March 08, 2010

Today in "What is Racist and What is Not"

Dan Rather isn't racist, apparently, even after uttering this whopper:

Listen he (Barack Obama) just hasn't been, look at the health care bill. It was his number one priority. It took him forever to get it through and he had to compromise it to death. Listen he's a nice person, he's very articulate ... this is what's been used against him, but he couldn't sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.

Yep -- "articulate" and "watermelons" in the same sentence! But no one, even "Mr. Racially Sensitive" Chris Matthews, just shurgs his shoulders.

Next up, MSDNC's David Shuster thinks that those who refer to Charlie Rangel as a "crooked, Harlem Democrat" are -- yep -- racist for saying so. Even though, well, Rangel represents Harlem!

They could have called him the crooked New York Democrat. They could have called him a crooked Democrat. Why crooked Harlem Democrat? And did you see that as being racially tinged?"

Next, we see more of what the Obama administration is really about (if you've already skirted past or just ignored so many of his ridiculous appointees). Soon we're going to be treated to investigations of school districts via the 'ol "disparate impact" theory of discrimination. As Roger Clegg notes:

The Wall Street Journal article I cited in my earlier post this morning highlights, in particular, the Obama administrationís interest in school systems where there are racial disparities in disciplining students. So letís look at that.

If school systems know that they are going to face a federal investigation whenever there is a numerical disparity in the races of students being disciplined, then what will they do? Well, if they are deliberately discriminating against, say, Latino students, then they may stop that. Thatís great ó but if the discrimination is deliberate, then you donít need to attack it with the ďdisparate impactĒ approach.

The disparate-impact approach will also pressure school systems who are not engaged in actual discrimination to get their numbers right, so they wonít be investigated. And how will they do that? There are two ways: Either they will start to discipline, say, Asian students who are not really deserving of such discipline, or they will forego disciplining, say, black students who really ought to be disciplined. The former is merely unfair; the latter, which is the more likely outcome, will be disastrous for all children in the school system, of whatever color.

The administration will also be looking at things like the different rates (among races) in graduation and participation in advanced placement classes. Of course, if schools are somehow "discriminating" against minorities for not only disciplining them more often and/or more severely, but also for preventing them from graduating and/or adequately preparing them academically, does this mean that at the same time schools are discriminating in favor of Asian students?

Lastly comes word via a Newsbusters tipster about the new HBO documentary "Magic and Bird" -- about the rivalry between the Lakers' Magic Johnson and the Celtics' Larry Bird. He writes:

In discussing the racial divide among NBA fans in the 1980s (whites liked Bird and the Celtics; blacks liked Magic and the Lakers -- even in Boston), HBO couldn't help but lay some of the blame at Reagan's feet. They showed a clip of him giving a speech from the Oval Office with a voiceover stating: "part of the reason for the racial divide was how conservative the country had become in the 1980s."

Now, I haven't seen the show for myself so I cannot comment on its accuracy. Maybe someone can chime in and confirm or deny this line. (It wouldn't surprise me a bit if HBO inserted something like this nonsense into the documentary; they had Bryant Gumbel on the network long enough uttering preposterous racial idiocies.) But consider: Back then the Celtics were the 76ers biggest rivals. Philly fans hated Boston. When the Celtics met the Lakers in the NBA finals, everyone I knew -- that is, everyone white that I knew -- rooted for the Lakers. Because they hated Boston. Period. They could've cared freakin' less if Larry Bird was white!


And that's today's edition of "What is Racist and What is Not!"

Posted by Hube at March 8, 2010 03:44 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)