their own side, when they’re aware of it. The big-government side…never.
I personally I’m about to denounce, or mock, much of the stuff you just listed. Let me know when one single leftist, including yourself, denounces Robert Byrd.
1)–Racist, or incredibly stupid. I agree that “tar baby”, even when an apt metaphor, is screamingly racial if not outright racist. Doug is a racist, a moron, or both.
2)–Can’t give you this one. Take a look at the rhetoric thrown at sitting Presidents throughout American history. “BushHitler”, and ad nauseum back to Washington. If you take the American driver’s seat you get 300 million backseat drivers. Every single possible complaint will be thrown at you. If you can’t take it, don’t go for the job. Bush, BTW, took it. And if race, alone among avenues of mockery, is now exempted…we’ve institutionalized multiple standards. Are you saying a black President can’t handle insults every former President had to put up with? I’m pretty sure Allen West would laugh them off.
3)–Same as #2. As you noted, it’s clever. If Kayne West can say, “George Bush hates black people” and get away with it, then Obama can put up with being compared to Pepe Le Pew. Your valid choices, to me: either start holding your allies to the same standard you apply to your political opponents, or state that black people have a glass jaw.
By the way…have you denounced Robert Byrd yet? Nope? Still holding others to a higher standard than you do yourself and your allies?
4)–The first part of that statement was a totally valid observation about double standards. The second was abysmally stupid. Horrible. If you think B.B. needs to pay a social price, I totally agree.
5)–I’ll be racist here, against Caucasians. I formally denounce all whiteys who appropriate urban slang. Especially the lame ones. Who was the political leader, BTW? If it’s a tyrant like Chavez or
Abinamijamidibathat dude from Iran, my concern drops. Is there a reason you left out the specific?
Who’s claiming the race card can’t be played calmly? It’s actually kind of stupid to use it any other way, fifty years after Bull Connor.
(Bull Connor was a Democrat, BTW.)
You went back into generalities on the “angry black woman” charge. I promise I’ll never accept vague charges against you, Rana. Specifics, or don’t waste my time. You were doing excellently, up until now.
1)–Limbaugh’s “black” usage was strictly in context, just like yours. If you can point it out, why can’t he? His focus was obviously the “angry” part. And Rana, something that’s important to millions of (non-racist) Americans, if not you: When Michelle stated she was never proud of America until her husband was nominated (don’t remember the exact quote) she teed them off. They know America isn’t perfect, but to dismiss it off-hand? Her political opponents would be fools not to capitalized on her unforced error. Whose support do they lose? The anti-American segment. That’s a good tradeoff for them.
2)–“Angry woman” isn’t “angry black woman”. You don’t get to substitute one for the other. If the other party’s First Lady is a bitter whiner, it’s (again) a no-brainer to point this out. There’s a reason First Ladies don’t put themselves out front. They can’t really help, but they can sure as hell hurt.
This explains #3. Number four is another unforced stupid statement. I denounce it. Now, I’m still waiting on you to denounce some of your allies. Here’s one (of dozens) of examples ready-to-hand: Sandra Bernhardt publicly wished for Sarah Palin to be raped by a gang of black men. Mike Tyson indulged in the same fantasy. Those are easy ones, right?
Of course, fair warning: as soon as you acknowledge the first of your side’s evil, I will drown you in a tsunami of their disgusting hatred.
There is no shortage. (Your unconscious awareness of this is why you still haven’t denounced your Klansman.)
He asked for examples, he said, “I hope you respond.” I gave specific examples, with or without an analysis they point to exactly what I was saying when I was asked for examples. All I get from The Putka, deafening silence.
Oh and Wormme, HE asked for SPECIFIC examples of Fox News and Memebers of Congress towards Mr. O and the First Lady I gave those. I didn’t denounce Robert Byrd NOR did I take Harry Reid to task for his off handed heading towards racist comments, why? Because that was not the examples I was asked for. AND yes Bush took it, he was a tool, people called him on it and he took it, again not an example I was ASKED FOR. I do however totally agree that whiteys should not use Black slang in any manor because it just sounds stupid no matter the intent out of a white mouth, good or bad.
This was her quote: ““For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country,”…“because it feels like hope is making a comeback.” I’m not quite sure everyone takes that quote the same. I guess we’ll agree to disagree here, but fact is Limbaugh is a tool and most of what comes out of his mouth is malarkey.
Again, I have no “allies” – unlike the right I don’t believe this is a all or nothing battle. We should be Americans here and learn from the past. To say (as it was in an earlier post) well the KKK was created by Democrats, therefore members of the clan are Democrats ergo all Democrats must be clan members is just fluff to insight. I was asked for specific examples for a statement I made earlier and I did just that. To the silence of the one who asked no doubt. Wormme, you don’t to agree or moderate whether my examples fit a certain bill for them to be valid in doing hat was asked of me. Examples they were, period.
Now we can pay tit for tat that this celebrity wish AB or C to happen to this or that person. Fact is Fox News is a COMPLETE network of almost 24/7 of vitriolic venom being spewed against anyone who might rock the boat of the Murdoch empire and anyone who even remotely believes it is ever truly “fair and balanced” is fooling only themselves, no matter what they care to post in a blog comment section. I have no allies in this war other than my very favorite ally called common sense, I can go on and on and you can send that “tsunami wave” barreling down the blog for days it won’t change the reality that it truly misses the original point entirely. If deflection is all you have then the whole argument is merely moot, and I thank you for playing. 😉
I’ve clearly been out of the country too long (or perhaps not long enough?). When did tar baby become racist?
Back in the 80s I was reading an article about the Vietnam War memorial in Esquire magazine, and I still remember this sentence: “If the Vietnam War was a quagmire, then this [the war memorial controversy] was the tar baby.” Back then I asked a (liberal) friend to explain that phrase to me, and he told me about Br’er Rabbit etc. etc. Race never entered into the conversation, even remotely.
I agree it is really bad to use the phrase now. I just wish there’d be regular updates about allowable and non-allowable language.
Yes you might well have been out of the country for too long, if you discussed Br’er Rabbit then you certainly discussed race if you care to look up the roots of ol’ br’er you might know that.
Unjustified insinuation. We didn’t. I asked for the explanation of the term (in the ’80s). He explained the specific use of the term from Br’er Rabbit without giving the background of the story. I’d never read it, in or out of the country–not part of my childhood. That was it. Period.
According to the footnotes for the Wikipedia link above, John Kerry used the term in the 2008 presidential campaign:
It is unfortunate that Kerry said that. It is not viciously, intentionally, or even unintentionally racist that he said that. He was going with an older usage that was familiar to him.
Xpat, it was a joke. Why all the tit for tat? “well John Kerry clearly used it…blah blah blah.” He is a white dude above 40 years old it’s not surprising that he used it. The point of what I said was br’er rabbit actually spoke lots inadvertently (or not) about race. So by discussing it you would be talking about race.
Again I will give specifics, I was ASKED for examples. Would anyone like to read that before I get another “Bill Clinton in his speech of 1997 he said…blah blah blah about Chinese people, see what a racist he is?”
Oh and “The Putka” might want to chime in any day now since he was the one asking for specifics. Although I do enjoy the sandbox antics around here. GREAT DEBATE. 😉 LOL!
OK, got it. But the linguistic aspect is fascinating, I think. I mean, what words mean and how they change.
If we’re talking about news, to be honest, I generally hate the way news is delivered in the US, on all the networks. Edo may agree with me on this point: in Japan the regular news is reported in a studiously calm, neutral tone–and this was true even during the disaster last March! In the US it always seems just one straw away from hysteria, and the point seems more to stir stuff up than to sort it out.
Old argument is old. Sure, some may dislike Obama cause he’s black. But I can argue just as well that he was elected because he is black. Face it, a lot of people voted for him because they didn’t want to be called racist, not because his ideas are so great (they’re not, he’s basically trying to do what has failed over here already, and it will fail in the US for the same reasons.)
And Michelle is always angry. I have yet to see her smile for real. That smile of hers is always fake. And she’s quick to scowl at everything and everyone. Sometimes I pity Obama. Married to such a “Besen”, poor guy. I don’t care whether she’s black or white or green with purple dots. I know a woman like her in my hometown. She’s always angry as well. Always scowling. As kids we called her “the evil witch”. And she’s white. Oh my.
The thing is, I think Obama has the heart in the right place. The problem is… you don’t run a country with your heart. You don’t run it with progressivism (which is not progressive at all) nor do you run it with conservativism. You run it with reason. And there’s not a single party on this entire planet that emphasizes reason. Right, Left, it’s all about ideology. It’s a pissing contest. It’s my daddy can beat up your daddy. Why do you think I no longer vote? It’s a farce. Left, Right, they don’t care. They just want power.
Take SOPA and PIPA as evidence. It’s bipartisan. Both Left and Right want to control our lives. That said, kudos to Obama for standing against SOPA and PIPA. Of course, we’ll see how much this stance will be worth in the future, he has stood against stuff and then signed it anyway.
I’m pretty sure Obama is a nice guy outside of the WH, good daddy and all that. He just sucks as president. Just like the whole bunch of them. Take his contenders. Holy crap! It’s a bumbling, babbling band of baboons. Perry whines over how gays can now serve openly in the military (ignoring that DADT was a Clinton law anyway). Santorum is against privacy and contraceptives and will try to legislate what you do in your bedroom. I know, he was quick on GBTV to say “that’s not true”; but his statement is out there. He said it, all the backpaddling now won’t change that. Paul, Paul is Neville Chamberlain, enough said. And Romney, oh please… that’s too easy. At least Bachmann buggered off, good riddance.
A friend of mine in the states, my misplaced Texan, puts it like this: “whoever wins, we’re boned.” And he’s right. It’s like over here. It doesn’t matter who you vote for, they are always against you. If you’re a tax payer, if you work, you’re the stupid twerp everybody laughs at and abuses.
As for racism, well. Let’s face it Rana, the Democrats have been on the “racist” end since the civil war. That’s a fact. Who segregated the military? Who locked up 150,000 Japanese-Americans? Who stood against the civil rights movement? Always democrats. Or take the KKK. But anyway, that’s not eve the issue I’m pointing at.
The problem I have with it is always very simple: what races are we talking about?
Oh yes, black, white, etc. Okay. But what are those? Tell me the scientific name of the black race. Oh wait, there is none. A homo sapiens sapiens negrus doesn’t exist. Or the white race? Homo sapiens sapiens albinus? That doesn’t exist either. Strange!
Race =/= skin color.
There is only one human race right now and that’s the homo sapiens sapiens. And the problem isn’t just people who are “racist”, it’s also the “anti-racists.” They, too, subscribe to the utterly ridiculous and unscientific idea that there are different races. There are no different races, that’s a simple scientific fact. The genetic diversity among humans is simply too small to warrant the term “race”. Now if there were still some australopitecus around, or some floresiensis, sure. If I was to say “those damn australopitecus, they can’t drive!” or “those damn floresiensis are all thieves”, that’d be racist.
“Racism” and “anti-racism” are leftovers from the days when Europe thought it owns the world (which went so far that a pope divided the world -unexplored parts included- between the catholic kings of Europe, which was one of the reasons why Christianity wasn’t welcome in Japan, to put it nicely.) Why are they still around? They’re unscientific, illogical and simply ridiculous.
Of course there is the term “ethnicity” floating around these days. Well, that one is politically correct Newspeak for “race” and is just as unscientific.
Our DNA says we’re all homo sapiens sapiens. Race? There is no race. And anyone going about racism or anti-racism is supporting the illogical, unscientific idea of “race” and should be driven through the streets while the locals pelt him or her with pickles.
If you’re a douchebag, I will treat you like a douchebag. If you’re an idiot, I will treat you like an idiot. If you’re nice and polite, I will treat you nice and politely. I don’t care about skin color. Same for your gender or your sexual orientation. Who cares? Since when is stuff like this so important? Oh, I know, it’s all about “protecting minorities” and “feminism” and other crap like that. But if equal rights are the goal, why do we have to protect them and, the EU is leading to that already, give them special rights? Doesn’t make sense.
Oh wait… politicians are involved. Left, Right, reason is not part of their agenda. If the lying thieves in our parliaments would be reasonable, none of this would be an issue. But of course, reason doesn’t get you votes and the large mass of people is blind and stupid.
The voting booth is anonymous, if people are so coward to vote for him for being black then those same cowards would have voted for Hillary (primary) or McCain (general) and then just said they voted for Obama to not be seen as a racist with that type of bunk logic.
However, again I digress…
People talk about who they vote for. Circles of acquaintences (I’m not using “friends” for a reason) will argue about stuff. Votes and many other things leak out. People find out.
Especially in small communities. The smaller the community, the easier it is to find out who votes for who. The anonymity of the voting booth is a myth.
My grandmother from my father’s side, for example, lived in a village with not even 600 inhabitants. Most of them voted Black (which is generally the “party color” of our “conservative” party, there are Red, Green, Blue, etc, Red being the socialists, Green is pretty clear and Blue are what the media called “right wing” -who are more like patriotic socialists after dissecting their program), a few vote Red and there’re usually a literal handful of Communist votes. Everybody in the village knows who these guys are. Everyone.
In my hometown with roughly 22,000 it’s also pretty known who in the appartment building I grew up in votes for who. A lot people state it and their reasons without restraint and it’s not so hard to find out who votes for who by just listening around.
Here in Vienna it’s a lot harder. Why? Well, we’re 1.5 million and the anonymity in my house alone is stronger than in any voting booth.
Yep. The whole “race” thing is for folks who think you can judge a book by its cover.
Too vague. The “whole race thing.” is alive and well in the US and those who think otherwise are only fooling themselves.
>>>” because he’s black and they HATE it.”
Are you serious??? Wait, is this my sister?
It’s his POLICIES, pure and simple, that drive the GOP and the biased-agenda-shows on fox; Hannity for instance has an biased-agenda, Special Report and Mr O, imo, do not.
Have you actually watched Fox, or just read about it from left-wing blogs?
It’s not just his policies. The stuff has to go through the Hill. And that’s GOP and Dems. SOPA and PIPA, my favorite example, are bipartisan. The entire political aristocracy is the problem.
I’ve alrady been thinking. TotalBiscuit and Mr. WORME are Danton. I’m Robspierre.