As reported by Doug Ernst, Marvel's latest way to shame you is by lambasting any objection you may have to the new Spider-Man movie Mary Jane being a black woman.
Once again, any objection to this, however innocent, means you're a intolerant racist.
The gnomish Dan Slott, of course, was one of those screaming "racist," playing "Captain White Privilege." Maybe Dan could put actions where his mouth is by giving up some of his privilege via giving his writing chores to a minority. Don't count on it.
"Guardians of the Galaxy" director James Gunn chimed in too, stating that if you complain about MJ's ethnicity, "your life is too good."
Cripes, at this point, it is surprising that Gunn hasn't changed his last name to assuage the perpetually aggrieved SJW crowd.
The early 90s film "The Rocketeer" is getting a reboot and there's been a fairly significant change. Ready? Can you guess?
Got it yet? Come on ... !!!
You got it -- star Billy Campbell's role is out ... and the protagonist will now be played by ... a black woman.
"The Hollywood Reporter says the company is prepping a brand new sequel/reboot called The Rocketeers and the new hero is an African-American woman.
This new version will be set six years after the original film. The first Rocketeer has disappeared fighting the Nazis, so an unlikely pilot takes up the mantle and battles the scientists who are trying to mass produce the rocket technology for the enemy."
If you've heard that SJWs -- social justice warriors -- are simply never satisfied, look no further than here.
That's right -- even though Tony Stark has been replaced as Iron Man by a teenaged black female, Entertainment Weekly's suggestions for who should hypothetically portray the new character were met with derision ... because the actresses noted are too light-skinned.
"What Riri Williams looks like MATTERS. It MATTERS that she is a dark-skinned black girl. It matters because most black girls in America ARE darker-skinned but continue to be erased in entertainment — even from their OWN stories. That Hollywood would even consider a light-skinned 33-year-old actress for the role of a dark-skinned 15-year-old-girl shows how far it will go to avoid dark skin."
Everyone join me in one. Big. Collective. EYE ROLL.
It's bad enough that Marvel has a writer on one of its marquee books who was active in Democratic politics and who routinely trashes Republicans as "evil," but it also employs David Walker who writes (the poor-selling) Nighthawk.
Walker believes the biggest threats to black Americans are "racism and the criminal justice system that is infected by the disease or racism," and he's showing just that in his book.
The Nighthawk in this title is not, if you're an older Marvel reader, the hero from the old Defenders team book. He's the dimension-displaced vigilante from the J. Michael Straczynski Supreme Power/Squadron Supreme books, now in the Marvel Universe proper. The ... "hero" is stationed in Chicago, of all places, and in the preview of issue #3 we read this:
"The city of Chicago explodes in racial violence, but the nightmare is just beginning. NIGHTHAWK goes to war against a group of white supremacists, but with the cops also hunting him, he may have finally bitten off more than he can chew. And then there’s that serial killer on the loose…"
Also, someone has been "smuggling illegal arms into the city" -- which Nighthawk suspects involves the police. 'Hawk is "determined to keep the guns from making it onto the streets" ... he's "had enough of this @!#$", you see. (Those are the actual words.)
Indeed -- the greatest problems facing urban Chicago are white supremacists and cops smuggling illegal weapons into the city.
Here's what issue #3 looks like:
If conservative white people are upset by NIGHTHAWK thus far, wait until they see #3, in store next week. pic.twitter.com/Qgdi8ko2mX— David F Walker (@DavidWalker1201) July 12, 2016
And if you have an issue with what Walker's writing?
Remember what I said about loving everyone? I changed my mind. Some of y'all can go eat a bag of dicks.— David F Walker (@DavidWalker1201) July 12, 2016
But these figures apparently are immaterial to Marvel. Walker's got a new gig called Occupy Avengers which "is hoping to be rather political."
Occupy? How 2011. And you may remember how the detestable Gail Simone's now-cancelled The Movement did in sales.
Consider what Douglas Ernst asks: "Imagine you are a writer on a Marvel comic book that can’t even sell 17,000 copies in its second month of release. Now imagine what would happen if you logged onto your social media account and mocked 'liberal black people' while flippantly telling them to 'eat a bag of d***s' if they were offended by your work."
Well, Marvel writer Nick Spencer is at it again, this time going after law enforcement in Captain America: Sam Wilson #10:
Even ... "better" -- there's also the character Rage telling a group of young (black) men that it's "time we started hitting back":
Isn't that wonderful?
Interestingly, Spencer retweeted the following back on July 8:
... Spencer, on the other hand, bases his latest story on a different fiction: That police overwhelmingly, and unfairly, target blacks in the course of doing their jobs.
And there's more:
It is exactly this- white are seen as individuals, anyone else is seen within large blocs. It's about dehumanizing. https://t.co/Ghk48Tviz8— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) July 9, 2016
But media do backflips to isolate white shooters while portraying anyone else as part of a larger movement, almost without exception.— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) July 9, 2016
It never fucking fails. Dylan Roof? Mentally disturbed lone gunman. Micah Johnson? Speaking for millions.— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) July 9, 2016
Remember, whether a shooter speaks for everyone of their race/religion depends entirely on whether or not they're white.— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) July 8, 2016
Whites are never portrayed as a "monolithic" movement? Tell that to white police officers across the country. It's never a bad apple or two, but a "culture of white supremacy" (or something) infecting whole police departments.
Tell that American college students who are routinely subjected to "white privilege" and "diversity" workshops (sometimes mandatory), let alone actual courses, which demonize all whites for the ills facing minorities and the world in general.
Tell that to Marvel itself, which routinely lectures its readers (and potential readers) of the need for more non-white characters, and anyone who disagrees is a racist. All the while the vast majority of its creators remain white (and male).
This is what Marvel thinks of you, America. Nick Spencer, writer of one of its marquee books, who uses sources like the Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground and has little compunction about trashing anyone with a contrary point of view (and, God forbid you be a member of the Republican Party) uses the company's published product to promulgate his personal point of view ... and give you the colossal middle finger.
(Image h/t: Doug Ernst)
Marvel's new Nighthawk is not the one older fans might think of -- the Batman analogue who was a member of the classic super-team The Defenders -- but an alternate reality version brought into the Marvel Universe "proper" (due to yet another silly "big -- crossover -- event").
This 'Hawk is, and was, a member of the Squadron Supreme. No, not the version Mark Gruenwald made famous with his mid-1980s limited series, but the one J. Michael Straczynski created in Supreme Power and later a new Squadron Supreme. His parents were killed by (white) racists, and this has made him one angry vigilante.
New series writer David Walker explains his take on the character:
Nighthawk is driven by rage. He is angry with everyone and everything, and he has trouble containing that anger, so he focuses it and turns it loose on what he feels is the most obvious responsible party. Of course, it is far more complicated than that, which is part of what makes this character interesting. Here you have a black man, whose parents were murdered by racists, and he blames the racist ideologies that inform our society for their deaths.
Traditionally, superheroes act as extensions of law and order. They may act outside the boundaries of the law, but when all is said and done, they are at service to law and order, which makes them part of the status quo of the criminal justice system. The problem with this system is that it often falls short of adequately serving black people in America. We have seen this time and time again, when police officers kill unarmed blacks, and the court system fails to convict the killer. The two biggest threats to black people in this country are racism and the criminal justice system that is infected by the disease or racism. At some point, if you are a black superhero, fighting to protect black people, you are going to reach a crossroads where you will realize that you must protect them from the forces of law and order—from the status quo.
Indeed. Get this: The series is set in ... Chicago. And Walker seriously claims racism is the deadliest threat to blacks?? "Time and time again" we have seen men in blue shoot and kill blacks?
Yet again, Marvel's comics division business model is one big head-scratcher.
I've a better title for this book, Mr. Walker: Nighthawk: The Mistaken Narrative.
"Right to privacy" = right kill an unborn child in the womb.
"Right to privacy" does NOT = right to avoid a grown, biological man watching you pee.
In fact, any laws contrary to the latter are like Jim Crow laws, according to our illustrious Attorney General.
That's right, if you don't want your young daughter going to a restroom with a grown person with a penis, you're just like the segregationist, racist bigots of the 1950s-60s South.
Here's what states like North Carolina ought to do: Establish "sanctuary bathrooms" which are (biologically) gender specific. Merely play the "progressives'" own game. And stick to it.
Retweeted by the gnomish Dan Slott:
Free speech & parody are critical pillars of our culture. This kind of attack isn't just unAmerican, it's inhuman. https://t.co/n6MGhOcLtb— Seth Green (@SethGreen) April 30, 2016
What a hoot.
Here's the ultra-PC (when it suits him) Ron Marz:
Seems apparent some dudes need to grow up. A LOT. https://t.co/0Up55ixTEY— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 29, 2016
Lastly, Kurt Busiek on being a citizen:
I think it is a fine and healthy thing to distrust one's leaders. To be skeptical and wary, a constituent rather than a cheerleader.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) May 1, 2016
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton and New York City mayor Bill de Blasio make a racially insensitive joke? "Some" are "cringing," according to the New York Times.
Just imagine if Donald Trump and/or Ted Cruz had done that ... what would the Times' headline(s) be then??
From Newsarama: Cyborg's greatest danger comes from "being a black man living in Detroit."
Writer John Semper elaborates (somewhat):
He faces his greatest danger, which is being a black man living in Detroit. Justice League was once set in Detroit, he’s working out of S.T.A.R. Labs in Detroit, but no one has ever made the city a part of the saga. Detroit is a very unique city; it’s got a wonderful history, it’s got music, it’s got all kind of great things. It’s got a large black population, and here we’re telling the story of a black man in Detroit.
It’s also a city that’s in a great deal of distress, so there will be a lot of stories that will emanate from that. And in a way, Detroit will be a part of Cyborg’s identity, like Batman in Gotham, and Superman in Metropolis. We’re gonna Cyborg a big part of Detroit.
Now, Semper's comment doesn't go into all that much detail, but given what we've seen in modern comics these days one can take an educated guess as to what that "greatest danger" means. Let's see ... police brutality? Alleged "conservative" policies which led to situations like that in Flint? Opposition to gun control? Gentrification?
Perhaps this comment says it best in response:
Maybe they could do something intelligent and brave, like explore how heavy regulations, high taxes, gun control, and suppression of individualism and individual rights (all the things voting for Democrats gets you) have turned Detroit and Chicago, once cities America was proud of, into poverty-filled war zones. Nah. They'll go with the puerile, tribalistic, undergraduate social 'sciences' identity politics getting shoved in everyone's faces from every angle and remind me why I stopped buying comics, watching new television shows, and won't be watching the NFL this year either.
What do you think the reaction would be from the media if Donald Trump (or Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio) supporters actively sought out Hillary Clinton/Bernie Sanders rallies and loudly protested them?
Here's a sample: Just recall the coverage of protests over ObumbleCare from 2010.
Among other things, despite ZERO evidence that racial epithets were hurled at members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the MSM dutifully repeated the accusations every chance it got.
Remember folks, no matter how bad a candidate Trump is, the mainstream media will make him (seem) far worse.
Socialist Bernie Sanders at last night's debate:
California Democratic Representative Karen Bass wants an African-American on the Supreme Court.
But, um, isn't there one already? Like ... Clarence Thomas?
“I think many people would like to see an African American on the Supreme Court,” Bass said. “We don’t really need to go into Clarence Thomas’ background or his behavior on the Court, but I think to have an African-American voice that has definitely not been there since Thurgood Marshall would really be an incredible contribution to our country.”
To his credit, host Al Sharpton clarified -- that "he and Bass weren’t suggesting Thomas wasn’t actually a true African American."
A new Kickstarter campaign is soliciting funds for the comicbook Black -- "In A World That Already Fears And Hates Them -- What If Only Blacks Had Superpowers?"
The "hook": “After miraculously surviving being gunned down by police, a young man learns that he is part of the biggest lie in history. Now he must decide whether it’s safer to keep it a secret or if the truth will set him free.”
From Bleeding Cool (my emphasis):
BLACK follows the story of a young man, Kareem Jenkins, who, having miraculously survived being shot by police, learns that he is part of the biggest lie in history. Kareem must decide whether it’s safer to keep history’s secret, or if the truth will set him free. Rounding out BLACK’s creative team are DC Comics illustrator Khary Randolph, who will contribute covers and additional artwork, and editor Sarah Litt, formerly of Vertigo and DC Comics.
“With BLACK, we’re looking to tell a great story, but we’re also purposefully challenging the pop culture status quo, which is dominated by a White male aesthetic,” says BLACK co-creator Kwanza Osajyefo. “BLACK tackles the very real and palpable issue of race, which is at the forefront in America and around the world. We are trying to confront the issue of race head-on by creating a world in which only Black people are superheroes — and the BLACK superhero trope isn’t subtly cast under a label of mutant, inhuman, or meta-whatever. It is also both thrilling and liberating to create the superheroes we’ve always wanted to see — and, frankly, be — outside of the entrenched publishing system.”
Race is at the forefront of world cultural and social concern? Really?
The introductory image features the iconic -- yet mistaken -- image of "hands up, don't shoot":
Somehow I doubt that that's the "biggest lie in history" mentioned above.
Mark Ruffalo, perhaps most famous for playing the Hulk in the Avengers films, is considering joining Will Smith, Jada Pinkett and Spike Lee in boycotting the Oscars ... because white privilege is rampant in America:
I’m weighing it, yes. That’s where I’m at right now. I woke up in the morning thinking, ‘what is the right way to do this?’ Because if you look at Martin Luther King, Jr.’s legacy, what he was saying is the good people who don’t act are much worse than the wrongdoers who are purposely not acting and don’t know the right way.
It isn’t just the Academy Awards. The entire American system is rife with white privilege racism. It goes into our justice system.
Ruffalo is up for Best Supporting Actor for the film Spotlight; think he'll remove his name from consideration so a black or Latino actor can fill it?
"Guilty" white progressives like Ruffalo never apply their beliefs to themselves. It's like progressives who demand everyone pay higher taxes because "we're all in it together" (as they define "it"); however, they don't send extra cash to the federal treasury. In fact, they often take advantage of every tax dodge their wealthy accountants can muster for 'em.
Does anyone think a mainstream media outlet like the Washington Post would run a cartoon like this about Boss Obama and his daughters??
I now await all the self-righteous media talking heads discussing the racist stereotypes of Hispanic people, including that dolt Jorge Ramos at Univision.
Our pal Dan Slott retweets:
There is absolutely nothing bad in seeing yourself in a character who doesn't look like you, or is another gender, race, etc. than you.— Femmes in the Fridge (@FemmesinFridges) December 21, 2015
Here's but one of innumerable examples. We're sure you've read 'em all before.
In a nutshell, let's rephrase that tweet above from the real 'bat SJW perspective: "There is absolutely nothing bad in seeing yourself in a character who doesn't look like you, or is another gender, race, etc. than you ... unless that character is straight and white, of course."
Really wish this idiot would get his head straight. Just once.
I mean, why else would they tweet stuff like this?
Ben Carson seems like a pleasant man who is crazy. https://t.co/4KOr28WHLA— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) November 6, 2015
Really, though, I must insist that we all begin referring to him as "televangelist Ben Carson." That's all he is.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) November 6, 2015
I don't know why the media are obsessed with this Carson grain pyramid thing when he definitely thinks a man lived inside a whale.— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) November 6, 2015
Geez Ben Carson is lying about everything pic.twitter.com/fKVM4PhCfc— Matthew A. Cherry (@MatthewACherry) November 8, 2015
Hey Ben Carson, at this point in your craziness? Just say you're Iron Man. What could it hurt?— Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) November 6, 2015
Need I remind you what these hypocritical dolts would be tweeting if such was being said about candidate Barack Obama?
Let's take a little gander at a comparison of the two African-Americans -- the president and the would-be president:
Early years and academics:
Ben Carson has admitted to being a punk in school. Born in Detroit and raised by a single mother, Carson lived through what many would call the “black experience.” But his mother wouldn’t let Ben become a statistic. She forced him to read and not watch TV. When Ben was 14, he made a turnaround which he has credited to his faith and good decisions. He cleaned up his act, got great grades and “had the highest S.A.T. in 20 years Detroit had seen.” His stellar academic record is what prompted the West Point’s informal “offer” which he didn’t accept. Yeah, that’s the “controversy.” No, really. That’s the entire controversy. Ben Carson applied to and was accepted at Yale. The only school to which he applied, by the way.
Barack Obama was raised by his white mother in Hawaii. He moved around, including some time spent in Indonesia. He was accepted to Occidental College after high school. His grades are unknown, his SAT score is unknown but from all relevant accounts, was likely below average. So for most information, we just have to take Obama’s word for it. Lucky for us, Obama admits to being a “loafer” who “abused drugs” which isn’t exactly how premier students at either Columbia and Harvard describe themselves…
Obama’s academic records from Columbia and Harvard are still sealed. The media has not investigated at all, because they don’t want to know, and they don’t want the rest of us to know.
Actually, Obama's academic records are not "sealed" by any legal order ... just at relevant folks' request. No essential difference, really.
Ben Carson spent a great deal of time learning medicine, and therefore likely spent the majority of his time with neurosurgeons. Call it a hunch. He also served on the boards of many businesses.
Barack Obama has associated with marxists and terrorists: Frank Marshall Davis a communist poet, Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorn, David Axelrod and many other “questionable” people. Don’t worry. Whenever anyone found out about them, he immediately threw them under the bus.
- Received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008
- Named one of “America’s Best Leaders” by US News & World Reports in 2008
- Received the Jefferson Award in 2000 for “Greatest Public Service Benefiting the Disadvantaged”
- Awarded the Healthcare Humanitarian Award in 2004 because he has “enhanced the quality of human lives and has influenced the course of history through ongoing contributions to healthcare and medicine.”
- Named by CNN and TIME Magazine as one of the nation’s 20 foremost physicians and scientists in 2001
- Recipient of the 2006 Spingarn Medal which is the highest honor bestowed by the NAACP.
- Awarded 60 honorary doctorate degrees and dozens of national merit citations.
- Authored over 100 neurosurgical publications
- Author of 6 books
- Freedom of the City of Cape Town (jointly with Michelle Obama)
- 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
- Best Spoken Word Album Grammy Awards for abridged audiobook versions of Dreams from My Father in February 2006 and for The Audacity of Hope in February 2008
- 2011 Transparency Award jointly offered by OMB Watch, the National Security Archive, the Project on Government Oversight, the Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press and OpenTheGovernment.org
Even the mainstream press admitted they didn't know much about candidate Obama:
It's their own fault ultimately, of course.
As for stupid statements, the media has been on Carson's case for utterances about the Egyptian pyramids, the Founders, and his faith. But what about Boss Obama?
Look, anyone with half a brain knows that Carson is getting this frenzied treatment because he's a Republican. The media shrugged (and shrugs) at Obama's whoppers with a "Wellll, he embellished a little, yeah ... maybe misremembered some details ... so what?"
It's just like how Dan Quayle's boneheaded gaffes meant he was as dumb as a slice of bread, but Joe Biden? "Just Joe being Joe." Nothing to see here.
In conclusion, the media and "progressives" in general have themselves to blame for the complete skepticism of many folks when it comes to scrutiny of Ben Carson and other GOP pols. Which is a shame because if/when one of these folks do utter a legitimately huge whopper (which Carson's West Point saga was not), a sizable segment of the population simply won't believe it.
As for Marz, Waid and the rest of the moonbat comics creators -- you reap what you sow. Racists.
... just remember the following:
Yeah, that's Marvel bigwig Tom Brevoort saying they "probably" wouldn't allow Frank Miller to do a Captain America tale a la his Holy Terror story.
Cap can, however, go after the Tea Party and put forth messages that being against illegal immigration is racist/hateful/xenophobic/outoftouch ... but battle radical Islamic terrorists? INSENSITIVE! INTOLERANT!
And this from Grant Morrison on the Miller work:
Batman vs. Al Qaeda! It might as well be Bin Laden vs. King Kong! Or how about the sinister Al Qaeda mastermind up against a hungry Hannibal Lecter! For all the good it's likely to do. Cheering on a fictional character as he beats up fictionalized terrorists seems like a decadent indulgence when real terrorists are killing real people in the real world. I'd be so much more impressed if Frank Miller gave up all this graphic novel nonsense, joined the Army and, with a howl of undying hate, rushed headlong onto the front lines with the young soldiers who are actually risking life and limb 'vs.' Al Qaeda.
I'd be impressed if Morrison bought a pricey mansion along the US-Mexico border with no fences or other means of security. Or spoke out against the government so that he'd become targeted by the IRS (or whatever state enforcement arm). Or had his healthcare premiums skyrocket after being outright lied to by the chief exec. Or ...
But comics creators at large didn't have to be that vocal about Miller's anti-al Qaeda work, because the innumerable media voices did it for them:
Newsarama: “[Holy Terror] doesn't look at the villains in any way or explore the differences between Muslims and terrorists "a mean and ugly book.”
Robot 6: “ ... the work of someone who was profoundly affected by the events of September 11th, to the point where fear took over from whatever artistic drive used to push [his] work."
Wired: "Fodder for the anti-Islam set."
Comics Alliance: "The slurs against Islam continue as the book goes on ..."
USA Today: "winds up buried under its one-dimensional barrage of patriotism ... the rah-rah enthusiasm for wasting terrorists so nastily would seem more fitting or even a cathartic experience for some."
ComicBookMovie.com: "probably the most ridiculous, shallow, offensive piece of propaganda I think I’ve ever read."
Think Progress: "noxious politics ... viciously Islamophobic sentiments ... twisted thinking."
Las Vegas Weekly: "... in service of an ugly story and uglier politics."
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "a nasty, though visually arresting expression of xenophobic rage against Muslims ... conflates all Muslims with terrorists with a racist gusto."
So, comics have always involved politics, the contemporary creators say? Sure, but now and for many years, the tales have had to be of the "right kind." That trashing radical Islamists is "racist," "noxious," and "ugly," while going after the Tea Party and utilizing a long-time racist group as the voice for a very legitimate and popular political point of view, shows just how far "progressives" and the Democrat Party has fallen.
Idiot Dan Slott wants to play a game:
Cap's fought the Sons of the Serpent for years. Yes, it's 'cause this is Sam. Another big factor in this "outrage": Now we have social media— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) October 20, 2015
I can play a game too:
1) If it was just Sam (as in Wilson, as in the former Falcon, as in a black guy) then why the f*** were conservatives upset when Bucky Barnes-as-Cap went after the Tea Party? (Bucky's white.)
2) Using that "logic," then Slott's pal Ron Marz said the following ... just because it's Ben Carson:
What's funnier here -- Trump still leading, or absolute lunatic Carson only a point behind him? https://t.co/WBwL8YhKFv— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) October 13, 2015
Here's our 'ol pal Ron Marz engaging in racism (hey, simply using his and his philosophy's very own playbook):
What's funnier here -- Trump still leading, or absolute lunatic Carson only a point behind him? https://t.co/WBwL8YhKFv— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) October 13, 2015
As in "the usual moonbat comicbook suspects":
Remember, there's no gun problem here in America. Everything's just FINE. https://t.co/iCfsbSnB25— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) October 1, 2015
Don't let anyone try to stifle your voice and say that this is not the time to talk about sensible gun control. https://t.co/c0PVX8jLzl— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) October 1, 2015
Would you vote for a member of Congress who accepted bribes from terrorists? Ask yours tomorrow: "Do you take blood money from the NRA?"— Ron Charles (@RonCharles) October 2, 2015
Do you ever see these dopes constantly tweeting about guns/gun violence in, say, Chicago after a typical weekend?
Of course not. And if you were like them, you'd call that racism.
The company is "celebrating" the 50th anniversary of SHIELD with a ... "special" issue.
(Before we continue, bonus points for anyone who knows what the acronym SHIELD means -- there's three versions, actually.*)
Fury #1 features both Nick Furys -- the original (white) guy, and the former "Ultimate" (black) version modeled after Samuel L. Jackson. Apparently some crazed individual plans to travel back in time to ... assassinate a young Barack Obama in 1965. (The prez was born in 1961.)
Now, you may ask "Why? What could possibly be gained by doing that?"
All you need do is scope out these panels. There it is -- (black) Nick Fury examining scenes of 1965 America and 2015 America. In the former, we witness a black youth being beaten by police. In 2015 we see -- wait for it! -- the 'ol "Hands Up, Don't Shoot," a black youth standing with his hands raised in front of police decked out in riot gear and pointing rifles at the kid:
Of course, that expression and the whole movement based on it was a fraud, but what does writer David Walker care? He's a got a narrative to push, and in a nutshell that narrative says "Nothing has changed at all in 50 years for African-Americans."
But back to the president. Check out this panel:
Well, duh -- temporal mechanics says killing anyone in the past will "change the world as it's supposed to be." But really -- other than being the first black president, which certainly is a symbolic event -- what has Obama done that has been so "world changing"??
Have race relations improved since his election? Not according to this recent NY Times/CBS News poll:
... nearly six in 10 Americans, including heavy majorities of both whites and blacks, think race relations are generally bad, and that nearly four in 10 think the situation is getting worse.
By comparison, two-thirds of Americans surveyed shortly after President Obama took office said they believed that race relations were generally good.
Anyone remember Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention?
Maybe that's why people had such a positive view of race relations prior to him being elected. Then his actual actions spoke for him, and, well, see those current poll numbers again.
I'm sure writer Walker could care less about those numbers, and would probably blame it all on "racism," as asinine as that would be, natch. It shouldn't be the least bit surprising, though, for, after all, he adheres to the fictitious story surrounding Michael Brown. So hell, why not create a story where we're supposed to believe that, other than pure symbolism, Barack Obama is some mythical, larger-than-life figure whose presence in history needs to be preserved at all costs?
Martin Luther King Jr., who truly is a monumental historical civil rights figure, and whose actions truly effected great (racial) change, would have been a much more logical focus of such a story.
* Original: Supreme Headquarters, International Espionage, Law-Enforcement Division.
1991 meaning: Strategic Hazard Intervention Espionage Logistics Directorate.
Movie/TV show meaning: Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division.
Ta-Nehisi Coates is his name, and is considered (mainly by the Left) one of best contemporary writers around.
Unfortunately, he's obsessed with race. Which, naturally, would explain why the Left likes him so much.
“‘White America’ is a syndicate arrayed to protect its exclusive power to dominate and control our bodies,” he writes in his book Between the World and Me.
And that's only the beginning.
So, it really should come as no surprise that Marvel Comics has nabbed him to write a year-long series for Black Panther.
Coates says he was offered the gig after interviewing Marvel editor Sana Amanat, one of the creative forces behind (the Muslim) Ms. Marvel. Surprise, eh?
"T'Challa will reportedly come into conflict with a superhuman terrorist group called the People that incites a violent uprising in Wakanda," reports Newsarama.
If I had to fathom a guess, the People are white supremacists or, at least, backed by white supremacists. I can't see something that Coates will write as not about race/racism.
"I don’t experience the stuff I write about as weighty,” said Coates. “I feel a strong need to express something. The writing usually lifts the weight. I expect to be doing the same thing for Marvel.”
Yesterday, a 9th grader at a school in Texas brought a homemade clock to school. According to reports, Ahmed Mohamed, a supposed technology aficionado, wanted to show it off to his engineering teacher.
But apparently it began beeping in English class, and when Ahmed showed it to that teacher, she said "It looks like a bomb."
Here's a pic of Ahmed's device.
The English teacher held on to the clock, and, it seems, notified the principal. A little while later, the principal and a cop pulled Ahmed out of class. And that's when things got a little ... silly.
They led Ahmed into a room where four other police officers waited. He said an officer he’d never seen before leaned back in his chair and remarked: “Yup. That’s who I thought it was.”
Ahmed felt suddenly conscious of his brown skin and his name — one of the most common in the Muslim religion. But the police kept him busy with questions.
The bell rang at least twice, he said, while the officers searched his belongings and questioned his intentions. The principal threatened to expel him if he didn’t make a written statement, he said.
“They were like, ‘So you tried to make a bomb?’” Ahmed said.
“I told them no, I was trying to make a clock.”
“He said, ‘It looks like a movie bomb to me.’”
The police believed Ahmed was being evasive. Nevertheless, they ended up not pressing charges after they were convinced everything was kosher.
It's seems highly unreasonable that Ahmed had to be cuffed and fingerprinted.
The police ended up not charging him with anything after everything settled down.
But the social justice warriors were aghast. Automatically, as if on cue, social media lit up blaming the fact that Ahmed is Muslim for his treatment. That (like the quote above says) because his skin is brown.
A popular former Delaware blogger took to social media yesterday too, emphatically stating that "His name is Ahmed -- that's all you need to know."
To all of which I say, "Bullsh**."
Ian Tuttle at The Corner shows exactly why:
And the list keeps going.
As Tuttle says, the story isn't about “Islamophobia” and “white privilege”— "it’s about a few people in positions of authority who overreacted to the possibility of a weapon. Which, as it happens, is a too-frequent occurrence all over the country, regardless of the color of your skin."
The real difference between Ahmed and all those above is that the former got invited to the White House and numerous other places as a result of his school's actions.
You can probably figure out why, in part. That bullet list (no pun intended) features discipline related to guns. All Ahmed did was make a clock that just happened, at a glance, to look like an explosive device. (/sarcasm)
If race/ethnicity played any part in this whole fiasco, in the long run it was to Ahmed's overwhelming benefit. What did all those (younger) kids get for their even more obvious innocent actions?
I dunno. Do you?
John Nolte has still more.
"[T]he book holds 'white readers accountable for their complicity in the real-world situations that the comic analogizes,'" says comicbook critic Emma Houxbois.
But of course.
Read more about the storyline from my pal Douglas Ernst.
Actually, Brady might not have even been a target at all in Deflategate had not now-Commissioner Roger Goodell done such a lousy job handling the Spygate scandal in the early-mid 2000s. Many see Goodell as "trying to set things right" by coming down hard on Brady and the Pats now after letting them off lightly then.
If you still think the Patriots are above board and legit, I suggest you read this exhaustive ESPN exposé.
That's what you do to people who rely on your cash for their living ... but for some reason feel the need to piss all over you if you have different opinions.
You may have read about the nonsense at this year's Hugo Awards. Check out Larry Correia's take on it all if you want to get caught up. Basically, science fiction has been hijacked by those of similar mind to college campus nuts who go out of their way to label anyone who disagrees with them as "racist, sexist, homophobic, etc." All in the name of "diversity," you see.
Scifi author John Scalzi is one of these nuts, unfortunately. Scalzi jumped onto the scifi map with the awesome Old Man's War a decade ago, and while his tale borrows heavily from greats Robert Heinlein (Starship Troopers) and Joe Haldeman (The Forever War), he makes his own mark.
Unfortunately, his subsequent stories went downhill from there. As did Scalzi's relationship with approximately half of his audience due to his smug, I-know-better-than-you elitist style of "progressivism."
One article to which Scalzi links is sadly funny. Seriously, who freakin' cares about the gender/race/sexual orientation of a writer ... as long as the story is damn good?? Not to mention, what has stopped women, minorities and/or gays from entering the field ... if their tales are good ones?
Oh, but guys like Scalzi care. There are now, it seems, gender/race/sexual orientation quotas for science fiction quality. And if you disagree, "[fill in '-ist' epithet]."
John has his latest book out set in the Old Man's War universe, titled The End of All Things. But y'know what? Despite having read (bought) all the previous entries in the series, I'll be skipping this one. Because why should I give my money to a person who openly sh**s on people for (honest) political and cultural disagreements? He's the same as comicbooks guys Dan Slott, Ron Marz, Mark Waid, Gail Simone, and Kurt Busiek.
It's beyond hilarious when so-called "progressives" can't keep track of the politically correct hierarchy and f*** up. Such was the case this weekend at the annual Nutroots Nation lunatic fringe conference in Phoenix.
MSNBC reported that Martin O’Malley and Sen. Bernie Sanders both failed to appease the angry protesters chanting “Black lives matter,” who forcefully approached the stage partway through O’Malley’s conversation with journalist Jose Antonio Vargas.
“It’s not like we like shutting s**t down, but we have to,” Black Lives Matter founder Patrisse Cullors said. “We are tired of being interrupted,” she asserted with no apparent sense of the irony.
“Every single day folks are dying. Not being able to take another breath," she explained to any listeners who might be unclear on the concept of dying. "We are in a state of emergency. If you don’t feel that emergency, you are not human.”
Translation: if you don't side with us unequivocally, you're not worthy of consideration or conversation.
O'Malley made the fatal mistake of saying "Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter.”
He should have stopped right before that first comma.
"Proudly undocumented" MC José Antonio Vargas couldn't regain control of the conference after O'Malley's "gaffe," and then Bernie Sanders' attempt at placating the crowd. And he really didn't try:
Megyn Kelly on Boss Obama's "priorities":
Kate [Steinle]’s murder has since exploded into a national debate on illegal immigrants, sanctuary cities, and crime. With the White House ducking the issue of its own acquiescence in these cities’ decision to flout the federal immigration laws which were duly enacted. When asked repeatedly this week to speak to this case, White House spokesman Josh Earnest declined to weigh in other than to refer folks to the Department of Homeland Security.
A stark contrast to what we saw after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson. A man we know was attacking a police officer at the time of his death. His funeral saw three Obama officials in attendance, his death drew comments from President Obama personally and his administration also sent in the DOJ and 40 FBI agents dispatched to Missouri after Michael Brown was killed. Where is the swarm of agents in San Francisco?
Then there was Freddie Gray in Baltimore, a repeat drug offender who was killed in police custody. Here again his funeral was attended by three Obama administration officials and again the President spoke personally to Freddie Gray’s death. And again sent the DOJ in to investigate. When Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida, the president spoke to his death which was later ruled to be in self-defense. But Katie Steinle, nothing. No comments, no swarm of FBI agents, no DOJ investigation, nothing. Why?
Obama has a bit over a year left in office. If the answer isn't obvious by now, you're a moron.
Jim Geraghty from his e-mailed Morning Jolt adds:
The message from the White House was pretty clear after the Trayvon Martin shooting, Ferguson, and Baltimore: This is a legitimate reason for outrage, and we’re as outraged as you are. The silence from the White House indicates Katie Steinle’s murder is not a cause for outrage. And while Donald Trump made his comments about crimes committed by illegal immigrants from Mexico before Steinle’s murder, the gang-tackling denunciation indicates that quite a few media voices believe that just bringing up the issue of crimes committed by illegal immigrants is somehow illegitimate or morally wrong.
But of course. It's just like anyone who wants a secure border, better immigration enforcement, and no assorted perks for illegals (like drivers licenses, in-state college tuition) is "anti-immigrant." It's a pathetic, sad joke, put forth by "progressives" like Boss Obama and perpetuated by the dopes in the mainstream media.
Donald Trump is an opportunistic blowhard, but his I-don't-care honesty has struck a chord with the anti-PC segment of the population.
The "sanctuary city" bullsh** has to end. As WPHT radio's Rich Zeoli was tweeting last week, why don't people begin thumbing their collective noses at other laws ... and declare a "sanctuary city" against those laws?
Based on Marvel Comics' Brian Michael Bendis's claim that the new Spider-Man isn't one "with an asterisk," here's what his Avengers roster and TOS Star Trek crew would look like:
The "half" asterisks for the Hulk and Spock are due to the former being a plain 'ol white guy only some of the time, and the latter being only half (white)-human.
It truly is amazing the mindset that Marvel Comics has these days.
It was recently announced that the "new" Spider-Man will be Miles Morales, a teen of black-Hispanic descent. Co-creator of the character Brian Michael Bendis appears to have a very warped idea of how young kids play:
The enormity of Miles Morales’ place in comic book history didn’t really hit Bendis, a father who has two kids of color among his four children, until recently. His 4-year-old adopted African-American daughter found a Miles Morales Spidey mask in the toy aisle of a department store, put it on and said, “Look daddy, I’m Spider-Man!” he recalls.
“I started crying in the middle of the aisle,” says Bendis. “I realized my kids are going to grow up in a world that has a multi-racial Spider-Man, and an African American Captain America and a female Thor.”
Many kids of color who when they were playing superheroes with their friends, their friends wouldn’t let them be Batman or Superman because they don’t look like those heroes but they could be Spider-Man because anyone could be under that mask.
As Douglas Ernst (to whom the hat tip goes for this story, and who totally shreds Bendis's insanity) says:
What? What neighborhood did Mr. Bendis grow up in, where little white kids were telling black friends they could pretend to have been bitten by a radioactive spider, but they couldn’t pretend to look like Steve Rogers?
What neighborhood did Mr. Bendis grow up in, where a white kid’s imagination allowed him to be a green ninja turtle, but not James Rhodes?
It must have been a neighborhood that cultivated a mindset which comes up with this sort of logic: “Our message has to be it’s not Spider-Man with an asterisk, it’s the real Spider-Man for kids of color, for adults of color and everybody else.”
This is just like the "bigotry of soft expectations" that many (white) "progressives" harbor with respect to minorities. Just as blacks and other minorities can't, and shouldn't, be expected to conform/do/behave/etc. as the majority population does, they also now can't identify with white superheroes.
But ... whites can identify with minority superheroes, you see!
Does it surprise anyone that a rich, white liberal like Bendis has just inadvertently reinforced white supremacy?
In closing, here's Doug again:
One of my favorite G.I. Joe characters as a kid was Roadblock. When I watched the Rocky movies I loved Apollo Creed. My brother introduced me to Marvel’s Iron Man, and I took a liking to James Rhodes. My favorite football player was Marcus Allen. Likewise, I loved G.I. Joe’s Flint, Rocky’s “Italian Stallion,” Iron Man’s Tony Stark, and the New York Yankees’ Don Mattingly. My “heroes” weren’t heroes because they were black or white — they were heroes because they were just “cool.”
According to Bendis's logic, it's perfectly OK for Doug to have liked all the minorities he mentioned. However, if Doug were black, Stallone, Stark, Mattingly, et. al. would all have to have asterisks after their names -- because Doug would not be able to relate to them.
Because of their white skin.
Comedy Central's Larry Wilmore had a fit yesterday due to some of Fox News's talking heads not immediately diving in with the "racist" label to describe the horrific church shootings in South Carolina.
Saying the network's coverage “makes my fucking head explode,” Wilmore was miffed at
Elisabeth Hasselbeck suggest[ing] the violence was an “attack on faith,” her co-host Steve Doocy also suggest[ing] it had something to do with religion, guest E.W. Jackson outright disput[ing] race-based suggestions about the crime, and anchor Jenna Lee later sa[ying] that despite the “hate crime” designation it’s too early to know what happened.
Since it was pretty clear early on that the killer's motivation was racial hatred, I get Wilmore's angst.
HOWEVER -- how many times have we seen the mainstream media equivocate over other instances of such violence?
Answer: Many. Here's but one (very good) example.
If the MSM -- and the Obama administration -- were consistent, here's how they'd have played out the coverage of the S. Carolina shootings:
In addition, despite the now-silly sounding comments by some at FNC, at least they weren't immediately sucked into a narrative like, say, "Hands up, don't shoot" which still persists among some MSM types despite it's (proven) falsehood.
Why? It enables them to feel socially and politically superior. Case in point. It fits in with their "America is incorrigibly racist and gun-loving" narrative.
Keep in mind these are the same people who write (recent) stuff like this: "If you are around me when Cheney kicks the bucket, the PARTY IS ON! I’m buying.
And, of course, never forget this: "You f***ing Republicans are all to blame. Your advocacy of deregulation for the last 30 years is responsible. The greed that underlies your policies and that invades your supporters was your motivation. You put yourselves and your wallets first, and our country last. You should all be round up and shot. Seriously."
The News Journal's Carron J. Phillips chastises Rachel Dolezal's self-identification as black.
As "progressives" would say in any other case, "Who is HE to judge, hmm??"
Maybe that Politically Correct Hierarchy Handbook will eventually come out so us average peons will know how to, well, navigate it.
Also be sure to get a chuckle out of Phillips' "cultural appropriation" nonsense. Good to see the News Journal is hiring some "original thinkers!"
Lead -- lead!! -- story yesterday at Delaware Online.com: Racial diversity down in Delaware state government.
Reaction of typical "progressives": "My God!! We gotta do something!"
Reaction of normal people: "OK. So? Isn't competence more important than skin tone?"
Nuttiest and completely-devoid-of-reality comment of the article: "Racism exists in epidemic proportions in state government," said Silvester Beaman, president of the Interdenominational Ministers Action Council.
Y'know, over the weekend I watch the ESPN "30 for 30" about Richard Jewell -- y'know, the guy falsely accused of being the Atlanta Olympics bomber. The mainstream media f***ed this guy's life up royally.
And that was in the dawning day's of the Internet. News outlets are in a 100 times bigger rush to get the "scoop" these days. And the "racist cop enacting vengeance on hapless black people" is terrific "progressive" mainstream media cause célèbre, without a doubt.
Facts. Be. Damned.
No, not really, but just consider ...
Writer Eli Keel says "And fans who grew up with a certain version of a character have a hard time letting go of the past. (Also, unfortunately, a bunch of fans are way racist.)"
Of course. So why isn't Keel an anti-Semite -- or, why can't we call him such -- based on his article's headline, hmm? Or, why does he want a black guy to become a popular Marvel villain? Why not a hero?
Of course, social justice warriors are anything, if not inconsistent, natch.
You gotta read his ideas for a rebooted X-Men. Is it any wonder why comics are failing? Who the f*** wants to read about Professor X and Magneto embroiled in the real civil rights movement, them following Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. respectively?
Maybe Keel doesn't get that we're dealing with SUPERHEROES. The whole premise of mutants is to write fiction with a civil rights allegory -- super-powered beings with abilities far above those of normal man.
His solution for "erasing" the Jewishness of Magneto? "... make the many other Marvel Jewish characters interact with and respect their heritage and culture more openly."
Yeah, that'll work. After all, the new Muslim Ms. Marvel's pontificating on things Islamic has resulted in a "whopping" less-than-thirty thousand books sold per month. (If you want to see how these sales figures stack up historically, just Google it. Hint: They suck.) So now we should demand characters like Kitty Pryde ramble on about the significance of the seder plate.
In a superhero comic.
Yet another reason I haven't bought a new comicbook in almost ten years. I'll stick with Essentials and assorted trade paperbacks of great stories of the past.
Check out this example of contemporary "biting journalism":
Yes, that is "journalist" Mark Halperin grilling GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz on how "authentically Cuban" he really is.
Now imagine -- just imagine -- Halperin asking President Obama what his favorite soul food is ... and who his favorite rapper is. Not to mention, asking him to welcome a colleague in a "black dialect."
(FWIW, Cruz's pronunciation [and accent] of "picadillo" was pretty darn good.)
The WaPo is reporting that a prisoner in the same van as Freddie Gray claims the now-deceased Gray was attempting to injure himself in the police van that was transporting him.
Given the police-community situation in Baltimore, how plausible is it that the cops offered some sort of deal to that prisoner to say what he said about Gray?
Meanwhile, one of the biggest idiots in the Delaware blogosphere offers this up about Baltimore and the riots that followed:
The very same tea party “patriots” who have been decrying government and authority for 7 years now are telling anyone who listen that you can never question police authority.
Attention Delaware Douche: What party has been in control of Baltimore for over 40 years? What party has controlled its police department? And haven't African-Americans been running the show there ... including the PD?
But let's make this about the Tea Party.
Attention Delaware Douche part 2: You're a complete and utter blathering Neanderthal.
Attention Delaware Douche part 3: Maybe you can round up those Tea Partiers and have 'em shot, huh?
Two main points in conclusion:
1) There has to be NO excuse for police brutality. None.
2) It's not society's fault for the bleak situation in many of our inner cities. It's the breakdown of the family. Period. A 70+ percent illegitimacy rate is a catastrophe that cannot -- cannot -- be rectified by government ... or, if you wish, "society."
Comicbook idiot Ron Marz is at it again:
Such a coincidence that so many of the people who hate the idea of a black President are pre-hating the idea of a woman President. #Hillary— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 13, 2015
I'll assume #AntMan will trend ahead of Marco Rubio all day. Which tells you all you need to know about Rubio's chances.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 13, 2015
Just remember the "progressive" maxim: Only conservatives are racists if they differ with an "oppressed minority."
Here's a perfect (local) example of what I mean from the not-too-distant past.
In a report today about an assault and carjacking at the Regal Cinema at the Brandywine Town Center, we read the following:
Troopers describe both suspects as black men, aged 20 to 25 years, standing roughly 5 feet 10 inches to 6 feet tall. Both were described as having an average build, but there was no description available on their physical appearance or clothing, Hale said.
What the ...?? Has the News Journal finally grown up?
"Nothing says 'let kill some cops' and refers to women as 'bitches' and 'hos' like rap music."
People at the usual networks/papers would be screaming you-know-what. Even though ... it's often an accurate statement.
On one of the usual networks, we heard this from the editor of Ebony magazine: "Nothing says 'let's go kill some Muslims' like country music."
Has anyone ever heard a country tune advocate, even in a subtle manner, the killing of Muslims? Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue" is about the closest to the meaning, but it's hardly referring exclusively to (radical) Muslims.
The show's host eventually apologized for the idiotic assessment.
Michelle Rodriguez of Fast and the Furious and Machete fame, says her possibly playing the Green Lantern is "the dumbest thing [she's] ever heard."
"I think it's so stupid because of this whole minorities in Hollywood thing. It's so stupid. Stop stealing all the white people's superheroes. Make up your own. You know what I am saying? What's up with that?"
But, as Douglas Ernst points out, the social justice warrior (SJW) hordes must have been out in force quickly thereafter, as Rodriguez later added the following on Facebook:
Hey guys, I want to clarify about my comment yesterday. I stuck my foot in my mouth once again. I said that people should stop trying to steal white people’s superheroes. I guess it got taken out of context because a lot of people got offended or whatever. I have a tendency to, you know, speak without a filter — sorry about that. What I really meant was that ultimately at the end of the day there’s a language and the language that you speak in Hollywood is ‘successful franchise.’
I think that there are many cultures in Hollywood that are not white that can come up with their own mythologies. We all get it from the same reservoir of life, the fountain of life. It doesn’t matter what culture you come from. I’m just saying that instead of trying to turn a girl character into a guy — or instead of trying to turn a white character into a black character or latin character I think that people should stop being lazy. People should actually make an effort in Hollywood to develop their own mythology. It’s time to stop. Stop trying to take what’s already there and try to fit a culture into it. I think that it’s time for us to write our own mythology and our own story. Every culture. That’s what I really meant, and I’m sorry if it came off rude or stupid. That’s not what I meant. So, cheers.
Doug (rightly) says, "When Ms. Rodriguez apologizes for speaking without a filter, what she really means is 'I’m sorry for telling the truth.'”
Before the usual SJWs get on Michelle too harshly, they should know -- if they don't already -- that she is an open bisexual.
Then again, knowing idiot SJWs as I do, that means zilch. Rodriguez should be prepared to be called a "self-hating bi," an "Aunt Tom" and whatever other filth the heinously self-righteous SJW pricks routinely throw against those who dare to veer from their rigidly enforced orthodoxy.
Douglas Ernst has the latest insanity via one of Marvel's "progressive" bigwigs, Spider-Man writer Dan Slott.
You see, if you have an issue with Peter Parker being anything but a white guy, you're a racist. In fact, when describing Peter Parker, the word "white," Slott says, shouldn't be included in the first one thousand words of any description.
He also believes, because Peter Parker -- Spider-Man -- is white, non-Caucasians cannot "relate" to him.
Perhaps most ridiculously, when a commenter noted that Parker's identity as white is "cultural saturation," and that his "grandma knew him [Parker]," Slott responded by saying "My grandma knew Jim Crow laws. Din't make 'em right."
What. The. Hell.
Maybe the heat got too much for the thuggish gnome, for earlier today he tweeted the following:
Saying "Anybody could be Spidey regardless of race" isn't saying he "should be non-white". I'm pretty sure "ANYBODY" includes white people.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 24, 2015
This is typical Slott -- go off on some ridiculous rant where you infer people are "racist," then backtrack. Which, of course, makes him look like even more of a snobbish a**hole.
And notice how he obfuscates "Peter Parker" with "Spider-Man." This is typical goal-post moving. *Yawn*
We then see this most recent tweet from the gnome:
"I'm not a racist, but..." Is a line I've seen way 2 much in the past 3 days. On that note, shutting off my internet & getting back to work.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 24, 2015
Let's be clear: There is absolutely nothing wrong with stating "I'm not racist, but I think Peter Parker/Spider-Man should be white." None. Especially since the character was conceived as just that, and has been that, for over fifty years. It's ridiculous to even include that preface, for what it's worth.
I seriously doubt Slott would take issue with someone saying "I'm not racist, but I think T'Challa/Black Panther should be black." Because it's a perfectly legitimate sentiment. In fact, T'Challa has to be black, Slott says, because that's how Stan Lee and Jack Kirby envisioned him -- a king of an African nation.
Yet, somehow Peter Parker/Spider-Man being white because that's how Stan, Jack, and Steve Ditko envisioned him is ... stupid. And racist.
(By the way, Dan, you do know there are white Africans? That the whole continent isn't a single entity?)
On a related note (and you just knew this was coming!), here's Slott when someone points out that Luke Cage would never be turned into a white guy:
False argument. RT @*** @DanSlott Luke Cage would never be cast as white, and rightfully so. The outrage would be palpable.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
Luke Cage's race is built into who he is and why he does what he does. There is nothing inherently "white" about Peter Parker.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
So, again, Peter Parker being raised in a white New York City suburb by two white relatives, attending predominately white schools, dating white women, hanging out with mostly white friends ... means there's "nothing inherently white" about him.
And why is Luke Cage/Power Man's origin specific to an African-American? Explain to me how that couldn't easily be modified to suit a Caucasian?
Confused? Trying to figure this all out?
Good luck. Slott is a master at making little-to-no sense. As noted, he's already trying to backpedal. I don't blame him, but how/why Marvel lets this dope spew his nonsense as he does on social media I'll never know.
Hell, even ESPN draws the line when one of its employees goes haywire on social media. I'm not advocating that Slott be suspended or anything; however, it would serve Marvel Comics well if it were to tell him, "Act like a damn grown-up and a professional for once, huh?"
No more trying to fool the masses, it seems, from Boss Obama. He's got a little under two years left, and the gloves -- and mask -- are off.
First, no more interviews by "tough" news outlets like Fox. Only "I'll rub your leg" venues like MSNBC and Vox.com.
Speaking of the latter, President Lemon gave just such an interview to them the other day. In it, he fell back to the absolutely lame tactic of blaming Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for "making things seems worse than they are."
Awwww, poor baby. Just imagine how a Republican president feels when he has to deal with every other media outlet criticizing him.
He said that the media is "overstating" the threat of terrorism because of "if it bleeds, it leads."
"Overblown?" Wait -- you mean like how state voter ID laws are "surpressing" black votes? How police are "looking to kill black people?" Like that?
Also make note of how Obama described the shooting at that kosher deli in Paris -- how Islamic zealots (minus the "Islamic," natch) "randomly shot a bunch of folks in a deli."
Except that it wasn't randomly. They specifically targeted the deli because it was kosher. As in Jewish. Y'know, the folks radical Islamists hate.
But President Lemon continues to refuse to even acknowledge such.
Despite the utter insanity of all this, part of me hopes he continues since it'll make it that much better for the GOP presidential candidates come next November.
Only to pen absolutely insane stuff like this, apparently:
The Nation’s Dave Zirin (the same journalist who brought us the genius idea that not cheering for the Seattle Seahawks is racist) wrote a post-Super Bowl column attributing the Seattle Seahawks’ horrible decision to throw a pass on the one-yard line in the final seconds of the game was due to “the politics of race” and an anti-Marshawn Lynch conspiracy.
The theory, as relayed by Zirin, is that Seahawks head coach Pete Carroll called a pass because he wanted the young, clean-cut quarterback Russell Wilson to be seen as the game-winner, not the renegade running back Marshawn Lynch. The only source for this theory is a disgruntled anonymous figure in the Seahawks locker room.
Except, of course, the 'Hawks did give the ball to Lynch -- on first down. He punched his way to the one yard line.
Ahh, moonbats ...
Boss Obama wasn't happy with Mitt Romney's 2012 concession call, according to David Axelrod's new book:
President Obama was shocked and irritated by Mitt Romney's concession call in the 2012 presidential election—and claimed Romney insinuated that Obama won only by getting out the black vote, according to a new book by presidential campaign strategist David Axelrod.
Obama was "unsmiling during the call, and slightly irritated when it was over," Axelrod writes.
The president hung up and said Romney admitted he was surprised at his own loss, Axelrod wrote.
"'You really did a great job of getting the vote out in places like Cleveland and Milwaukee,' in other words, black people,'" Obama said, paraphrasing Romney. "That's what he thinks this was all about."
Right. But if the situation was reversed and Obama had remarked that Mitt "had done a great job of getting out the vote in Kansas and Texas," think Mitt would have thought "in other words, black people"?
... the Congressional Black Caucus says Rand Paul's opposition to A.G. nominee Loretta Lynch is -- WAIT FOR IT!!!!!! --
HHS secretary: Al Sharpton 'has spent his life fighting for what's right' http://t.co/GdYyzXQrNs— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) January 19, 2015
Here's our 'ol pal Ron Marz showing how he dialogues with folks who hold an opposing viewpoint:
Delightful to see the people complaining about #FreeCommunityCollege are those most sorely in need of an education.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 9, 2015
Gail Simone on the attacks in France:
Urgh, just heard about the attacks. Terrible.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) January 7, 2015
And that's her only tweet about it at present. Good thing it wasn't some right-leaning anti-government type who did it, or worse -- a cop who shot an unarmed African-American. Then, her feed would be flooded with tweets!
Lastly, Tom Brevoort retweets this laugher:
Talk about your ever-lovin' straw man to take down oh-so easily! First, who the hell ever blames the entire black race for the actions of a black shooter? And who but the most outlandish extremists (on the other side) blame all Muslims for radical Islamist attacks?
But here's what Tom and his buddies do: For the actions of a lunatic who shoots up something related to government, they hurry to blame the most remote of ancillary evidence on 1) conservatives, 2) Republicans, 3) the Tea Party, 4) Rush Limbaugh, and 5) the Tea Party (again).
Speaking of which, here's some from a fairly recent post, courtesy of Kurt Busiek:
Notice it's not "Hey, c'mon, all politicians use such imagery so let's stop the nonsense," it's an immediate (and stupid) repetition of what the MSM was yammering about at the time.
If Palin was a Muslim, she'd be inviolate to folks like Busiek.
A St. Louis chain of Family Dollar stores is under fire for posting signs that read "Please remove all hoods before entering Family Dollar."
The fact that the signs went up after several robberies does't matter. The fact that without hoods on, security cameras can better ID perpetrators doesn't matter. It's RACIST, dammit!
“I would call it discrimination. That's not right. It shouldn't matter that you're going in there with your hood on. If you're not stealing, and you're buying, purchasing something, what's the problem? That shouldn't be an issue," said one resident.
"Discrimination?" Against hood wearers?
Boss Obama and Eric Holder claim that, regarding race relations, “we are in a better place than we were before.”
Of course, as we've all learned the (very) hard way, nothing that comes out of these dopes' mouths should be taken as truth.
Pew Research notes that a mere "40 percent of Americans approve of the way Obama is handling race relations."
Black approval: 57%
White approval: 33%
Hey, remember how these dolts' Twitter feeds were all a-flutter after Michael Brown's and Trayvon Martin's shootings? And how self-righteous they all were about how incorrigibly racist and hateful society (still) is? And how anyone who disagreed with them was racist, stupid, hateful, extreme, etc.?
But now that several cops have been executed, we hear mostly ... crickets.
For example, here's Kurt Busiek back on the 19th parroting a John Scalzi tweet about supposed Ferguson grand jury shenanigans:
What's even more pathetic about Busiek is that he was one of those who "wondered" if Sarah Palin's "target" language was partly responsible for the shooting of Gabby Giffords:
That, of course, disregards the fact the practically every politician uses such imagery. Nevertheless, there's been nary a word from Kurt about actual language of calling for the death of police. But, of course!
As for Gail Simone, look -- here's a retweet by her about Dick Cheney and torture!
Tom Brevoort was similarly still concerned about that "torture" report with this retweet.
Nothing about the cops, though. But, of course.
Ultra-bat Gerry Conway offered nothing about the police over the weekend, yet retweeted this ridiculous nonsense:
Things HAVE to change in this country. We cannot keep condoning the murder of black persons like their lives are ours to take at will.— Matt SantoriGriffith (@FotoCub) December 21, 2014
The exceptions to all this were Dan Slott and Ron Marz:
Didn't see the news today until now. A horrible tragedy. Thoughts and prayers to the families of the two officers.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) December 20, 2014
The deaths of police officers, a man in a choke hold, or a teenager gunned down in the street are all tragedies. No one should be rejoicing.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 21, 2014
Gotta be fair -- good for them.
Watch as NYPD officers turn their backs to Mayor Bill De Blasio as he heads to a press conference following the murder of two NYPD officers yesterday:
And apparently that wasn't all that faced the mayor:
deBlasio: "We're all in this together." NYPD Cop: "No we're not!"— John Cardillo (@johncardillo) December 21, 2014
(via FrontPage Mag)
I managed to catch the premiere of SyFy's latest offering, Ascension, on Monday evening.
The premise: Back in the early 1960s, the US secretly built and launched an Orion starship -- that's right, starship -- to Proxima Centauri. Those in power were worried about the heating up of the Cold War, and as such wanted a segment of humanity, however small, to survive in case all-out nuclear war came about.
We begin about half-way into the Ascension's 100-year journey. And there's been the first murder on-board since launch, fifty-one years ago.
It is true that we actually had the technology to build and use Orion back in the early 60s. The first question upon glimpsing the interior of Ascension is ... really?
The ship looks too clean and neat. Granted, the producers do a fairly admirable job using technology from the early 60s (television screens, buttons, gauges, print-outs, etc.) but then again other aspects of the ship's tech look way ahead of their time.
In a recent Entertainment Weekly review of the first episode, a critic wrote that the sociological/cultural aspects of the pre-Civil Rights 60s were still intact. I doubt we were watching the same episode, frankly. First, one of the main characters is a black male (he's the ship's XO) whose main job in the episode is tracing down what happened the night of the murder. It seems to me there would be quite a bit more ... resentment among the mainly white passengers when a "presumptuous" black man demands answers from them. Such wasn't evident at all. In addition, another fairly prominent character was the ship's librarian, a black woman. Further, the ship's doctor is a woman, and the EW writer says that sexism was very prevalent on the ship. The doctor alone isn't proof against that; I just didn't see anything to indicate it was much worse than it is today. So, for an early-60s era cultural snapshot, this is pretty darn progressive. Of course, being out in space for a half century could have certainly brought about their own sense of cultural and racial enlightenment; however, I'm just taking issue with the EW writer's seeming lack of knowledge.
How would the US pull such a project off? A trillion dollars ... back in 1963? How much would that equate to in current dollars? It's huge! And how would our competing powers -- the USSR, mainly -- miss such a launch? An Orion ship of this size is massive, and is powered by continuous nuclear explosions. Even given 1960s technology, it's highly unlikely the Russians would have missed that.
How is gravity seemingly so normal onboard the ship? There's no evidence of anything rotating (one of the feasible means of generating "artificial" gravity) so the only imaginable way to produce the close-to-normal gravity evident on the ship is by continuous acceleration. But bumping up to a continuous one gee takes quite a bit of time, and even so -- a continuous one gee acceleration would enable a shop to travel 10 light-years in 100 years' time; Proxima Centauri is only four light-years away. Thus, we can assume that Ascension is not accelerating at one gee. So ... how in the hell is everyone moving around the ship so normally?
Why do we need the gratuitous sex? I'm not saying people wouldn't be engaged in this sort of stuff, but why does a Syfy show like this need to have fairly graphic sex and bare butt shots?
The premise. It's terrific. If they made it much more realistic then I'd probably be on board. Of course, none of this addresses the big "shock" at the end of the premiere which, if you want the spoiler, check out the EW link above.
Which makes this even more silly ...
Oh my: a black cop shoots an unarmed white teen. Grand jury doesn't indict the officer.
No outcry. No riots. No 24-7 media coverage. That last one is key, of course. The media is, and always has been, the driver of stories like Ferguson and last year's Trayvon Martin debacle.
And remember the "reverse" Martin case?
Ah, college students:
Remember folks -- they want your money for their product, but if you disagree with them you're an instant pariah. And if you keep buying their product, they're laughing at you all the way to the bank. Hard.
Courtesy of the FCMM, here are some more creator tweets about Ferguson:
Fear, hate, bigotry, slander, and police corruption won Justice did not. #FergusonDecision— Daniel Kalban (@DanielKalban) November 25, 2014
And perhaps best of all, this:
Get it? Capullo knows Officer Wilson was guilty. He can feeeeeeel it, dammit!
But you gotta give props to Capullo for one thing:
I don't run away from people that have different opinions. I'm simply not that weak.— Greg Capullo (@GregCapullo) November 25, 2014
Good for him, as that makes him quite unlike most in his field.
Nevertheless, FCMM's Avi Green nails it after this Capullo tweet:
I will stand my ground regarding my opinion that there should have been a trial.— Greg Capullo (@GregCapullo) November 25, 2014
Avi: "And if there was he'd come to the same conclusion he did when the jury decided not to approve an official indictment."
The term "charging" is -- wait for it! -- "racially tinged."
It will come as no surprise, but the usual suspects, of course, feel the need to "chime in" because, y'know, they're so "smart" and "up on things."
It's been a while since we've checked in on Gail Simone; but she sure didn't let us down:
Why are the protesters and families of the victims always the ones under the microscope? Why not the perpetrators?— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) November 25, 2014
We are failing.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) November 25, 2014
I don't see how any parent could ever be okay with this. The inhumanity displayed from the event to this moment is shattering.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) November 25, 2014
And then there was this lovely retweet from her:
My 7 year old son just said: "Don't worry mom. If we want to live, we just have to stay home". I'm turning off my tv. My heart just broke— Petty LaBelle (@d_Sassy1ne) November 25, 2014
The sad thing about all this is that "progressives" routinely claim to be those who believe in science -- y'know, deriding
global warming climate change skeptics as lunatics, laughing at disbelievers of evolution (rightly, of course), and right-wing historians who only want to emphasize the good America has done and ignore its sordid side (also rightly).
Yet, people like Simone will ignore all the evidence that grand jury saw, re-saw, heard, re-heard, debated, and re-debated ... all the science. Like, if the person whose tweet Simone retweeted really is worried about her son's life, she shouldn't worry about folks like Darren Wilson, but about residing in a predominately black inner-city community. The chances of being a victim of violence with the latter are magnitudes greater.
Remember, too: this grand jury included three African-Americans. Will these three now be referred to as "Uncle Toms?"
Maybe Simone is doing all this so that she can maintain her "progressive" cred. Maybe she feels guilty because she lives in a state with a black population of around two percent.
Either way, it's ridiculous and irresponsible.
Here are a few examples of some of our other "pals":
Disgusted by grand jury decision in #Ferguson. And not at all surprised.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) November 25, 2014
A Mark Waid retweet:
The #Ferguson Prosecutor McCulloch said that the grand jurors gave up their lives during this process. No, they didn't. But Mike Brown did.— BrianKeene (@BrianKeene) November 25, 2014
A Dan Slott retweet:
I am terrified for everything that will stem from this. This is a full on war now #Ferguson— Salena Johnson (@SalenaMahina) November 25, 2014
Remember, these are the folks that believe in SCIENCE! Except when it conflicts with THEIR political dogma.
And hilariously, many of these folks are criticizing the prosecutor (who's a progressive Democrat, by the way) for lambasting social media's role in the whole Mike Brown saga ... all while posting frivolous social media commentary like "I worked in a prosecutor's office once and I can tell you this is a travesty!"
Meanwhile, here's a "surprise" locally.
Because when someone -- a white person, that is -- offers some blunt honesty, it's merely “the defensive mechanism of white supremacy at work."
That, according to the master of pseudo psycho-socio babble, Michael Eric Dyson:
So, so much for "honesty."
UPDATE: Ian Tuttle on NRO:
The Left has a storied history of transforming legitimate disagreement into mental illness. Utilizing his influence as director of the Institute of Psychiatry of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, Soviet psychiatrist Andrei Snezhnevsky propagated throughout the Soviet Union and its satellites the notion of “sluggish schizophrenia,” a condition from which, conveniently, thousands of Soviet dissidents happened to suffer. Opposing official government policy, pessimism, religious practice — all were symptoms of mental instability, the solution for which was incarceration in a mental hospital.
The People’s Republic of China continues the practice. In September, watchdog group Chinese Human Rights Defenders reported that a blogger critical of the government had been seized in his home and committed. Another activist apparently has been in psychiatric detention since 2007.
The American Left has not set up hospitals, but one can see less extreme manifestations of the same impulse all about. Consider “sensitivity training.”
And certainly this impulse was on display in the quarrels above. How is one to debate whether Rudy Giuliani says what he does merely because he is a white supremacist? “But I am not a white supremacist!” he might object — which is, of course, what all white supremacists say! And when Blow claims that the president’s opponents are desperately clinging to power, how is such an opponent to respond? After all, doctor knows best.
To psychologize the question at issue in a debate is to remove it from the realm of debate altogether.
In today's News Journal: In tech world, minorities remain quiet about lack of diversity.
In other words, the lack of diversity in the tech sector is a "problem."
But ... why?
Here's something that should absolutely not concern you:
About 1 percent of engineers at Facebook, Google and Twitter are black, and around 3 percent are Hispanic. For all the success of women like Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, and Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo, men fill nearly 70 percent of jobs and more than 80 percent of technical positions at leading tech companies.
The article also notes the complaints of some minority tech workers about their "activism" on behalf of more diversity. They're concerned that they'll be seen as less serious or detract from doing the actual job.
Well, duh. Maybe that's because most people could really care less about superficial inanities that really have little to do with the product produced by such companies.
If you're concerned about Ebola, you're ... racist. The headline and sub-headline are sufficient; the whole article will make you scratch your head wondering just how pathetically stupid some people really are.
The problem with the west's Ebola response is still fear of a black patient
Ebola is now a stand-in for any combination of ‘African-ness’, ‘blackness’, ‘foreign-ness’ and ‘infestation’ – poised to ruin the perceived purity of western borders and bodies
The biggest racists must be Africans themselves, then, since (as Insty notes) they are closing borders and imposing travel restrictions.
You guessed it: MSNBC.
Let's go to the Melissa Harris-Perry Show:
GARRETT: "I was on Capitol Hill yesterday. I spoke to lot of the political leadership of the United States and I have to say I was stunned by how many felt the solution was to completely cut off Africa. no visas. no travel. Keep them out. And this is completely missing the point. The hysteria should not be about one person in Dallas. What the world should be hysterical about is that Africa is facing its greatest catastrophic crisis arguably since the days of slavery. This could turn into carnage across a whole region if the world does not assist immediately."
EDOZIEN: "That would never work. Keeping them out would not work. And the idea that you can keep out a whole group of people who are America's partners, whether we like it our not, West African nations are partners with this country ..."
GARRETT: And trying to do that racist. Let's us be frank about it.
EDOZIEN: Exactly. It's borderline racism and fear.
That'd be Laurie Garrett of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Frankie Edozien, New York Times columnist and editor of The AFRican Magazine.
January 2017 can't come soon enough: Justice Department expected to ban profiling by federal law enforcement
Though details are not final, the new policy is expected to prohibit undercover surveillance without specific information about criminal activity, according to the Times.
Current rules, approved in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, give law enforcement wide discretion to monitor religious groups. The changes would extend current bans on racial profiling to religious and other groups, and for the first time would not include an exception for national security investigations.
Radical Muslim extremists in the US? No worries.
Tea Party groups interested in teaching about the Constitution? Must be STOPPED.
RELATED: The FBI is treating the Oklahoma beheading as "workplace violence." Joe Scarborough is having none of it.
Who knew? Who knew that math ... excluded so many? For, according to the Teach For America website, “math has traditionally been seen as the domain of old, White men.”
Hmm. I wonder how the Mayans, then, managed to create their exquisitely accurate calendar long before the rapacious Caucasian came ashore?
Just don't bring up such ... "uncomfortable" questions to those who believe the "OWM" (Old White Men) theory of math. Sure, it'll make them squirm a bit, but you'll most likely be subjected to a litany of the usual PC nonsense, notably that you're exercising your "white privilege."
But I digress. EAG news.org reports:
Judging from the math curriculum recommended, this TFA group, like all other social justice educators, wants minorities to believe that what relates most to their lives in America is racism and oppression.
For example, the site recommends “Critically Conscious Mathematics” and “Radical Math.”
Radical Math was created by educator Jonathan Osler several years ago while teaching at El Puenta Academy in New Jersey. Osler taught Radical Math along-side Cathy Wilkerson, a former member of the Weather Underground Organization (with Bill Ayers) who once participated in a plot to detonate a nail bomb at a dance for military personnel at Fort Dix.
Radical Math provides hundreds of social justice math lessons obviously meant to indoctrinate. For example, lesson titles include “Sweatshop Accounting,” “Racism and Stop and Frisk,” “When Equal Isn’t Fair,” “The Square Root of a Fair Share” and “Home Buying While Brown or Black.”
TFA also includes "culturally responsive" anecdotes such as the following "to suggest that the idea that math is neutral, rational, and logical is a myth and the premise that 2 + 2 = 4 is 'naive'”:
… a European explorer (presumably Francis Galton, the man who invented eugenics) agrees to trade an African shepherd two sticks of tobacco in exchange for one sheep. When he offers four sticks of tobacco in exchange for two sheep, however, the shepherd declines; the explorer later tells this story as evidence of the shepherd’s inability to comprehend simple mathematical reasoning and as “proof” of intellectual inferiority on the African subcontinent. But, if sheep are not standardized units, as there is no reason to believe them to be, then doesn’t it make sense that the second sheep might be worth far more than the first? And then doesn’t our premise of 2 + 2 = 4 look awfully naive?
I cannot think of a better way to keep minorities ignorant of mathematics than by turning the subject into yet another showcase for historical grievances. After all, these students/soon-to-be real world participants won't be able to make change at the store, or prepare the EZ federal tax form, but they will know that Christopher Columbus initiated a genocide against the native peoples of the Americas ...
... many of whom, it just so happens, were pretty good at math.
(Cross-posted at The College Fix.)
In NJ a guy is running for Borough Council candidate is removing himself from the race. Why? Seven years ago he hurled racial abuse at a woman and her child while mooning them. Guess which party he belongs to? I'll give you a hint, this did not make national news and lead to a "conversation" about one party and how they're all secretly racist.
"What's most disappointing is that the Republicans will stoop so low as to seek to personally destroy (Sorrentino) for something that happened years ago and for which he has not only apologized for his words, but also his actions."
Paula Deen could not be reached for comment.
Al Sharpton -- Al Freakin' Sharpton!! -- issues a statement on Atlanta Hawks owner Bruce Levenson. Sharpton "urges" more action from the NBA.
Gag me with a spork.
Let that sink in good, folks.
Via Weasel Zippers:
Say what? A twelve percent drop for blacks since the start of President Lemon's tenure? How can that be?
From the news of "Doesn't Surprise One Damn Bit," Boss Obama's EPA chief -- Gina McCarthy -- says that
"Carbon pollution standards are an issue of justice ... if we want to protect communities of color, we need to protect them from climate change.”
She goes to claim
“In just the first year these standards go into effect, we’ll avoid up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks — and those numbers go up from there.”
“These standards are also doing more than to just address public health. By the time these standards are fully in place in 2030, the average household will also save $8 a month on electricity and create thousands of jobs that can’t be shipped overseas.”
First, how in the hell can McCarthy make such predictions? Given just about everything else related to health in this administration, you can most probably take that 100K and 2,100 figure with a grain of salt.
Second, a whole eight dollars in 2030? By that time you'll be saving -- per month -- the price of a cup of coffee! WOW!
Echoing McCarthy, Deirdre Smith of the enviro-nut group 350.org says that it wasn't hard to make a connection between -- wait for it! -- the events in Ferguson, MO and climate change:
To me, the connection between militarized state violence, racism, and climate change was common sense and intuitive.
"Common sense and intuitive," huh?
Lord help us.
As we noted yesterday, Marvel's Dan Slott -- certainly not the most mature gent on social media -- got hoisted on his own petard when he defended Marvel's use of this Spider-Woman cover by artist Milo Manara.
Best of all, Slott is getting hammered by the Left. And why not? It consistently has been he, and his cohorts in the industry, who present themselves as paragons of virtue, lecturing everyone (especially those dastardly conservatives) about racism, sexism, homophobia, and the like.
Except when their employer(s) needs to make a buck.
Here's what The Mary Sue notes about the Spider-Woman title (my emphasis):
At this year’s San Diego Comic-Con, at a panel called “Women of Marvel,” the publisher announced a new ongoing Spider-Woman series. The series, part of Marvel’s “Characters and Creators” publishing initiative that “aims to speak directly to… women and girls,” joins nine other female-led series published by Marvel. According to company’s Editor-in-Chief, Axel Alonso, these superheroines “are not the big-breasted, scantily clad women that perhaps have become the comic-book cliché” but are “defined by many things—least of all their looks.”
I suppose Alonso has an "out" in that, on the cover in question, you can't tell if SW is "big-breasted" and she's certainly not "scantily clad." You could even argue against the "looks" aspect, although that'd certainly be pushing it. Having a perfectly shaped ass is part of (a girl's) "looks."
Still, it'd be amusing to see Alonso make the above "case," wouldn't it? Couldn't be any worse than Slott's meandering over the matter of this cover. But to the point: How freakin' hypocritical is it for Marvel to state what it did about Spider-Woman ... and then hire a dude like Manara who's known for drawing (overly) seductive poses like that on the cover? And then hypocrites like Slott and Tom Brevoort exercise verbal gymnastics in every way imaginable to justify it?
Nevertheless, Slott isn't giving up -- with being a SJW (Social Justice Warrior), that is. Here he is from yesterday:
Sorry. There is no "reverse sexism." We live in sexist world that's tipped in my favor. "Reverse sexism" only works if we ARE at equality.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) August 25, 2014
In the back and forth in that thread, race is brought up, too. In SlottWorld, making sweeping generalizations about men ("all men are rapists!") -- and white people (Leonard Jeffries, anyone?) -- are permissible, because the "playing field" is not yet equal.
Whatever. There's so much ridiculous inconsistency in Slott's Twitter feed commentary as to defy description. No freakin' wonder the guy is such an Obamanaut.
It's been a while, and I see there was a recent "controversy" over a variant Spider-Woman cover, so let's get right to it ...
... the cover in question can be seen here, and was asked for by Marvel. Now, for the NON fun-extinguishers among us (i.e. the non-politically correct), this cover is no big deal. But for the 'bat creators this should be -- after all, how in the hell can Marvel commission such a flagrantly sexist and objectifying piece of art?
Dan Slott, who has no shortage of the "right" beliefs, amazingly defends the cover, calling the matter a "false controversy." And that's just for starters. Be sure to check out his Twitter feed, if you can stomach the hilarious hypocrisy.
Then there's our 'ol pal Ron Marz, who's miffed -- MIFFED, I tell you -- about some of the "abject and unapologetic racism" seen in Ferguson, MO. Of course, by that we know he means only white racism, but that aside, Marz is "concerned" about that, yet mocks comics blogger Avi Green thusly:
Listening to Roger Waters again. It's enough to drive that nutty blogger guy who follows me crazy ... if he wasn't already crazy.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) August 22, 2014
Not only has Avi brought up what a raving hypocrite Marz is for continuing to back a raging anti-Semite like (Pink Floyd's) Waters, yours truly has, too. Ya'd think that someone concerned with racism, bigotry, sexism, etc. 24-7 (like Marz) would take a stand ... shun Waters for his Jew hatred. But, nah -- the music's good! Funny how that didn't matter with regards to Orson Scott Card and Ender's Game, eh?
In addition, as Avi notes, unlike Dan Slott, Marz is upset at the Spider-Woman cover:
Nobody cares about your explanations or justifications. Own that you did something stupid, say you're very sorry, and then SHUT UP.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) August 21, 2014
Except that ... "If only he'd admit he went overboard with Green Lantern's fridge scene ..."
Lastly, there's good 'ol Mark Waid, who back on the 19th tweeted the following (see if you can spot the irony):
"Non-hyperbolic," yet ... "hands-in-the-air," "in the back" ... Uh huh.
And so it goes ...
Keli Goff, a columnist for The Root, a black-oriented news site, wrote earlier this week that “Before Putting Judges on the Bench, Make Them Prove They Have a Diverse Set of Friends.”
That's right -- what used to be a "progressive" snarky remark ("I bet you also have some black friends!") to someone defending themselves from (usually baseless) accusations of racism should now be used to determine judicial fitness.
“So instead of trying to decode what someone meant when she made a comment about a particular civil rights case, perhaps we should ask more pointed questions, like, ‘How many people of color do you know and know well; how do you know them; and, perhaps most important, are your opinions of them generally positive or negative?’”
Goff based her comments on a study which showed that judges with daughters tended to rule in a "feminist direction" (whatever that precisely means). But it doesn't say that these judges were asked about gender-related matters, let alone appointed based on their responses.
From Reason: Ferguson Cop Who Killed Michael Brown Was "Beaten Very Severely" Before Shooting.
Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Mo., police officer whose fatal shooting of Michael Brown touched off more than a week of demonstrations, suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun, a source close to the department's top brass told FoxNews.com.
“The Assistant (Police) Chief took him to the hospital, his face all swollen on one side,” said the insider. “He was beaten very severely.”
Reason, which has been critical of the police response in the aftermath of Brown's death, wonders why authorities waited so long to reveal this information.
The only source we've seen with this new info -- up until today -- was Gateway Pundit, which, as Reason notes in their article, relies on a single source for this claim about Wilson.
Malik Zulu Shabazz, former chairman of the New Black Panther Party and the president of Black Lawyers for Justice, "informed" (Missouri) Highway Patrol captain Ron Johnson that "his groups, along with the Nation of Islam, are controlling the situation in the embattled city."
Everybody can relax now. (/sarcasm)
There's also been some audio evidence pop up of late which contradicts the "[Brown] was running away"/"He had his hands up" narrative. YouTube has numerous vids and transcriptions of what this witness said.
None of this, however, automatically vindicates cop Darren Wilson. What it does is further eviscerate the mainstream media. Just imagine if this was 1990 and there was no Internet, no Fox News, and very little talk radio.
There's been another shooting of an unarmed black teenager, and what played out last summer is sort of repeating itself. To wit:
Today the name of the cop involved in the shooting was revealed: Darren Wilson. His race, at this point, still remains a mystery, however. Also revealed was the situation which led to the confrontation between Wilson and Brown: It seems Brown was a suspect in a robbery.
Here is the Missouri statute pertaining to the use of deadly force to effect a felony arrest. Based on the police's initial statements, these (at least one, certainly) appear to apply to this case.
To be sure, the Ferguson police didn't do themselves a lot of favors with the delay in issuing Wilson's name and the account of the incident (which, I understand, still isn't 100% complete). Nor was, as noted above, the overly "military" nature of the post-shooting response to protests.
But also not doing anyone favors are responses like that of WDEL's Al Mascitti who today went on a rant about "white people" (especially Tea Party types, of course) being the only ones who support police in this case, and even made a comparison of the "hopelessness" of black communities across the country to that of ... Palestinians in Gaza. (He even said that people "know" Hamas rockets launched into Israel "don't hurt anyone," but they provoke an unreasonable response.)
The details will keep coming out, and the inter-political philosophy squabble of various viewpoints about the incident will make for interesting discussion.
But there's certainly one thing you can count on: The mainstream media has its NarrativeTM, and it will stick to it ... no matter the facts.
UPDATE (by Hube): The latest reports indicate that Wilson was unaware of Brown's robbery activity when he stopped him. Brown and a friend were stopped for walking in the middle of the street and blocking traffic.
UPDATE 2 (by Hube): This site notes that, although Wilson stopped Brown and friend for walking in the street, once he saw cigars in Brown's hand he thought he might be the robbery suspect.
There's a new app for your smartphone called SketchFactor which helps you avoid "sketchy" neighborhoods while you're traveling/visiting an unfamiliar town, but this doesn't sit well, natch, with the usual suspects. Take Gawker's Sam Biddle:
Is there any way to keep white people from using computers, before this whole planet is ruined? I ask because the two enterprising white entrepreneurs above just made yet another app for avoiding non-white areas of your town—and it’s really taking off!
Crain’s reports on SketchFactor, a racist app made for avoiding “sketchy” neighborhoods, which is the term young white people use to describe places where they don’t feel safe because they watched all five seasons of The Wire.
Best response to this comes from Insty's Glenn Reynolds: "For a certain class of people — many of whom are white, work at Gawker, and avoid sketchy neighborhoods with care — everything is racist."
I also direct you to this recent post of mine, particularly the second paragraph.
Olivia Cole, a "poet, author, and activist (of course)," is miffed -- MIFFED, I tell you! -- about the high quantity of those damn Caucasians on the silver screen. And she's GONNA TELL YOU ABOUT IT!!
First, let me note that I am white. I am a white woman who goes to the theater to see probably a dozen films (if not more) in a given year, a white woman who readily consumes TV shows and series and often blogs/tweets about them. I love film. I love what Hollywood could be, but I must say that I don't love what it is, and that is a machine generating story after story in which the audience is asked to root for a white (usually male) hero over and over and over (and over) again. I'm tired. I'm tired of directors pretending that white actors are the default and that people of color are a distraction when it comes to filmmaking. I'm tired of black women in Hollywood being relegated to roles of slaves and "the help" over and over again. I'm tired of films convincing themselves that they are taking on something fresh and new, the likes of which the world has never seen, but in actuality adhering to tired tropes and stereotypes.
"First, let me note that I am white" ... Gee, I couldn't have figured that out by the photo at the beginning of your piece. I bet you have plenty of black friends, too, right?
*Sigh* This is just yet another in a loooooong line of never-satisfied cultural "progressives" who lack the enjoyment gene. How sad it must be to go through life always on the lookout for something to bitch about.
(h/t to Carl.)
David Brothers is a left-of-center writer of things comicbook, and even he is weary of the current way comic companies are "marketing" their move to greater diversity:
Marvel’s making moves to increase the character diversity in their books, and drawing ire from the usual gang of idiots. Which I’m all for, even though I’m way more for creator diversity, and believe is a good thing. But the thing that’s grating is that instead of putting the work out on its own merits and marketing it about how great it is, a lot of the conversation around it has been about the basics that hate it.
I’ve been seeing Marvel folks, mostly white dudes but not entirely, retweet or address or bring up racists and scumbags and sexists while pushing their books, positioning themselves as taking a stand against these people talking trash.
If you disagree with whatever for genuine reasons, but you phrase it as “I don’t like that the Falcon is Captain America,” the reaction to that is now tilted heavily toward “Oh, what’re you, racist?” instead of it being something more reasonable.
Brothers, who is black, nails it closed with this: "Somebody calling you a ni**er ain’t a badge of honor. You don’t show off your gunshot wounds. You don’t crow about how people hate you in the name of making yourself look good."
Thank you, Mr. Brothers.
'Ya hear that (Caucasian) Dan Slott, Ron Marz, Mark Waid, Rick Remender, Gail Simone, and Tom Brevoort, among others?
The year: 1968. A science fiction show called Star Trek makes history by featuring the first interracial kiss on American television.
The year: 1959. A writer named Robert Heinlein makes a Filipino young man his protagonist in what many consider to be his best work, Starship Troopers.
The year: 1973. Marvel Comics' Captain America title features its hero tracking down a villain who ends up being none other than President Richard Nixon himself. The event causes Cap to become highly disillusioned, and he gives up wearing the American flag for a time.
The year: 1980. Writer Gregory Benford's novel Timescape warns of global environmental apocalypse if humans aren't more careful in how they alter their surroundings.
Science fiction has always been an avenue through which creators comment on political, cultural and social matters. Like racism. The nature of society and government. Abuse of power. Stewardship of our planet.
But only in the hallowed halls of academia will you discover such is not enough for this creative genre. No sir. If the creators are not of the "right" color or background, and if the "right" issues aren't being addressed adequately, then there's a problem.
At the University of California, Riverside, a grant was needed to explore "ethnic futurisms" -- because, it seems, "there has long been an unacknowledged tradition of SF written by people of color."
“Alternative Futurisms,” which will launch in September 2015, will bring together African American, Latino, Native American, and Asian American scholars, artists and writers to examine the colonial roots and legacies of science fiction and the power of speculative fiction as a tool for social change.
Science fiction fans and scholars are rethinking what counts as science fiction, explained Sherryl Vint, professor of English and co-director of the SFTS program with Latham. Vint is co-principal investigator of the Sawyer Seminar with Latham and Nalo Hopkinson, professor of creative writing and an award-winning author of science fiction and fantasy.
“The canon is not monolithically white,” she added. “Questions of social justice are emerging, particularly with regard to colonialism, borders, DNA, and profiling. Our seminar will elicit and sustain dialogue among the many peoples of color who are using speculative techniques to combat systemic racism and will seek to displace the hegemony of the post-racial imaginary with a range of ethnic futurisms.”
The "colonial roots and legacies" of sci-fi? Sounds like yet another university-based grievance fest. And who wants to translate that last sentence? Any takers? Here, I'll give it a go:
"Our seminar, comprised almost exclusively of non-white folks, will discuss how science fiction can combat the persistently and incorrigibly racist Western societies, and will strive to abolish the popularity of racial unity themes in the genre and replace them with various racial and ethnic separatist group fictions."
How was that?
Unfortunately for UCR, other than that last deconstructivist-based sentence, there's little new "Alternative Futurisms" offers to science fiction. "Speculative fiction as a tool for social change" is, after all, what sci-fi is.
This story comes about, ironically, at a time when there has been considerable debate within the science fiction community about matters racial and sexual. The rise and popularity of social media, particularly Twitter and Facebook, have served as a catalyst for such. This online brouhaha, for example, between conservative author Larry Correia and lefty writer John Scalzi is a (continuing) microcosm of such. Unfortunately, the predictable accusations of racism, sexism and homophobia by those in the latter camp mar real conversations.
Over the last decade or so, the "Big Two" comicbook companies Marvel and DC have made headline-worthy attempts to "diversify" their ranks -- characters and creators alike -- sometimes by turning long-established characters into something they're not. And, like the liberal (general) science fiction crowd, progressive comicbook fans and creators alike are quick to denounce any criticism of such, however innocuous.
Most recently, for example, it was announced the Marvel character Thor would become ... a woman. (This is in the comics, not the movies, so don't worry about Chris Hemsworth ladies. Oh, wait, was that sexist? My apologies.) Even reactions such as "it's just a cheap gimmick" have been met with angry counters, invoking "misogyny," "angry white males," "marginalization," and, of course, "racism." Like the movie industry's predilection for churning out "reboots" of even classic science films, such announcements, much like comicbook character "deaths," are merely short-term gimmicks, guaranteed to result in a sales boost, however fleeting. I suppose it's just too much work to actually create new (diverse) characters, much like it's the same situation with writing original movie scripts ...?
Science fiction aficionados crave good stories, no matter the race/gender/sexual orientation of the creators or the stories' characters. An all-consuming desire for -- and corresponding knee-jerk criticism toward dissenters of -- superficial "diversity" does little to enhance and encourage the human oneness much of science fiction envisions. Nor, for that matter, does seeking to "displace the hegemony of the post-racial imaginary" with cluttered, separatist racial/ethnic literary enclaves.
Lastly, in terms of access and availability, today there is little to prevent minority science fiction creators from getting their creations out to the public. They certainly don't face, for example, what Benny Russell did in my favorite Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode, "Far Beyond the Stars." All it takes is hard work and a lot of persistence. Just ask sci-fi author great Larry Niven; even a trust fund (white) guy's stories like his got rejected a gazillion times ... but eventually one broke through. And I, for one, am glad he kept at it.
(Cross-posted at The College Fix.)
As reported by Doug Ernst and many others, aside from the ludicrous media stunt that is the female Thor, this fall Sam Wilson -- better known as The Falcon -- will assume the mantle of Captain America.
As Doug notes, this makes perfectly logical sense. Sam and Steve Rogers (Cap) have a long, storied history that dates back to the late 1960s. They even shared the marquee on their book for a time. Early 1970s Captain America features some incredibly biting social and racial commentary.
It's akin to Tony Stark and Jim ("Rhodey") Rhodes in the Iron Man title. Rhodes first appeared in IM #118, but chronologically the duo's first encounter -- Stark as Iron Man, that is -- took place during the Vietnam War. Rhodes first assumed the role of Iron Man in the early 1980s when Stark succumbed to alcoholism. He did it again in the early 90s when Stark's nervous system deteriorated. And, of course, he went on in his own suit of armor as War Machine.
Doug notes, too, how Marvel Political Officer Tom Brevoort continues to make an ass out of himself. Here's what he said about Wilson coming on as Cap (my -- and Doug's -- emphasis):
While Sam shares many of Steve’s beliefs in a general sense, he’s also a very different person with a very different background. He didn’t grow up in the 1930s, he’s a modern day man in touch with the problems of the 21st Century. For most of his professional life, Sam has worked as a social worker, so he’s seen the worst of urban society up close, and how crime, poverty, lack of social structure and opportunity can affect the community. So he’s got perhaps a greater focus on the plight of the common man, and perhaps a greater empathy for the underprivileged than maybe even Steve himself.
First, read Doug's take on the "common man" statement. It fits Brevoort (and many at Marvel and DC) to a tee. Second (and admittedly Brevoort gets more leeway here since he used "perhaps"), what was Steve Rogers?? The kid grew up without a father, he and his mother (who died while he was still young) were dirt-poor, and he endured constant bullying due to his sickly, frail nature. Granted, being white as opposed to black in the 1930s was a whole different ball of wax than it is today, but if anything the Captain America title itself has shown time and time again how socially and racially progressive Rogers is.
One of the most poignant examples, in my opinion, was a more contemporary issue -- an annual of The Ultimates, if memory serves. It featured some in-depth conversation between Wilson and Rogers, with the latter remembering some days during World War II. Steve (as Cap) had just finished up attending a benefit party, and after practically everyone had gone, a few black soldiers approached him asking for his autograph. They had not been allowed to attend the party ... for obvious reasons. Rogers was not happy about that. At all.
Nevertheless, if history is any indication, you can bet that Brevoort and the usual cadre of creators will be quick to assign the "racist" label to anyone who doesn't like this Cap transition, even if it is completely devoid of any racial pretext. Because that's what modern "progressives" do. Just look at how these 'bats react to criticism of our president, after all.
Speaking of Iron Man, in other Marvel news there will be a new Shellhead title, Superior Iron Man. No, it won't be written by that idiot Dan Slott, but the premise does sound a bit like Superior Spider-Man:
"What you're seeing in 'Superior Iron Man' is a Tony Stark who’s seen both his worst and best impulses all let loose," (writer Tom) Taylor told Mashable. "It is Tony, but he’s going to be in a zone now where he’s never been. He's more ambitious, cunning, egotistical ... all of those quantities are unharnessed. He has a vision for the world. I like to think his position is defensible — controversial, but defensible."
In other words, Stark will be a dick. Granted, he's always had that potential, but Taylor is gonna "open it up."
UPDATE: As if on cue, regarding Cap:
Conservative media is gonna lose its mind over the Thor and Cap announcements, ginning up outage from people who have never read a comic.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) July 17, 2014
They will equate a black Cap as another attack on "their" America, yet more proof that some Other is destroying the country.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) July 17, 2014
What'd I tell 'ya? And just wait until the actual stories in the new Captain America come forth. If they're anything like a lot of other contemporary comicbook tales (y'know, like the Cap vs. Tea Party yarn), it'll give even more of an excuse for guys like Marz to call out legitimate criticism as "racist."
But, alas, that's easier than thinking. Which makes sense since there ain't a whole of original thinking going on in the 'ol House of Ideas, that's fer sher.
UPDATE 2: This Graeme McMillan piece gives hyperbole a whole new dimension. Sam Wilson will be "working for a white master" because Steve Rogers will be "running Cap’s missions from his headquarters in Avengers Mansion” and will "also tutor Sam in how to throw the shield," etc.
Boss Obama's Dept. of Justice investigates ... a parade float critical of Boss Obama:
The U.S. Department of Justice has sent a member of its Community Relations Service team to investigate a Nebraska parade float that criticized President Obama.
A Fourth of July parade float featured at the annual Independence Day parade in Norfolk sparked criticism when it depicted a zombie-like figure resembling Mr. Obama standing outside an outhouse, which was labeled the “Obama Presidential Library.”
The Nebraska Democratic Party called the float one of the “worst shows of racism and disrespect for the office of the presidency that Nebraska has ever seen.”
The Omaha World-Herald reported Friday that the Department of Justice sent a CRS member who handles discrimination disputes to a Thursday meeting about the issue.
"Discrimination??" Oh, sure, because this sure is an example of "discrimination," a'right.
My God, 2016 can't get here fast enough.
That'd be Simon Waxman's contention that the US military's naming weapons after Native Americans (like the Tomahawk missile, for example) is as racist as the nation's capital's football team name.
(h/t Doug Ernst)
Yeesh -- here's yet another "progressive" happily proving his bonafides with another article lamenting the "lack of diversity" in, again, the latest X-film ("Days of Future Past"). Just take a look:
You get the point. I wonder what it's like to be perpetually aggrieved ... about something, anything, everything. And the only "joy" you get is by bitching about the most inconsequential stuff.
Melissa Harris-Perry, who unbelievably has a PhD, recently uttered this complete head-scratcher:
You can’t really talk about (slavery) reparations and ignore the modern day wealthy Americans who own teams made up predominantly of black men and profit from their bodies and labor.
Hmm, "according to Forbes, the average salary in the NBA in 2012 was $5.15 million a year. With the average career lasting 4.8 years, that equates to $24.7 million in total compensation" Keep in mind, this is the average.
Soooo, "you can't really talk about (slavery) reparations" without mentioning ... multi-millionaire [black] basketball players, huh?
So opines the sketchy "intellect" of MSNBC's (and 9/11 Truther) Touré, who inexpicably tweeted the following a few days back:
The power of whiteness: RT @hope_and_chains: My family survived a concentration camp, came to the US w/ nothing, LEGALLY, and made it work.— Touré (@Toure) May 23, 2014
What can one say to such ... insanity?
Here's Yid With Lid with an attempt:
I would never deny the horrors black people have faced in the US for hundreds of years, I wouldn't even deny the fact that while things are much much better, racism still exists, in the United States.
But for Toure' to deny that Jews have faced hatred in this country and/or the rest of the world, and still face it today is to belie the truth.
And the Holocaust wasn't simply perpetuated by Hitler, he was helped by the British and the US.
And think about it: "White privilege" somehow "assisted" Jews during the Holocaust: The Nazis, who embodied said privilege and wanted to make it law worldwide, took it, what -- easy on Jews ... because they were white?
One has to wonder what sort of black privilege Touré possesses that enabled him to land a TV pundit gig.
Our DOJ chief did this at Morgan State University, an Historically Black College (HBC) in Baltimore whose enrollment is over 86% black. Yep, legal segregation has long since ended, but somehow, HBCs continue to exist, with percentages akin to the above.
And this -- when diversity is supposed to be the educational end-all to be-all. But where's the "diversity" at an institution like Morgan State where there is less than 2% white population, and the rest spread out among other groups? As Jeffrey Lord notes,
The school at which Holder spoke — had those percentages of race been reversed, with an 86.7 percent white majority and a 1.8 percent black minority — would soon have Eric Holder’s Justice Department swooping down on it to charge it with “disparate treatment.”
Indeed. First Lady Michelle Obama was in Kansas for the same reason Holder was in Baltimore, and lamented “Many young people in America ... are going to school with kids who look just like them.” Uh huh.
*Sigh* Just like "hate crimes" laws, "diversity" applies to only one group.
The chutzpah knows no bounds. "Wheel of Fortune" host Pat Sajak tweeted the following yesterday:
I now believe global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends. Good night.— Pat Sajak (@patsajak) May 20, 2014
Now, anyone with half a brain should pick up the sarcasm and baiting instantly. But not so David Shuster, former MSNBC dimwit (that is, former in that he used to work for the low-rated cable network, not that he is a former dimwit):
The issue @patsajak is that your bizarre rant diminished the significance of actual racism. For that, you should apologize.— David Shuster (@DavidShuster) May 20, 2014
'Ya just gotta love it. A guy from the network that specializes in diminishing the significance of actual racism has the stones to seriously tweet the above. Chutzpah at its pinnacle.
Just when you think invocations of "racism" can't possibly get any dumber, along comes Harvard(!!) Business Review contributor (and self-proclaimed "thinker") Umair Haque with this gem:
4. America's sexism and racism problem isn't invisible. It's right here. How many white people retweet black people; or men women?— umair haque (@umairh) May 15, 2014
Got that? Overt racism is right in front of you -- demonstrated by the "neo-KKKites" who don't retweet posts by black Twitter users. Who knew?
"All In" host Chris Hayes and several like-minded colleagues decided "among other things ... that global warming 'denialism,' opposition to same-sex marriage, and opposition to a 'robust' Voting Rights Act should put a politician outside the mainstream and ruin their chances of holding public office."
Hayes stated "It’s a tool of progress when we say that certain things, like opposing marriage equality, are sort of, like, not the kinds of things that mainstream American politicians ..."
Here we see yet again "progressives," instead of actually debating, trying to stifle any dissent. Regarding the topic above, it is true that the most recent polls show about two-thirds of the American public support same-sex marriage; however, the numbers are even higher when it comes to believing that gays shouldn't be discriminated against -- suggesting that even those opposed to the term "marriage" being applied to gays don't have qualms against [gay] civil unions.
The other items have the same sort of qualifiers.
But even if, say, a hardcore conservative who believes that global warming is a complete myth, that gays shouldn't even be allowed civil unions, and that the entire Voting Rights Act should be abolished decides to run for political office, who are Hayes and his acolytes to say they aren't permitted to do so? After all, there are plenty of morons who hold office (and run for such) on the other side. Should we apply the Hayes standard to them, too?
Ironically, Hayes stated that
global warming climate change skeptics and those opposed to gay "marriage" are akin to 9/11 Truthers. However, two major cable network talk show hosts are 9/11 Truthers, including Hayes' MSNBC colleague Touré. (The other is former Boss Obama admin. official Van Jones who co-hosts CNN's "Crossfire.") If such folks should be banned from holding public office, what does it say that MSNBC and CNN have hired these nuts as pundits??
Hmm, sounds like a movie title. Maybe it will be someday. But not if this professor has anything to say about it:
One professor wrote: "My approach would be to assure this student that going barefoot is not against the rules because the assumption is that by the time they reach college, students are expected to understand why wearing shoes is expected on campus. If s/he disrespects his or her peers and the college community enough to (un)dress like a hillbilly here, I would say, then s/he should be prepared to be dismissed as one, in whatever pursuits s/he favors, in the preference of someone more attuned to proper decorum and respectful behavior."
One can only imagine the reaction if this prof wrote about having one's pants down past your ass, thus showing off your underwear: "If s/he disrespects his or her peers and the college community enough to (un)dress like a gang thug here, I would say, then s/he should be prepared to be dismissed as one ..."
You know what would transpire: Protests by [minority] student groups. Demands for required "sensitivity" workshops. Demands for mandated "check your privilege" training (hey -- Harvard is doing just that!). Demands for a more diverse (i.e. minority) teaching staff.
It doesn't matter, you see, that Appalachia is a historically poor region. Most of the population is white. Thus, in higher ed-speak, check that privilege, 'ya redneck.
RELATED: Almost all "progressive" publications are overwhelmingly staffed by ... white people. But they believe the "right" things, so it doesn't matter. There's a similar situation with modern-day comicbook creators.
One of the concerns of the dirty Donald Sterling matter was the right to privacy -- the expectation that whatever you say in the privacy of your own domicile is (or should be) sacrosanct. Pundits discussed state laws which require only one party's consent to record something (audio or video; most states in the US are one-party consent), and, of course, whether Sterling has the "right" to be a bigot in his home.
Chug on over to Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon where even if you tell a racially insensitive joke between two people of different races and a bystander/someone passing by hears it, you can be brought up on charges:
Lewis & Clark College has declared two students, one African-American and one white, guilty of creating a “hostile and discriminatory environment” after racially themed jokes spoken between the friends at a private party were overheard and reported to campus authorities.
On November 23, 2013, roughly 20 students, many of them members of Lewis & Clark’s football team, attended a private party at a campus residence hall. During a game of “beer pong,” one African-American student jokingly named his team “Team Nigga” and would exclaim the team’s name when scoring a point. The student also exchanged an “inside joke” greeting with a white friend, who welcomed him by saying, “How about a ‘white power’?”, to which the African-American student replied in jest, “white power!”
A student not present at the party overheard the language and reported it to Lewis & Clark’s Campus Living office, which turned the matter over to the college’s Campus Safety division. Campus Safety investigated the alleged “racial and biased comments” made at the party, interviewing the two students and questioning them about the language used both at the party and within Lewis & Clark’s football program. After the investigation’s conclusion, Lewis & Clark charged both students with “Physical or Mental Harm,” “Discrimination or Harassment,” and “Disorderly Conduct.” Although the students’ conduct charges and ensuing disciplinary hearings were spurred by the complaint about the November 23 party, Lewis & Clark made clear that it intended to investigate “[o]ther acts of potential hate speech and bias that have occurred recently on campus” as well.
Lewis & Clark found both students guilty on all charges and rejected each of their appeals. In one student’s disciplinary letter, Lewis & Clark wrote that the student’s language “contributed to the creation of a hostile and discriminatory environment.” In rejecting the same student’s appeal, Lewis & Clark claimed his speech “caused reasonable apprehension of harm to the community.” Lewis & Clark placed both students on probation and required each to complete “Community Restitution” in the form of “Bias Reduction and Bystander Intervention Training,” among other sanctions.
Sterling made legitimately racist comments and was clandestinely recorded to pretty much reveal that fact to the public at large. These two students are friends and if anything, their "racial jibes" towards each other demonstrate that -- gasp! -- we can indeed laugh at each other ... and still be comrades!! Who'da thought? (Idiot college administrators, that's who.) And they're reported on by someone who happened to be passing by?? I mean, REALLY?
Thank goodness for groups like FIRE (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). Their tireless efforts provide that needed "sunshine" as "disinfectant." It recognizes that Lewis & Clark is a private college; however, it
... does make promises of free speech to its students. Its policy on Freedom of Expression & Inquiry states, for example, that students are “free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them and to express opinions publicly and privately.”
How 'bout that.
Thankfully, even many in the L&C community know this case in BS. Forty faculty members sent a letter to college administrators "criticizing the college’s 'questionable treatment of free speech and of our students’ right to due process,'” and the stonewalling by same.
We'll keep you posted.
Asian-Americans outperform whites due to -- wait for it! -- working harder:
A growing achievement gap between Asian American students and their white classmates is due largely to greater work effort and cultural attitudes, not innate cognitive ability, researchers say.
In a study published Monday in the journal PNAS, two sociology professors found that Asian Americans enter school with no clear academic edge over whites, but that an advantage grows over time.
Even if they come from poorer, less educated families, Asian Americans significantly outperform white students by fifth grade, authors wrote.
Who'da thought? I mean, work hard and get ahead? REALLY? B-b-b-b-but ... white privilege!! B-b-b-b-but ... RACISM! B-b-b-b-b-but ... MICRO-AGGRESSIONS!!
The Legislative Black Caucus in South Carolina is demanding Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom apologize for comments he made about HBCs -- Historically Black Colleges. Let's just see what he said:
"I'm committed to the university because it's a university, not because it's a historically black university. I think the sooner this state gets away from the concept of talking about historically black universities is a step forward for this state," he said. "We no longer talk about historically white universities. I think we need to deal with the issues of funding needs at South Carolina State because it's an institution of higher learning."
The Black Caucus said "Eckstrom needs to research why historically black universities exist."
Funding matters aside, I'd imagine Mr. Eckstrom is fully aware of why such institutions exist. But how does that make what he said inappropriate? As we've noted numerous here at Colossus (see here, for one), when the University of Michigan argued before the US Supreme Court about affirmative action, much of its rationale hinged on what they dubbed a "critical mass" of diversity that [supposedly] enhances educational benefits. So ... where is this "critical mass" at HBCs that would enhance the education of its students?
Don't attempt to rationalize it. Because, like much of political correctness, you can't.
Matthew Balan at Newsbusters features how Salon.com yet again is obsessed with pure nonsense regarding the usual race and gender paradigm, this time regarding mainstream superhero films.
...Marvel movies are often praised for being more progressive than your average summer blockbuster...but they're still decades behind the comics....none of those movies have starred anyone other than a straight, white man in the lead role. The Avengers franchise has managed a handful of female characters in non-romantic roles, plus Falcon and Nick Fury in the supporting cast, but the mere concept of an openly LGBT character still feels like a pie-in-the-sky dream. Meanwhile in Marvel comics, Northstar came out in 1992, opening the floodgates for a whole host of other LGBT heroes....
...[T]he chances of Peter Parker coming out in Amazing Spider-Man 3 are more or less nil. Hollywood is (sic) yet to produce a big-budget blockbuster with any kind of LGBT character in the lead role, never mind having an established hero come out after decades of heterosexuality....Considering the fact that white male geeks already have Tony Stark, Bruce Banner, Peter Parker, Reed Richards and Charles Xavier to heroize their nerd cred on the big screen, it's difficult to argue that they still represent some kind of oppressed minority. It's probably time to give someone else a chance.
OK, here goes:
1) The films are "still decades behind the comics" because ... they're decades behind the comics. But that's only because the technology that allows such films to be made (and made well) is a recent development. You couldn't make Spider-Man in 1985. Well, you could, but the result would be like this. Or like the 1990 Captain America flick -- so bad it went straight to video even after being promoted in cinemas. Obviously not big money-makers. Speaking of which ...
2) Does this Salon writer (Gavia Baker-Whitelaw) seriously believe that studio execs would make a move like turning Peter Parker gay? Or any other [of Marvel's] major character(s)? Only if they want to lose a ton of dough. Which they obviously do not. This isn't because they're "homophobic" or cultural dinosaurs; it's because they simply want to make money. And Hollywood makes the vast majority of its cash with safe, don't-have-to-think-too-hard films like Spider-Man and The Avengers.
3) No Marvel movies have featured anything but a straight, white man in the lead role? Wrong. In 1998, Blade came out and was a surprise hit (especially since it was rated "R"). Its star, in case you didn't know, is Wesley Snipes. He's black:
4) Comicbooks (and their movies) don't actually represent real life. Or, they aren't supposed to for the most part. After all, hadn't you noticed that people don't actually acquire the powers of a spider after being bitten by one (radioactive and/or genetically modified)? Or, that we didn't actually have the means in the 1940s to transform a 98-lb. weakling into a superhuman powerhouse? The X-Men, of all superheroes, "represent" societal outcasts and/or oppressed groups. You can decide who that applies to ... and that's precisely the point. Marvel's mutants can relate to virtually anyone -- gays, racial minorities, bullied geeks/nerds, bookworm types, you name it.
Lastly, comicbooks are a much easier medium by which to introduce and/or promote traditionally underserved groups. I understand Baker-Whitelaw's point(s); however, you're not really going to "score any points" by pressuring film studios to make Spider-Man gay, or putting Tony Stark in polygamous relationship. Even altering something like the family of a staple character so as to "improve diversity" gets silly, as with Fantastic Four's rebooted Human Torch.
Unlike people like Baker-Whitelaw (by the way, that last name sounds "racist"), folks could really care less about racial bean counting. They're not "Hey! Johnny Storm needs to be black!" nor do they give a hoot that Blade is a black guy. (And the latter makes the point the best: A very fringe Marvel character with a minority protagonist in an "R" rated film which made a ton of dough.) They just want to be entertained.
By going backward in time: Knicks exec calls for all-black basketball league.
UPDATE: Here's a Sterling-like Democrat, a'ight.
Boss Obama: Comments by Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling were "racist."
Two weeks ago: Boss Obama speaks at Al Sharpton's National Action Network conference.
UPDATE: Clippers owner Sterling is a -- wait for it! -- Democrat. Not only that, he was scheduled to receive -- wait for it, again! -- a Lifetime Achievement Award from the ... NAACP.
UPDATE 2: As commenter dan notes in the comments, it seems Sterling is a registered Republican. However, he has (as dan also notes via his link) donated
extensively to Democrats and Dem causes. Expect to hear the former a lot, now, in the MSM, natch.
Cliven Bundy, the Nevada anti-government rancher who has garnered a lot of news the last couple weeks (and sympathy from the Right), let it all hang out on racial matters recently. And it ain't good:
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
At least the usual "progressives" actually have a REAL instance of racism to go after. And rightly so. Just beware of the typical ridiculous extrapolations to the Nth degree, natch. Because they will happen. Y'know, something like this:
Whereas, back in 2008 when the Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers stories came to light:
Let the MSM swarm-fest commence!
These days there is virtually nothing that "progressives" won't dub the R-word. Because, after all, 1) "progressives" aren't particularly bright, and 2) one thing they do know is that R-word is the modern day Scarlet Letter and an effective negative campaign tool.
But the ever-increasing problem for them is overuse. We all know this, but that doesn't stop them. Not at all. So, the first instance we see today as the latest in neo-racism is ... distrust of government. Yep. New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait (with a straight face) states that "America’s unique brand of ideological anti-statism is historically inseparable...from the legacy of slavery..." Chait claims this even as he denounces other [specious] claims of racism against the GOP by the likes of MSNBC. He says that the GOP is disintegrating before our very eyes:
It exposed a sense in which their entire party is being written out of the American civic religion. The inscription of the civil-rights story into the fabric of American history—the elevation of Rosa Parks to a new Paul Revere, Martin Luther King to the pantheon of the Founding Fathers—has, by implication, cast Barack Obama as the contemporary protagonist and Republicans as the villains.
Except that, y'know, "intellectuals" like Chait are largely responsible for this incorrect perception. I mean, really -- Republicans are the party of slavery abolition and of the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s.
Chait claims that the dissolution of the GOP will be akin to -- wait for it! -- that of white rule in apartheid South Africa. Of course. All this, based on one study of "political habits and history in counties of the Old South."
Elsewhere via Douglas Ernst, Salon.com is at it again. Writer Reihan Salam says that if you're attracted to someone who looks like you, you're ... yep. Salam was "struck" by the considerable number of people who indicated on OkCupid's dating site (yes, the very same site which strongly objected to Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich and his "intolerable" view on gay "marriage") that they'd prefer to date someone of the same race.
Well, my. God.
Mitch Albom has a conversation with Brooke Kimbrough, an outspoken advocate for racial preferences, er, diversity, especially at the University of Michigan where she was -- gasp! -- rejected. This comes on the heels of the recent SCOTUS decision upholding Michigan's referendum which ditched affirmative action in higher education.
MSNBC's The Grio, which specializes in African-American stories, has a profile of Kimbrough. Ironically, it notes that she is a member of her high school's debate team where she and a teammate "were the first African-Americans to win the University of California-Berkley tournament." Based on this, though, one wonders just how that debate was structured, right? Nevertheless, Albom tactfully demonstrates what a complete sham "diversophile" arguments for "needed" diversity are ... and how its proponents easily come apart when pressed:
When I asked Brooke why it's wrong for U-M to set a similar bar (she was denied admission with below the U-M averages of a 3.6 GPA and a 23 on the ACT) she said U-M needed to "represent the state. Blacks are about 14% of the population, so it should be 14% roughly."
I pointed out that whites were 79% of Michigan's population, but officially 57% of U-M's, so should we adjust that up? "That's ludicrous," she said, claiming it should only apply to minorities. I then noted U-M was 11% Asian American, but our state was only 2%. Should we adjust down?
"I don't understand what you're asking," she said.
Of course she doesn't. But if she cannot understand such a simple question, then I wouldn't be so miffed about being rejected by U of M.
Brooke feels that she has overcome a lot. "My essays were about, like, fighting racism," she said. "Getting into (Michigan) shouldn't just be about grades."
But when I told her many students write moving essays, overcome odds, have great extracurriculars (like her debate team position) and also don't get in to U-M — despite higher grades and scores than hers — she grew frustrated.
"I'm doing the best I can in this life," she said. "If it's not reflected in my academics, I don't know what else I need to do."
And it's here, as Albom notes, that the racial aspect becomes irrelevant. He writes that Brooke is just "one of countless kids today who feel that without their first college choice, their future is doomed." I'll add, too, that she is yet another of the current generation who possesses a vastly overgrown sense of entitlement, where rejection of any kind is not only seen as wrong and unjust, but, as Albom notes, Armageddon.
I wouldn't worry much if I were Kimbrough. She's obviously bright (yes, despite botching Albom's questions ... I seriously doubt she "didn't know" what he was asking; indeed, she most probably was seeking avoidance of the obvious and just didn't do it very well) and motivated, so there should be ample opportunities for her after college. At the very least, I'm sure the grievance industry will always have a spot available for her.
UPDATE: I should have been more clear: The ban applies to higher education based on a Michigan case.
Be ready for the "progressive" onslaught of how the high court is "turning back the clock on civil rights" and other such nonsense.
These days, an increasingly diverse group of participants has transformed debate competitions, mounting challenges to traditional form and content by incorporating personal experience, performance, and radical politics. These “alternative-style” debaters have achieved success, too, taking top honors at national collegiate tournaments over the past few years.
Well, if your judges share the same idiotic philosophy, of course you'll score well.
Two black women won a recent debate on whether the U.S. president’s war powers should be restricted; however, instead of actually addressing the topic, they changed it: "The more pressing issue, they argued, is how the U.S. government is at war with poor black communities."
Over four hours, the two teams engaged in a heated discussion of concepts like “nigga authenticity” and performed hip-hop and spoken-word poetry in the traditional timed format. At one point during Lee’s rebuttal, the clock ran out but he refused to yield the floor. “Fuck the time!” he yelled.
This year wasn't the first time this had happened. In the 2013 championship, two men from Emporia State University, Ryan Walsh and Elijah Smith, employed a similar style and became the first African-Americans to win two national debate tournaments. Many of their arguments, based on personal memoir and rap music, completely ignored the stated resolution, and instead asserted that the framework of collegiate debate has historically privileged straight, white, middle-class students.
Aaron Hardy, who coaches debate at Northwestern University, tells of instances where "... judges have been very angry, coaches have screamed and yelled. People have given profanity-laced tirades, thrown furniture, and both sides of the ideological divide have used racial slurs."
Truly unbelievable. I wonder how these folks would feel. What's even more unbelievable is that this actually has to be said in 2014: “I think it is wildly reductionist to say that black people can’t understand debate unless there is rap in it—it sells short their potential.”
Uh yeah, 'ya think?
Chris Hayes comes out and says what we all knew one helluva long time ago: That the network (and, increasingly, "progressives" in general) see everything through the "prism of race":
The racial prism I use to analyze American politics has grown sharper and I think in some ways more pessimistic in the Obama era. I will cop to that, unquestionably. Like, I do think, see things more thoroughly through the prism of race.
*Sigh* Who are the racists, again??
Ah, Illinois. A Democrat minority legislator (I add the description as it's necessary for the whole report), a Ms. Linda Chapa LaVia, was busy ripping charter schools and "appealed to her fellow minorities within the chamber." She snarkily added “we’re all over on this side [of the aisle], right?” but Republicans took issue with that.
“Wait, we have a half. We have a half,” LaVia said. She was referring to GOP State Rep. John Anthony who is apparently half black. Isn't that soooo tolerant? Welcoming? Understanding? Empathetic?
Good thing our president is no longer in the Illinois legislature. He wouldn't rank very high in Ms. LaVia's notions of racial purity. Here's LaVia's yammering:
And that is Helen Ubinas's Philly Daily News article "We allowed Bartram High fiasco to happen." The high (or low) light:
[The whole situation] should sicken and shame us. But if it did, we wouldn't have generations of young people more schooled in combat than chemistry.
Charles Williams, professor of psychology and education at Drexel University, calls it the "soft bigotry of low expectations."
"The message here is that we don't think poor and black [and] Latino kids can learn, that they ought to learn," Williams said.
"Soft bigotry says that Bartram High School is going to be off the hook because well, those are poor black and Latinos, so what do you expect? And so behavior that is not normal suddenly becomes normalized and accepted."
Uh huh. Isn't this the same high school that emphasizes so-called "restorative practices (or justice)," which is supposed to "build relationships" with chronically disruptive students instead of suspending or expelling them? How many times have schools all across the country been treated to inservices and workshops like these? How many times have teachers across the country been told that blacks and Latinos have their own "unique culture" and hence many "traditional" disciplinary measures enacted by teachers and/or administrators are "biased," "insensitive" and ultimately ... "racist?" And, perhaps "best" of all, our own president has issued edicts to address the "disparate" (and "racist") disciplinary rates in our schools.
Astonishingly, Ms. Ubina didn't even once mention what Bartram's students' home lives are like. Now, why would that be? Given all of this, please enlighten us, Ms. Ubina, how exactly -- and realistically -- would you remedy a situation like that at Bartram High?
You say we allowed Bartram High to happen. True. And it happened virtually purely a result "progressive" policies and theories.
"What Can Educators do to End White Supremacy in the Classroom?" Yes, this was more-or-less the title of a workshop at the 15th Annual White Privilege Conference hosted by Madison, Wisconsin this year. It was led by Kim Radersma, a former high school English teacher in California and Colorado. who's "currently working toward her PhD in critical whiteness studies at Brock University in Ontario, Canada." Critical. Whiteness. Studies. You can get a doctorate in that. And the only job available is in the Perpetual Grievance Industry.
Radersma compared being white to being an alcoholic: "What's the first step? Admitting you have a problem." The problem? Whites "carry within [themselves] ... dark, horrible thoughts and perceptions." She became "enlightened," so to speak, while teaching a lower-level English course which was composed entirely of "student of color." The Advanced Placement English course, was composed of all whites and Asians. (Remember, Asians do not count as "people of color" to these nimrods.) She notes,
That experience, and the fact that her boss did not know how to tackle the problem, led her to leave the classroom and work toward her Ph. D. Radersma told the group she realized the problem was the institutionalized racist structure of education and her white privilege was causing the racial achievement gap.
Naturally, the fact that the students in her class weren't prepared for an Advanced Placement class has absolutely nothing to do with what she saw at that school. And, natch, the real reasons for such a lack of preparation.
The rest of the article is an endless stream of far-left racialist garbage. If you can stomach it by all means read the whole thing. I almost became physically ill knowing there are actually people out there like this Radersma buffoon. I'll leave you with this lovely quote from her:
"If you don't want to work for equity, get the fuck out of education," Radersma said. "If you are not serious about being an agent of change that helps stifle the oppressive systems, go find another job. Because you are a political figure."
That of hate crime.
The District Attorney's office will charge three teenage girls as adults in connection with several assaults on Temple students that took place Friday.
Najee Bilaal, 16, Zaria Estes, 15, and Kanesha Gainey, 15, have already been arraigned, D.A. spokeswoman Tasha Jamerson said. Estes and Bilaal are being held on a $100,000 bail, and Gainey's bail was set at $75,000.
Bilaal, Estes and Gainey have been charged with aggravated assault, conspiracy, possession of an instrument of crime, terroristic threats, simple assault and recklessly endangering another person.
But ... no hate crime. For the obvious reasons, natch.
... for a potential Iron Fist TV series, that is. We've been back and forth on this subject matter; on the one hand, making superficial changes in what seems like a mere nod to political correctness is silly (a la making the Human Torch a black guy and/or Dr. Doom a chick), on the other there's the [legitimate] matter of rectifying issues associated with the times in which most of the classic superheroes were created.
Reading through Andrew Wheeler's article about Iron Fist I was struck with a memory of watching the very good Bruce Lee biopic Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story. I recall how incredibly disappointed Lee was when his idea for a TV show -- Kung Fu -- was picked up by a network ... but cast a white actor (David Carradine) to play the title character instead of Lee. Sign 'o the times, unfortunately. And hell, this happened all the time, from the 40s (and before, natch) through even to the present day.
The other aspect that the character of Iron Fist possesses is that of the "Great White Hope" where a white character is "needed" to somehow "save the day" after being placed in an "alien" situation. "Enlightened" Hollywood still follows this mantra religiously, notably with teacher movies like Dangerous Minds where a cultured, white educator comes in to "save" hardened, inner city toughs. Is this not patronizing to the Nth degree? Kevin Chow, who's taken up a petition to make Iron Fist's Danny Rand an Asian guy, notes the "GWH" aspect with regards to Asian culture:
“Never mind Danny Rand, you have Snake Eyes, Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai, Daniel-san [in The Karate Kid], Wolverine, every Steven Segal and Jean-Claude Van Damme movie ever, hell, even Batman for chrissakes!”
Point taken. But Chow would be a lot better received if he didn't dawdle in the ridiculous notion of "cultural approbation," as if that in itself is a bad thing. (Just recall this recent inanity from Salon.com.) If anything, it should be considered a compliment if someone desires to "appropriate" an aspect from another culture; again, the patronizing comes in when the "appropriators" are somehow "needed" to do some "saving."
Chow also glosses over the fact that by making Danny Rand an Asian guy, Marvel'd be perpetuating the stereotype that all Asians know martial arts:
I don’t think so. Look, the problem with the Asian martial artist stereotype is not the art itself. The problem has always been how Asian martial artists have been portrayed in Western media. As someone who has practiced martial arts and admires and respects it, I don’t run away from that aspect of my heritage.
That's pretty lame, if you ask me. It also reminds me of the scene in Revenge of the Nerds where a football player asks nerd Takashi if he "knows karate." Y'know, because he's Asian:
Would Chow say "I don't think so" if one assumed all African-Americans know how to play basketball? Or would that, too, be merely "how it's portrayed?" I doubt it.
All this being said, overall I don't believe it to be a big deal if Iron Fist is altered to be an Asian guy. After all, I.F. is a B or even C-list Marvel character, and this potential series will be on Netflix, not even network or cable TV.
Google the term “belly dance” and the first images the search engine offers are of white women in flowing, diaphanous skirts, playing at brownness. How did this become acceptable?
Women I have confronted about this have said, “But I have been dancing for 15 years! This is something I have built a huge community on.” These women are more interested in their investment in belly dancing than in questioning and examining how their appropriation of the art causes others harm. To them, I can only say, I’m sure there are people who have been unwittingly racist for 15 years. It’s not too late. Find another form of self-expression. Make sure you’re not appropriating someone else’s.
That's just a sampling. There's much more neo-decontructivist PC goodness at the link.
The article is even titled "Why I Can't Stand White Belly Dancers." What might the reaction be if an article was headlined "Why I Can't Stand Black Hockey Players"? Based on author Randa Jarrar's premise, Caucasians should have a right to be upset about blacks "appropriating" a sport like hockey for their own amusement/well being/pleasure. Blacks should question how their playing hockey "causes others harm," and how they're "playing at whiteness."
Gad, PC radical feminists are just too easy to make fun of ...
Supporters were outraged -- outraged, I tell you -- that Adegbile lost the Senate vote:
"You hate to raise that (racism) up, but it smells very bad," said Hilary Shelton, director of the Washington office of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warned Republicans just before the vote that if Adegbile lost there would have to be a "broad discussion" of civil rights in America.
Oh gee, would that be like having an "honest discussion" about race? Y'know, because, as Eric Holder has said, "we're a nation of cowards" when it comes to race? Puh-lease. Race only matters in instances like these -- when a "progressive" Democrat meets a failure like Adegbile. After all, remember Miguel Estrada? He was nominated by George W. Bush for the DC Court of Appeals ... but the Democrats in the Senate used the filibuster to block the nomination. The Dems said Estrada was "far beyond the mainstream," to quote New York's Chuckie Schumer. Estrada would have been the first Hispanic to sit on that court, and is an immigrant from Honduras who immigrated to the US at age 17, not knowing a lot of English. But he ended up graduating from Columbia and then Harvard Law School.
I wonder -- did Ms. Shelton of the DC NAACP speak out against this "bad smelling" defeated nomination of an obviously qualified Hispanic?
Cheeyeah, right. If Estrada was "far beyond the mainstream," then Adegbile was in an alternate reality.
Missing from the analysis: The constant race (and gender)-based attacks on 'em. Funny how this wasn't thought of.
Great job, robin brown (yes, that's how she spells her name, in lower case; she must think she's the next e.e. cummings). You really did some terrific reporting on Harry Belafonte's appearance at the University of Delaware and didn't write a single word about how ridiculously radical this guy has become:
"If you believe in freedom, if you believe in justice, if you believe in democracy," Belafonte once said, "you have no choice but to support Fidel Castro!"
Also in the eighties, Belafonte praised Soviet “peace efforts” around the world. Speaking in October 1983 at a "World Peace Concert" run by East Germany's official Communist youth organization, Belafonte gave his blessings to the Soviet-sponsored "peace" campaign pushing unilateral Western disarmament -- at a time when the USSR was deploying SS-20 missiles in East Germany.
In June 2000 Belafonte was a featured speaker at a rally in Castro's Cuba, honoring the American Soviet spies Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. He lauded Cuba's efforts to "kee[p] the principles the Rosenbergs fought and died for alive."
Belafonte is also now known for his denigration of other African-Americans if they have the gall to be Republicans and/or work for GOP administrations, using the most offensive terminology possible. And the attacks of September 11, 2001? America's fault, natch.
Maybe Robin (oops, excuse me, robin) can ask Mr. Belafonte the next time he's in town how black Americans would fare under a system like Casto's Cuba.
Delaware's own gaffe-laden son utilized what by now is a tiresome, yawn-inducing line yesterday: That voter ID laws are "hatred of black people."
"These guys never go away. Hatred never, never goes away," Biden said during a reception commemorating African-American History Month at the Naval Observatory, according to a pool report. "The zealotry of those who wish to limit the franchise cannot be smothered by reason."
If this is "reasonable," then Plugs, Boss Obama, and the entire Democratic Party must hate African-Americans -- and especially Hispanics -- since a requirement for utilizing ObumbleCare is showing an ID. Not to mention, the Spanish language ObumbleCare website has been riddled with myriad language and grammar errors.
Doesn't this crowd repeatedly tell us that health care is a right? Then why the onerous requirement of mandating a photo ID for these populations which are less likely to possess one, huh??
*Sigh* Anyone who takes this administration even remotely seriously anymore is just a demagogic true believer.
An op-ed in today's Wilmington News Journal by Melva Ware and Laurisa Schutt (the former "a former associate director of the Delaware Center for Teacher Education," and the latter "executive director of Teach For America-Delaware") argues that minority students need to see more faces like themselves as teachers:
The Center for American Progress' report, Teacher Diversity Matters, tells us that students of color taught by teachers of color perform better across several core academic performance metrics. Low-income students of color in particular need to see and identify with a range of caring adults to provide role models and resources to help them imagine and plan for expanded opportunities in life.
Of course, the Center for American Progress is a left-wing outfit so naturally "diversity" is one of their religions. And if you read the report, you won't find a reference to a study showing students of color do better in school if taught by someone "who looks like them." Correct me if I missed it. In addition, perhaps the CAP could explain why urban schools -- which as a whole tend to have more teachers of color -- don't perform as well as other schools with significant minority populations ... but with less teachers of color. Certainly [many] other factors come into play.
And what about Asian students? Asian consistently out-perform every racial/ethnic group in academic performance (even the less affluent in the group), yet they have virtually no teachers "who look like them" in schools. What explains this? Ms. Ware and Schutt share the opinion that "diversity" equates to academic progress. But this is not the case as we've pointed out many, many times here. Diversity is not a bad thing per se, of course, but it's not the end-all to be-all that academic "progressives" would have you believe.
Of note in the study are methods by which to increase teachers of color to go into teaching. The difficulty with this is that every employment arena is looking to increase minority numbers. Education is at a disadvantage since it generally pays lower than industry. I certainly favor streamlined methods to certify teachers (many "required" classes "necessary" for teaching are completely and utterly useless) as the study advocates, but will that really attract the numbers folks like Ware and Schutt want? I doubt it.
... you're -- what else? -- a racist.
No, writer Joseph Phillip Illidge doesn't actually say that, but it's more than obvious via his between-the-lines snark. Just like with our president, any dislike just couldn't be due to his policies, right? No, it's his COLOR, dammit!
Hey, if Marvel wants to change one of their longest-established characters for no other reason than to just do it, go for it. And if those who love this move want to keep referring to those who don't as wannabe Klan members, go for that, too. It's not my fault if you like coming off as microcephalic jackasses.
Philly.com (and many other news outlets) are up in arms over members of Phillipsburg High School's (New Jersey) wrestling team posing with a wrestling dummy with a rival's jersey on it ... and with a noose around its neck. (Philly.com featured this story right smack at the top of its website this morning.)
Tuesday night, the Gloucester County NAACP issued a statement saying that it would request a meeting with Paulsboro officials and would seek an investigation. The NAACP also said it wanted "a letter of apology from the offenders to Paulsboro . . . and the Gloucester County community."
The superintendents of both districts met and said "actions were taken by the district consistent with its policies." What actions were taken, though, aren't as yet known.
Reading through the comments of the story shows a few readers stating that many wrestling "practice dummies" are, in fact, black in color. (If you're skeptical, just see this Google image search of "wrestling dummies" with no reference to color added.) And a Google image search of Paulsboro wrestling shows, well, overwhelmingly white faces. So was this photo really racially motivated?
Yes, the fact that this dummy was black in color, and yes, the fact that it had a noose around it appears racially insensitive. That this picture was taken at all is an exercise in extremely poor sportsmanship ... period. But the NAACP, before jumping the gun on this matter, ought to get its own house in order regarding racial insensitivity. And Philly.com ought to dig a little deeper before, as it does all too often, alluding to "racism."
Well, to be fair, comics nutjob Gail Simone had backed "white privilege" whiner Suey Park up on Twitter, but then refused to outright answer Park's contention that only white people could be racist. But maybe this retweet by her settles the matter:
It is not safe to be Black in America. Antiblackness is lethal, and it has had a global impact that spans generations.— Mikki Kendall (@Karnythia) February 16, 2014
Knowing predictable "progressives" as I do, I surmise Simone and Ms. Kendall are miffed at the trial of this person down in (again) Florida? But unlike a certain other racially charged trial (thanks for the mainstream media, natch), this gent has actually been convicted. It may not have been what certain folks wanted (and the defendant may stand a retrial on the desired charge of murder one), but it's obviously enough to begin another ridiculous "progressive" hate-fest, along with the wildly hyperbolic and specious claims of moonbats like Simone and Kendall.
Idiot WaPo sports writer: Sochi "is whiter than an episode of 'Downton Abbey.'”
Speaking of the NAACP, in North Carolina for a protest against voter ID measures, the group required participants to bring with them ... a photo ID:
Life imitates lunacy in "Progressiveville."
The Massachusetts NAACP is supporting a convicted woman-beater, who just happens to be a member of the State House who was recently booted from the body. Why?
Well, first, his case is being appealed. He was already convicted, mind you, but to the NAACP we should leave him alone until all appeals have been exhausted. Second, there's "there is currently no rule for expulsion that applies to misdemeanor convictions."
Yep, these are the arguments one of the oldest civil rights organization in the country is using to back the woman-beater, Carlos Henriquez. The real reason, of course, is because he's a black liberal Democrat. Sit tight for the accusations of racism. But keep this in mind when the mythical "War on Women" raises its silly head again.
What we do or don’t do shouldn’t be an indicator of gender, or race or sexual identity. I mean, we can make guesses, but that doesn’t tell you who you are inside, and it’s the inside that really counts, or so years of cartoon morality lessons have taught me. There’s no such thing as “not black enough” or “you act too gay to be straight,” because that says more about the person making those statements than the person they’re defining. The United States started out as just some humble little colonies trying to forge their own identity, coming to America to be themselves.
Let that sink in for a moment.
OK, ready? IT IS "PROGRESSIVES," MS. HOFFMAN, WHO DEFINE PEOPLE BY THEIR SKIN COLOR, GENDER AND SEXUAL IDENTITY. That is what. They. Do. This is what Marvel and DC do, via their writers, artists and editors. It's what "progressive" politicians do, too: If you're black or Hispanic (but especially black) and conservative, you're "not authentically black." If you're a woman and staunchly pro-life, you're not "authentically female."
I wonder if Ms. Hoffman is "pro-diversity." If she says "yes," why, exactly? The only diversity truly worthy of the term is diversity of opinion and experience. And Hoffman has already noted that skin color/gender/sexual ID has nothing to do with that. Thus, the supposed need for set numbers -- the so-called "critical mass" argued for by racial bean counters in academia -- is moot.
Via Doug Ernst: This shouldn't surprise a soul:
Buzzfeed Editor Editor Peter Lauria: I have noticed that most of the guests are mostly white males. Of 22 episodes you’ve had —
Seinfeld: Yeah, let’s get into that. Take a look over here, Peter. What do you see? A lot of whiteys! What’s going on here?!
Oh, this really pisses me off. This really pisses me off, but go ahead. [...] There were a lot of things about ‘Comedians and Cars’ from the very beginning — the first ten I did were all white males and people were writing all about that. People think it’s the census or something. It’s gotta represent the actual pie chart of America. Who cares? Funny is the world that I live in. You’re funny, I’m interested. You’re not funny, I’m not interested. I have no interest in gender or race or anything like that, but everyone else is kind of calculating ‘Is this the exact right mix?’ To me it’s anti-comedy. It’s anti-comedy. It’s more about PC nonsense than “Are you making us laugh or not?”
In response, complete dolt Kyle Chayka at Gawker says Seinfeld is a racist:
Jerry Seinfeld, the most successful comedian in the world and maker of comedy for and about white people, isn't interested in trying to include non-white anything in his work.
Which is too bad, because Seinfeld is downplaying the work of everyone from Richard Pryor and Bill Cosby to Aziz Ansari, Mindy Kaling, and Eddie Huang, who are all in various stages of their own sitcoms that just might turn out to be the next Seinfeld.
In conclusion: Yes, comedy should represent the entire pie chart of America, and the glorious, multicolored diversity pie should be thrown directly at Jerry Seinfeld's face.
Hmm. Let's see what sort of "multicolored diverse" articles Mr. Chayka has written of late:
Of course, you see how utterly ridiculous this is. And for "progressives" like Buzzfeed's Lauria and Gawker's Chayka, "multi-colored" and "diversity" are only necessary when it comes to Caucasians. Unless, that is, when it comes to applying the concept to themselves. (See also here and here.)
Maybe next Chayka can do an article on this worthy topic: Using white paper can cause racism in young children. I sh** you not. So says, natch, an “early years consultant who advises local authorities on equality and diversity.”
The very best thing we can do to such complete nonsense is just what Seinfeld did -- laugh at them and look 'em in the eye and tell 'em how f***ing ridiculous they are.
So says Harry Belafonte while on -- you guessed it -- MSNBC:
“[T]hey’ve gotten distracted by the gold,” Belafonte said. “Wall Street that invested so much in the hip-hop culture gave it a lot of gold, a lot of cars, a lot of flavor and that flavor was abused. The lyrics became very anti-woman. They became very anti-black. They used language that constantly diminished us as a people and as a country."
*Sigh* Yet another example of the 'ol "soft bigotry of low expectations." In this case, young rappers were "seduced" by whitey Wall Streeters flappin' Benjamins around. Is there anything for which the white man is not to blame?
"Thug" and "street cred." Especially the former, because that is the "new 'N word.'" And of all people, Bill Maher says so:
"I think it's a very creative way to point out that racism has really kind of gone underground in this country," Maher said. The comedian then said he believed that whenever whites "see a black guy they don't like: thug."
"Because it's socially unacceptable now--unlike when it once was--to say the 'N-word,'" he said. "So that's sort of the word that they use instead."
Charles Barkley said that "street cred," as noted, is a racial slur, too. But it's Maher who has one big pair of stones to say what he did. This -- from the guy who has used some of the vilest language imaginable to trash people he doesn't like. Anyone recall him calling Sarah Palin a "c**t"?
Even while acknowledging that the IDs are generally issued by states for free, Sharpton cited Attorney General Eric Holder and Georgia Democratic Rep. John Lewis in complaining that simply having to travel to obtain the free ID amounts to a tax.
We've been through this sort of bullsh** before. WTF is next -- a stamp on an envelope to get a voter registration form is a "poll tax?" Why yes, as a matter of fact according to Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings. Unfortunately for both Hastings and Sharpton, even the left-leaning PolitiFact (see last link) rates as "mostly false" that voter ID laws amount to a poll tax.
Elsewhere, race-obsessed Attorney General Eric Holder spoke out (again) against voter ID laws. “They’ve come up with a remedy in search of a problem,” Holder told MSNBC on Friday. “I think it is being used in too many instances to depress the vote of particular groups of people ..." He also said that in a "vacuum" he would support such laws ... Cheeyeah, sort of like he would support school disciplinary measures "in a vacuum," eh? Puh-lease.
-- New York City's new [communist] mayor, Bill De Blasio, agrees with the recent "F*** you, Righties" sentiments of New York Governor Andy Cuomo. Is that surprising??
-- Did I mention Eric Holder already? Well, he is sticking by his "nation of cowards when it comes to race" comment from 2009. “Certain subjects are off-limits and that to explore them risks at best embarrassment, and at worst, the questioning of one’s character,” he said. He's certainly right about that -- but not in the way he thinks.
-- The MSM keeps George Zimmerman in the news, this time because George -- gasp!! -- did a painting based on an AP photograph. The photog is threatening to sue Zimmerman. This is big news, folks.
-- Lastly, io9 has a list of Marvel comics the company probably wish they'd never had published. Included are "winners" we've covered previously like U.S. 1 and NFL Superpro.
Who to invite to the 30th Annual MLK Breakfast? Why, none other than Boss Obama's "spiritual mentor," the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And, as could easily be predicted, the rev couldn't resist his usual ridiculous antics:
Tell your children we have some unfinished business on the agenda with the voting rights bill gutted by a right-wing dominated Supreme Court … with mass incarceration robbing black and brown communities of any positive future … with jobs being shipped overseas … with one branch of the tea party being nothing but a 2.0 upgrade of the lynch mobs … with some folks doing everything they can to get that black man out of their White House.
When he was done, the rev got a standing O, and was "swarmed" by an adoring crowd.
Meanwhile, the city continues to suffer from out-of-control violence, not to mention family and societal breakdown, but Wright thinks one of the biggest threats to black Americans is ... the Tea Party. But hey, WTF can one expect from the guy whose church put out a pamphlet which stated
... Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs?
Wright doesn't seem to like Jews much. When asked if he had spoken to Boss Obama a few months after the latter's 2008 election, he said, "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me." He's also the guy who used the anniversary of the Dec. 7 Pearl Harbor attack to rip the United States for using its A-bombs to end the war which the Japanese started. Oh, and don't forget his praising of the "no-nonsense Marxism" of the communist FSLN (Nicaragua) and FMLN (El Salvador).
RELATED: After a mere year on the job, the Wilmington Chief of Police (the first woman appointed to the gig) is retiring. I don't blame her one damn bit.
You've probably seen this by now: Obama blames racism for poor poll numbers.
President Barack Obama said that racial tensions may have softened his popularity among white voters within the last two years, according to a story posted on the New Yorker magazine’s website today.
“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president,” Obama said in the article by David Remnick, appearing in the magazine’s Jan. 27 edition.
Hmm, this guy gets elected twice but NOW when his poll numbers begin to really tank it's racism? It just couldn't be, y'know, the unbridled clusterf*** that is ObumbleCare, right?
Buuuuut, let's not be too hard on Prez Lemon; he did tell us to consider the "flip side": "Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black president.” "Some" to Boss Obama must mean (in certain cases) "over 95%" since that's the rough percentage of blacks who voted for him.
All in all, this little anecdote should be no surprise whatsoever. It's meant to evoke [white] guilt and [black] "I told you so's." And, like pretty much everything else in his pathetic administration, it puts blame everywhere but on him.
Fox News reporter Adam Housley is married to Sister, Sister star Tamera Mowry. So, what is the big deal? Well, Housley is white, and Mowry, [half] black. That is a problem in this day and age? Apparently so. If you're a "progressive" reading this, I'm sure you're all upset about those evil, racist Tea Party types for making an issue of this couple's marriage, Correct? Not quite:
In a recent interview with OWN, an emotional Mowry said she has “never experienced so much hate ever in my life.” She said she gets called “white man’s whore” and receives comments like “back in the day you cost $300, but now you’re giving it to him for free.”
She added that an especially hurtful remark she saw online involved her twin sister, Tia who is married to actor Cory Hardrict. 'They say, 'Oh, Tia's a true black woman because she married a black man,' Tamera said. 'Oh – I'm less of a black person because I married white?' (Source, source.)
Maybe it's because Mowry married ... someone who works at Fox News.
As Michelle Malkin (who has endured her own fair share of racial epithets at the hands of "tolerant progressives") notes, "We’re leaning backward in the regressive Age of Hope and Change." She reminds us of the racial hatred exhibited in the mainstream media over notable black-white marriages -- where at least one party is conservative:
And remember -- if a [black] student says something like the above in a public school, forget about any disciplinary measures for harassment/bullying/etc. That would be discriminatory.
A woman was shocked -- SHOCKED, I tell you -- that the term "Negro" was an option for "race" on a juror form:
Raeana Roberson, 25, who is black, received the form on Monday from the Queens County courthouse when called in for jury duty. 'I felt shocked and upset and totally disrespected,' Roberson told The Huffington Post.
Roberson shared her anger on Facebook, snapping a picture of the form and writing the caption 'REALLY? "Negro"...that I am not. Hello 2014? ...jury duty..'
No word on whether Roberson has sent a letter of complaint to the NAACP -- National Association for the Advancement of Colored People -- or to the United Negro College Fund.
This should come as little surprise, nor should the paper's lies:
For example, African-American students represent only 15 percent of public school students, but they make of 35 percent of students suspended once, 44 percent of those suspended more than once and 36 percent of those expelled. Statistical information does not in itself prove discrimination. But research has shown that black students do not engage in more serious or more frequent misbehavior than other students.
Just don't ask they Times about that research. Because it's nonsense. As a former Education Dept. lawyer rebuts:
The Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Armstrong (1996) that there is no legal “presumption that people of all races commit all types of crimes” at the same rate, since that is “contradicted by” real world data. For example, blacks, who are only 13% of America’s population, commit nearly half of all murders — four times the general rate.
[As] Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has noted, black teenagers are 25 times as likely to get arrested in Chicago as whites, and the black homicide rate for teenagers is 10 times higher nationally than for whites.
Yet, incredibly, the Education Departments treats that false presumption as fact, and insists that there is no evidence of “more frequent” misbehavior by some groups, and that ”research suggests that the substantial racial disparities of the kind reflected in the CRDC data are not explained by more frequent or more serious misbehavior by students of color.”
And check out where the Times says that there are "two kinds of discrimination": "... and cases where policies — like mandatory suspension, expulsion or ticketing — are administered in a race-neutral manner but have a disproportionate and unjustified effect on students of a particular race." This is pure Orwellian nonsense at its finest. How is it "discrimination" when the policies are administered in a RACE-NEUTRAL MANNER?? How, and on what basis, is this "unjustified?"
As previously noted, two US Supreme Courts cases -- United States v. Armstrong and People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education -- have established that what the Dept. of Education plans on doing in our schools is clearly unconstitutional.
There's a lot more here.
RELATED: The Wilmington (DE) News Journal agrees with the Times ("The statistics are on [the Obama administration's] side. Minority students and students with disabilities suffer more and greater discipline for transgressions than white students do. It is happening across the country, but a handful of states standout. Unfortunately, Delaware is one of them."); however, they offer this common sense caveat:
The trouble with the Holder-Duncan order is that the federal data is incomplete and the policy offers schools little help in fixing the problem. We are afraid it will merely create another federal mandate to fill out more paperwork merely for the sake of filling an in-basket in Washington.
In addition, as we noted in our last post, the Journal recognizes the Catch-22 schools are in:
Only a few years ago, after the shootings at Columbine and again at Newtown, Conn., the public – and elected officials – demanded armed guards in schools and zero tolerance policies for transgressions. Now the complaint is that the guards are leading to more arrests and zero tolerance policies are mindless bureaucratic traps. The schools will be criticized no matter which way they turn.
Indeed. What this is, folks, is an edict for outright denial of reality. The feds are mandating that teachers and administrators live in the Land of Make Believe.
ALSO RELATED: Linda Chavez tears apart this nonsense.
The Obama administration is seeking racial quotas in the nation's public schools. No, not quotas for some perceived racial balance just for a school's population, but for the number of students disciplined. In other words, if the discipline figures for a school don't more or less equal that of the school's [racial] population ... then it's racist.
It’s part of a larger effort — backed by teachers unions, civil rights advocacy groups and other organizations — to combat the “school-to-prison pipeline,” in which minority students are disproportionately kicked out of school and subsequently end up in the criminal justice system.
But within its guidance, most of which is not controversial and merely reinforces existing nondiscrimination laws, the administration also declares that schools’ disciplinary policies cannot have a “disparate impact” on one particular group.
In plain terms, it means district rules, guidelines and enforcement cannot result in the punishment of more black students than white students for the same offense, for example.
With that in mind, school leaders surely will keep a close eye on whether the same number of children from given racial groups are disciplined in equal number and equal measure for the same behavior.
“You have to make certain that your school discipline cases match those percentages. If you don’t, you’ll have the feds on your doorstep,” said Joshua Dunn, a political science professor at the University of Colorado and director of the university’s Center for Legal Studies. “If they actually do enforce these guidelines, there will be unintended consequences. This creates some rather destructive incentives. I don’t think there’s any way around that.”
The feds are pushing methods "for creating safe and positive school climates, which are essential for boosting student academic success and closing achievement gaps.” In other words, things the schools should be doing that parents used to. Yet another thing on teachers' and administrators' plates all the while politicians clamor for accountability on the academic front. At any rate, you now can't just kick a kid out of the classroom for being a constant disruption; you have to find out why the kid is doing what he's doing, and then take actions to help "remedy" it. You know, while your 30+ other kids are still sitting in class awaiting instruction. Take a look at the doublespeak and wishful thinking on the part of the feds:
"Maintaining safe and supportive school climates is absolutely critical, and we are concerned about the rising rates and disparities in discipline in our nation’s schools,” said Secretary Duncan. “By teaming up with stakeholders on this issue and through the work of our offices throughout the department, we hope to promote strategies that will engage students in learning and keep them safe.”
Requiring racial quotas in discipline will make schools and classrooms anything but safe and supportive. Why in the world does the government care more about the chronic problem students than the vast majority of students who wish to ... learn?
Hans Bader, a former attorney with the [federal] Education Dept., notes that ultimately, this sort of federal "oversight" could get it into trouble:
“The only practical way for a school system to comply with the Education Department’s demands is to adopt a de facto racial quota in discipline. But this itself puts the school system in legal jeopardy, since at least one federal appeals court has said that schools cannot use racial targets or quotas for school discipline, since that violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.”
Bader added that in the case of People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, the court ruled that “a school cannot use race in student discipline to offset racial disparities not rooted in school officials’ racism (so-called “disparate impact”).”
Bader adds that, regarding People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education,
... it didn’t just strike down overt use of race to achieve a racial target or racial balancing. It voided even the requirement of racial balance, thus disposing of any potential argument by the Education Department that it’s OK to require racial targets or balancing, as long as the school is merely told to achieve the target, but not (explicitly) told to use race to achieve it.
So, maybe a school district that'd be willing to stand up to Eric Holder and Arne Duncan (good luck, though -- money, after all) can emphasize this case, among others. Others such as United States v. Armstrong (an 8-1 decision) which held that "crime rates are not the same for different races, and that racial disparities in crime rates and conviction rates are not proof of racial discrimination." Bader continues that not disciplining black students for misbehavior or some other violation just because some other black students were previously disciplined (more than white students) is "as crazy as ordering police to stop arresting black criminals just because they previously arrested more blacks than whites."
The feds state also that even if a school discipline policy "is neutral on its face," and "is administered in an evenhanded manner," if it has that disparate impact on students of a particular race, it's bad. Ironically however, policies like much maligned "zero tolerance" measures (those applied to whomever no matter what whenever the policy is violated) came about partly because school officials were fearful of "lawsuits charging that principals disciplined unequally based on race or other factors." Setting straight, specific guidelines enabled administrators to say "Look, you did this. This is the consequence. It's written right here." Schools set up their own codes of conduct which did the same thing. But then ... the racial numbers still weren't "balanced" after the implementation of these measures! B-b-b-b-but ...! (Also take a look at Kilroy's coverage of Delaware's Christina School District's intervention by the feds regarding disparate disciplinary measures. One of the points of contention was that, yes, the district was using terminology that was too subjective, thus making the point about the origin of zero tolerance policies. What a Catch-22. A school board member even noted that the district's definition of "inappropriate behavior" needed to be "thoroughly defined.")
Let's cut to the chase: As was alluded to above, if law enforcement was required to arrest people in proportion to their numbers in the general population, the result would be chaos. Crime would be beyond rampant and society would crumble. (UPDATE: Has this already begun?) Why should we expect schools, then, to follow such a ridiculous idea? Would you want your child to attend a school where the most chronically disruptive students weren't only not removed from your kid's class, but weren't even disciplined period?? What do you think that class would be like? What do you think that school would be like? It seems that when consultants, lawyers, advocates, and school officials ask why there may be disparate disciplinary rates among races in schools, the reasons bandied about rarely, if ever, include the obvious: that maybe, just maybe, students in certain [racial/ethnic] groups actually misbehave more often than others. And then consider this: should we do away with penalties things such as lateness to school and/or class? If there is a preponderance of students of a particular race coming late to class, how would that be evidence of teacher/administrator/institutional racism? Would clocks now be considered prejudiced? (Well, yes, actually. Because staff would be treated to something akin to this, where they'd be "educated" on how certain groups are different, and that "linear time is an inherently Caucasian-Western concept." And, hence is discriminatory. Or something.)
Ultimately, this is all the product of the current Democratic-led Education Department which, as Bader says, "outsource[s] civil-rights policy to left-wing radicals" and leads to guidelines and interpretations "which were probably drafted by left-wing civil-rights bureaucrats with little understanding of how classrooms operate in the real world."
Via Jim Geraghty's e-mailed "Morning Jolt":
OUT: MSNBC's prime-time lineup insisting every GOP position is driven by racial discrimination.
IN: MSNBC's prime-time lineup insisting every GOP position is driven by gender discrimination.
After her show's pathetic segment yesterday where everyone giggled and made political hay out of Mitt Romney's adopted black grandchild, MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry has apologized. But this wasn't before frequent cable show talking head and "hip hop professor" Marc Lamont Hill jumped into the fray:
Still, it's totally reasonable to tease Romney and question his motives. He's a public figure. That's not the same as mocking a kid.— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) December 31, 2013
As you might surmise, Hill was ripped with replies, many pointing out the hypocrisy (gee, who'd thunk?) of a guy who has repeatedly pondered the "racism" of various criticisms of President Obama.
Well, not really. Remember two things: 1) It's perfectly OK for "progressives" to laugh, mock and giggle at stuff like this, and 2) Republicans/conservatives no matter what will never "win" on racial matters. Anyone remember Mitt Romney's protested sojourn to downtown Philly in 2012? To coin a cliché, "Damned if you, damned if you don't." Mitt was welcome in Philly -- as long as he agreed with "progressive" Democrats there. Yeesh, if there ever was a pattern ...
Giggling all the way, we heard
“Any captions for this one?” Harris-Perry asked her panel.
“One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just isn’t the same,” sang panelist Pia Glenn, adding, “And that little baby, front and center, would be the one.”
Comedian Dean Obeidallah told Harris-Perry that he thought the photo was “great” and that “it really sums up the diversity of the Republican party, the RNC. At the convention, they find the one black person.”
Hilariously, at vid's end, Harris-Perry tells us to stay tuned for the segment "Hey! Was that Racist?" ... apparently never grasping the irony.
UPDATE: "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just isn’t the same": Here's a pic of Harris-Perry with her parents. She says, “I’ve never thought of myself as biracial. I’m black.” Of course.
A southwest Ohio [white] teacher who allegedly responded after a black high school freshman said he wanted to become president that the nation doesn't need another black president has been disciplined.
The teacher claims he was misquoted. The district says he was disciplined in 2008 for making an inappropriate racial comment, and again for failing to follow school curriculum. There was no mention of anyone recording the comments, clandestinely or otherwise.
Guess who's demanding a meeting with the A&E network to discuss the Phil Robertson "incident?" You got it -- Jesse Jackson. The long-time race hustler was miffed at Robertson's [admittedly moronic] statement "about blacks being happy in the south prior to the civil rights movement." Jackson also claimed that the Duck Dynasty star's comment was more offensive than what the bus driver told Rosa Parks in Montgomery, Alabama some 59 years ago.
Naturally, Jackson's demands/remarks would carry a lot more weight if he hadn't uttered some real [racial] whoppers himself over the years.
MSNBC's Chris Hayes is miffed -- miffed, I tell you -- that Fox News is supposedly "playing up" incidents of the so-callled "knockout game" because, well, you know: "racism."
OK, done giggling yet? I know, I know ... MSNBC complaining about "racism" is like Hitler complaining about violence. (Yes, I invoked Godwin's Law ... sorta.) Remember, this is the network where one its talking heads somehow thought -- or wanted you to think -- that a Republican lawmaker who once associated Boss Obama with the PGA Tour (because of the amount of time the president plays golf) was actually referencing Tiger Woods and the dreaded "violent, sexually promiscuous black man" stereotype.
Interestingly, back to the knockout game, the feds have brought forth hate crimes charges against ... a white suspect in a "knockout"-style attack. Now, keep in mind that in this case it was a pretty easy decision since the accused, Conrad Barrett, had gone on [video] record saying that he wanted to attempt a "knockout"-style attack “to see if I were to hit a black person, would this be nationally televised?” But, natch, there's only been one other such charge brought against a person in all the other assaults (the victim was a Jewish man), even though in just about every other case the assailants were black and the victims white. The NARRATIVETM, after all!
UPDATE: Mediaite's Tommy Christopher, clearly as mentally defective as the MSNBC dolts, blames -- wait for it! -- Fox News for the "hate crime" knockout attack noted above:
@tommyxtopher too bad all the liberal hate-mongering over Zimmerman caused all those knockouts of white guys, huh? Dick.— MJB Wolf (@mjbwolf) December 27, 2013
That's what "tolerant" and "sensitive" comics creator Gail Simone tweeted early this morning about Fox News's Megyn Kelly,, after several days of mocking the pundit's comments about Santa Claus "being white':
In other news, @megynkelly still a horrible person.— Gail Oakenpants (@GailSimone) December 17, 2013
Good gad, what exactly did Ms. Kelly do to merit such a denunciation? Well, she committed the most evil thing someone could do in the eyes of a radical "progressive": She dared to challenge said radical "progressive" dogma. In a segment on her show last week, Kelly addressed an essay by a black woman, Aisha Harris, who "was upset about the commercial depiction of Santa Claus as white." Ms. Harris had written "Fat old white man who is, quote,melanin deficient, made her feel ashamed as a child." Harris opined that perhaps Santa should be replaced by "Santa Penguin" (or "Penguin Santa," or whatever). In her response, Kelly basically stated that, "Sorry, but Santa is a white guy."
Uh oh. The mainstream media, and other self-righteous keepers of the PC flame like Simone pounced. It wasn't Harris whose comments were portrayed as ridiculous, but Kelly's. She was "insensitive." "Uninclusive." And, of course, "racist." For pointing out that Santa Claus is a white guy. Now, for the irrepressible dolts like Simone, the pundits at MSNBC, the Daily Kos, et. al. the fact of the matter is that Claus was indeed a Caucasian. How is Kelly pointing that out -- in response to a racialist complaining about a "fat white guy" who's "melanin deficient" -- racist and intolerant? Or, as Simone tweeted, "evil?"
Has anyone in the MSM questioned the insensitivity of Ms. Harris' remarks? Not that I've seen. Let's understand this: Kelly wasn't demanding that people of other races shouldn't play the role of Santa, nor that such depictions of him be chided. She was just addressing the typical racialist "progressive" PC nonsense that is spewed forth from the bowels of sites like Salon.com. After all, imagine if a white columnist had written that a semi-mythical black individual was a "fat old black man who is, quote, melanin over-abundant, made her feel ashamed as a child"?
SORT OF RELATED: A "no pun intended" tweet from Simone, I'm sure:
My MOVEMENT editors are the best. So creative and awesome and supportive!— Gail Oakenpants (@GailSimone) December 17, 2013
Naropa University administrators and religious studies professor Don Matthews are at odds about his suspension last week over complaints that he threatened students and refused to speak during classes.
Matthews was placed on paid suspension for the rest of the semester early last week.
He said the suspension was racially motivated and the university didn't grant him "due process" before suspending him. University officials, however, said Matthews' actions posed a threat to the Naropa community and warranted immediate action in the form of suspension.
Matthews was protesting "institutional racism" at the university, and had vowed to continue his classroom protest until "bias" was excised permanently from Naropa. He also filed a complaint at the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights regarding the college's "lack of diversity" and "racism." He claims the suspension is retaliation against him.
*Sigh* I'm constantly amazed at such complaints considering that colleges are, if anything, ridiculously overly conscious about racial and ethnic sensitivity. Diversity is essentially the official religion of the university community. Indeed, Naropa has a "Community of Color" group, the head of which is a big supporter of Matthews. Imagine the "institutional racism" which permitted a group like that to exist, eh?
Nevertheless, actions by guys like Matthews can only be experienced at a place like your typical American university. Frankly, I'm amazed he was suspended, and that Naropa took the sensible action that it did. A prof is basically free to engage in all the histrionics he wants, but if you're actually refusing to do that for which the college pays you -- namely, teach -- then there should be a problem. As Richard Aubrey says in the comments at Joanne's:
If I, a student, pay some hugely inflated price for four credits of, say, Reformation theology, I have contracted to get four credits of Reformation theology. I am owed it. I need it for the junior level class for which it is a prerequisite.
I did not pay a chunk of my parents’ savings, my summer job, or my future debt enslavement in order to watch a professor massage his ego in public. If I don’t get my four credits of Reformation theology, the U is in breach of contract and must take action regarding its agent which put it in this position. Or refund my premium.
Now, I know this is harsh, but it’s the way it works in the rest of the world. Like to apply it to academia.
As noted, Matthews is also accused of threatening and belittling students. He threatened to sue students on his Facebook page and via e-mail for "defamation," and told a student in class that he/she "needed therapy." Naropa President Charles Lief says that Matthews indeed is "passionate" and "teaches on the edge," which he claims is what makes the university "unique":
"He's provocative. He brings a different perspective, which is obviously unique to Naropa and unique to Boulder. He's an African American, Christian minister who comes to the university from an urban world that, frankly, many people here are not familiar with."
What does that mean, exactly -- "from an urban world"? Is this the same sort of "academic speak" that purports to exonerate Matthews for his actions because ... blacks are "[culturally] different"?
For the most part, the university is free to believe and apply such nonsense, and Matthews is free to believe as he wishes and to be as "provocative" as he pleases. However, some common cultural and societal norms have to be in place; penalties for refusing to actually teach and threatening/belittling students should be one of them, obviously.
More than anything, the response to these latest images of Michelle Obama speaks volumes about the expectations placed on black women in the public eye and how a black women’s default emotional state is perceived as angry. The black woman is ever at the ready to aggressively defend her territory. She is making her disapproval known. She never gets to simply be.
Meanwhile, the Internet is speculating about Michelle Obama’s mind-set, her motivations and the state of her marriage because if a married black man, always on the prowl even if he is the commander in chief, is seen smiling next to an attractive white woman, well, that’s curtains for the marriage. The white she-devil strikes again! The first lady can’t win.
Of course, it couldn't just be that the Internet was speculating about it simply because of the expression on Michelle's face, now, could it??
Good Lord. It truly is amazing how "progressives" have the cojones to call conservatives "racist" when it's they who perpetually have race on the mind.
A Halloween concert at Hampshire College in Massachusetts was canceled because the main act, a band called Shokazoba which specializes in "Afro-beat" style, was deemed "not black enough."
"Hampshire’s justification for the cancellation and censorship has morphed over the past two weeks," wrote the ACLU in the letter to Jonathan Lash, the school's president. "The genesis of the decision, as you know rested on the accusation that this afro-funk band had insufficient representation of people of color."
“Comments posted on the event Facebook page, maintained and monitored by the college, stated that the African-American lead singer was not black enough," he wrote.
Indeed. Check out a pic of the band. How dare a light-skinned black woman team up with a bunch of pasty white guys to play afro-themed music?? Hell, ya'd think that a black woman as the front person of the band would make the racialists and bean counters proud, right? After all, does anyone else recall how upset jazz great Wynton Marsalis was when [that "white Briton" lead-guy] Sting nabbed two of his [black] musicians, including his brother Branford?
Let's hope that the band Living Colour doesn't regroup and get booked to play a rock concert at Hampshire. After all, they're not white enough for the genre.
Today we remember Rosa Parks’ bold stand and her role in ending racism. pic.twitter.com/uxIj1QmtkU— RNC (@GOP) December 1, 2013
OK, so it's a bit inartfully worded. No, racism isn't ended yet. But didn't you know what it meant, average person with half a brain? Says Althouse:
First, you have to be enough of a douchebag to act like you don't see that "ending racism" is a process and that a person might have a role in that process even though that role didn't go so far as to entirely complete the process.
And then you have to think, here on the Sunday after Thanksgiving, that it's worth exploiting Rosa Parks for one more opportunity to bray at Republicans. Over nothing!
Speaking of douchebaggery, lo and behold there was our 'ol pal Dan Slott, writer of Superior Spider-Man, jumping right in:
Quick. Guess the skin color of the person who tweeted this. RT @GOP Today we remember Rosa Parks’ bold stand and her role in ending racism.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) December 1, 2013
Surprise, surprise, those. For the record, Slott did "thank" the GOP account for eventually amending the wording of their original tweet; however, there's certainly no doubt where Slott stands politically. He once got miffed (at yours truly) for pointing out this anti-Fox News tweet of his ... because I failed to mention he also retweeted similar posts critical of NPR and some other MSM outlets. (To him, I was supposed to monitor his tweets 24-7.) As if that was supposed to make him somehow politically "balanced." Right. Balanced like this? Or, like this? Or, like this?
Danny continues to live in his insulated "progressive" bubble, blissfully unaware that there are conservative/libertarian/Republican comicbook readers out there ... whom he continues to alienate with his LIV boilerplate. *Sigh*
UPDATE: [Lefty] comics legend Gerry Conway tweets:
Amazing this became an "issue": The Woman in the Breast Cancer Photo Responds to Times Readers http://t.co/Crm6Cvduu8— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) December 2, 2013
You oughta talk to your colleague Dan Slott about "making issues" where there aren't any, Ger.
In Boss Obama's favorite city, an organizer (a kindred spirit to Boss Obama, natch) for the Chicago Teachers Union told a crowd opposed to Mayor Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel that "“the mayor of this city and his corporate, greedy elitist friends that this city belongs to the people in this room. Black people, brown people, poor people, working-class people."
Wait -- white folks aren't permitted in Chicago? And, as Gateway Pundit's Andrew Marcus notes, Emanuel is Jewish so we all know what this organizer meant by "greedy," right Chris Matthews (and Lawrence O'Donnell, Ed Schultz, et. al.)?
Then there's the completely unoriginal Denis Hamill of the New York Daily News who opines that "frightened white people in Congress" can't accept a black president, and that's what's behind all the government gridlock. But, he does note that "not everyone who opposes Obama is a racist." Wow, isn't that nice of him? If you're so inclined to read a highly uneducated piece of refuse, by all means click on the link.
(h/t to RwR.)
Local story: The winner of the Little Miss Hispanic Delaware pageant was stripped of her title when it could not be proven she was actually Hispanic. Jakiyah McKoy is black, but anyone with a smidgen of knowledge about Latinos knows there are many blacks included in that demographic. So, what do we see now?
Blacks are making accusations of racism. Hispanics are facing the hypocrisy of lack of proof of ethnicity ... due to illegal residency in the US. McKoy's backers claim one of her grandmothers was from the Dominican Republic, but resided in the US illegally, thus there is no documentation to prove her background.
If this didn't involve young children it would be hilarious. Be sure to read through the article because you'll encounter so many ["progressive"-based] hypocrisies as to defy description:
As we've noted myriad times here, it's always entertaining to see what happens when political correctness, [radical] multiculturalism, racial bean counting, and identity politics come together ... and tear themselves asunder.
All that being said, pageant officials could have avoided all this had they not allowed McKoy to participate knowing she did not have the necessary verification. And they did know. So, the fault ultimately lies with them.
Yeah, I didn't hear about this either. If the hues were reversed, natch, plastersville for weeks on the MSM: Greenville Wal-Mart Shooter Picked Victims By Race.
Carl sends me word of the latest issue of Daredevil whose writer, Mark "Go F*** Yourself" Waid, has included a brief Trayvon Martin allegory. But first, just so you know Waid's mindset on that whole deal, let's go back to the time of the George Zimmerman verdict:
Zimmerman initiated the conflict. That is the bottom line. Had he done what 911 TOLD him to do, that kid would be alive today. Full stop.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
Remember, it's Racism Savings Time tonight. Don't forget to set your clock back 60 years before you go to bed.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
@AcidAttack89 Agreed system is flawed, but if races were reversed in this case, defendant would be on death row right now.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
And, of course, there were the typical "come backs" by Waid to those who dared to question his tweets on the issue, such as:
It's times like these that you get to see just how many of your followers are racists.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
And there's plenty more where they came from. *Sigh*
So now we have Daredevil #31 where DD is fighting against ... the Sons of the Serpent?? This shows you how pitifully desperate Waid is to keep his ridiculous NarrativeTM alive. The SoS have been around since Marvel's earliest days. They're a -- wait for it! -- white supremacist group! But, y'see, Marvel's earliest days weren't exactly great days for American blacks. The Civil Rights movement was still in its infancy, after all. (One of the SoS's earliest appearances was in the pages of The Avengers where they went after Giant Man's [black] assistant, Bill Foster, who later assumed the role of Goliath himself using Pym's growth-changing formula.) But that doesn't matter one iota. They're a perfect way for Waid to make his "point" about Trayvon Martin in 2013! After all, we know how widespread and numerous white supremacist organizations are these days, right? I mean, other comicbook writers have told us so, too. There was Ed Brubaker in Captain America, and even Rob Liefeld in the same title.
Here's the panels from the issue of Daredevil in question. Now granted, when Carl tipped me to this, I was expecting a bit more. The whole Sons of Serpent stuff is just one of a few plots that Waid is juggling around here. But in these two panels, look at what Waid says. The "suspicious-looking Black teenager" line is patently obvious (and notice he adopts the PC capitalization of the word "black"), but notice the others -- the defendant is an "entitled society harpy" with a "long and recorded history" of racism, and the black teenager who was shot was an honor student who happened to be tutoring another kid. Of course, the only real connection to the Zimmerman/Martin matter is the line "suspicious-looking Black teenager." To me, it's a good bet Waid is counting on people making that obvious link, and then hopefully buying the rest of the "connections," which actually happen to be total bullsh**. George Zimmerman certainly ain't "entitled," nor is he a member of the hoi polloi. (And, he's not even white.) And Trayvon Martin wasn't an honor student who tutored other kids. (Ironically, it was Zimmerman who did that.)
Oliver Sava at AV Club says the above
... is a great way for Waid to explore a major theme of the series in a different context. Fear is an essential part of Daredevil’s character, and Waid’s plot looks at fear on a broader scale as New York City citizens rebel against a justice system that has betrayed them. This anger is bred out of fear that the system in place is no longer serving the best interests of the public, and all it takes is the smallest spark to turn that fear into a raging fire.
Which makes sense. Waid didn't necessarily have to get all the facts about the Zimmerman case right to make the [supposed] larger point that Sava notes above. The problem is, in the Zimmerman case, the justice system (and the mainstream media, natch) had a bias against Zimmerman from the very beginning. From constantly referring to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic" to completely ignoring cases that mirrored his (with the races reversed), the verdict then led to preposterous yammerings like "Keep your black/boys inside, now!" as if white-on-black racist killings and a crooked justice system are today akin to those of 1950s Mississippi. The sad fact is that young men like Trayvon Martin have much more to fear from other teenagers ... who look like him. But just don't bring that up to Waid, though. Besides referring to you as a "racist," he may shout something like this.
Alas, this is all totally predictable. Waid, like other comicbook "geniuses" Erik Larsen, Ron Marz, Dan Slott, and, regrettably, Kurt Busiek, lives in an insulated bubble, a product of northeast urban liberalism which essentially deifies certain narratives. And, again, the comicook fan has to ask him/herself: "If this guy feels the way he does about my cultural and political beliefs, then why the f*** should I turn my hard-earned money over to him?" The answer is you shouldn't. But it is your choice, of course. I chose long ago not to part with any cash to purchase something by someone who vociferously trashes my political (and other) beliefs. It's perfectly natural, after all. Waid and other "progressives" do it all the time. Just ask Orson Scott Card, among many others.
Avi over at FCMM has more.
Noel Karasanyi, owner of the New 3rd World bar in Philly, believes complaints against his establishment are -- wait!! -- racist:
"We think there's racism involved in this, because bars in the same neighborhood, they're not going after them," St. Hill said. "Who died and left Spruce Hill in charge of the entire United States?"
Karasanyi owns three total establishments. One was closed by the state Licenses & Inspections Bureau for lack of a valid food license. Another was closed up for failure to pay back taxes. And now New 3rd World was notified that if it doesn't update its food license, it'll have to cease operations as well. Court records show that Karasanyi "has been sued in Philadelphia civil court at least 24 times by loan companies, the school district, vendors and the city of Philadelphia."
In addition, "neighbors say that public urination, drug use, illegal dumping, loud noise and after-hours serving" are commonplace at New 3rd World.
Karasanyi thinks it's "unfair" that he's "targeted" because of failure to pay taxes. Maybe he try the "racism" excuse with state/federal officials and see how that goes. He also said he does't have a trash dumpster because he got "fed up." Further, he said his bar's after-hours serving was merely "an oversight."
But ... all this, to Karasanyi, is because of ... racism.
In general, the study suggests that moving up the professional ladder in any occupation results in sleep losses for blacks but gains for whites, Jackson says.
One possible explanation: Some black professionals adopt an "extraordinarily strong work ethic as a way to cope with negative stereotypes" and discrimination at work, she says. That could lead to getting up early or staying up late to work. Stress and low levels of social and professional support also could contribute. Blacks also are more likely to hold jobs requiring shift changes, which play havoc with sleep schedules, she says.
Another possible explanation: Most mattresses owned by black professionals were manufactured by George Zimmerman.
In Minneapolis, students, parents and teachers are miffed -- MIFFED, I tell you -- that some schools don't have A/C:
"I can't believe that 50 years after the March on Washington, we're still fighting for equity in our schools," said Anthony Newby, executive director of Neighborhoods Organizing for Change. "We know that in more affluent districts, parents aren't tolerating this. In Minneapolis, where a majority of students are children of color, our kids don't get climate-controlled classrooms. It's outrageous."
"I have a dream ... that one day, all classrooms will be clmate controlled ..."
Puh-lease. My school didn't have A/C until a mere four years ago, and it has a majority suburban population. But, alas, we now live in a world where everything is racist.
Every time I see @MileyCyrus slap that black woman's butt, I think about the way that enslaved blacks were whipped for white entertainment.— Aura Bogado (@aurabogado) August 26, 2013
As if we needed more proof that those who constantly clamor about others' racism are the real racists.
*Siiiiigh* What's next, folks? Is race and/or racism lurking behind everything these days? Here, I made a few tweets myself so I could be like the HuffPo, Macklemore, and Ms. Bogado:
But in all seriousness, folks -- this is where we are today. "Racism" is everywhere to an alarmingly increasing number of people. Such is the fallout from inanities of like comparing Trayvon Martin to Emmett Till, claiming that requiring an ID to vote is like Jim Crow laws, and stating that comparisons of Boss Obama to Tiger Woods aren't due to golf, but due to the worst stereotypes of black men.
It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. And ultimately, dangerous.
Sorry, I had a Bloomberg News moment.
The WaPo's Dana Milbank pontificates.
You gotta check out WPHT's Chris Stigall's debate/conversation/argument with Will "Panties In A" Bunch of the Philly Inquirer. Bunch, of course, accused Stigall of promoting -- wait for it -- racism on his morning radio show in a tweet last weekend, so Stigall had him on and called him out. Bunch used as "evidence" the usual canards: Voter ID measures, the Supreme Court decision to rescind a section of the Voting Rights Act, etc. Stigall shreds him.
At least Bunch had the cojones to actually go on.
SEMI-RELATED: Bloomberg News headline: “House Republicans Set to Defy Obama Are Mostly White Men.”
"racist?" Only an outfit like the Huffington Post could theorize that, natch.
RELATED: White rapper Macklemore claims his "white privilege" allows him to swear in his songs. Who knew?
Salon.com: "The right’s black crime obsession" and "Conservative media’s total fixation on black-on-black and black-on-white crime isn’t going to end. Here’s why."
Gotta have those "real" convos on race, after all.
(h/t Da Tech Guy)
Howard Portnoy at Newsbusters provides (yet another) example. Like MSNBC, Salon.com is nearly inexhaustible in its specious attempts to "prove" their "cases" of racism, and is nigh in complete denial about basic facts. It's red meat for the LIV crowd, to be sure. Alex Seitz-Wald’s column is titled “No, Chris Lane is not Trayvon Martin!” and, as noted, botches the most fundamental facts about the Zimmerman-Martin case (among others):
... the decision by Sanford, Fla., police to initially release George Zimmerman “smacked of institutional, state-sponsored racial favoritism of the worst kind. It was only after public outcry that state prosecutors took over the case and pressed charges.“
To which Portnoy retorts:
That assessment nearly turns the facts of the case on their head. According to the report filed by the Sanford, Fla., police, a bloodied George Zimmerman was released on his own recognizance “for lack of evidence and lack of legal grounds for arrest” as well as Zimmerman’s “right to defend himself with lethal force” against a deadly attack. Seitz-Wald is right that Zimmerman was arrested following “public outcry,” but that was to avert a riot, not to correct an injustice.
Seitz-Wald also defends Pres. Obama for injecting himself into selected racial matters, especially the Henry Louis Gates incident from early in his presidency. Yet again, he totally botches the facts. He then concludes by stating "If you want to actually understand race relations in this country, you need to understand the difference between these (the Lane and Martin) cases."
Really? The understanding one comes to by reading Seitz-Wald or watching networks like MSNBC is that race relations remain as they were in 1950. That we should make a racial case out of those that aren't, and ignore those that are ... depending on the race of the perpetrators and victims. And, as we've noted here many times, so-called "real" conversations about race are not desired at all by the likes of Seitz-Wald. What they want is for you to LISTEN to them, and ACCEPT IT without question.
UPDATE: Be sure to check out Doug Ernst's related post! Spot on stuff.
Or, The NARRATIVETM, if you will.
(Just keep silent about such, though, during "honest conversations about race," you racist.)
Via Taranto we see that Reuters is hyping President Lemon's call for some "soul searching" on race here in America because -- gasp! -- "many Americans have no friends of another race" (the actual headline) according to a poll it cites. Of course, based on the first paragraph alone, Reuters could have easily written a headline that says "Most Americans have friends of another race":
About 40 percent of white Americans and about 25 percent of non-white Americans are surrounded exclusively by friends of their own race, according to an ongoing Reuters/Ipsos poll.
So, about 60% of whites and 75% of non-whites have friends of another race. Yet, Reuters writes a headline from a negative POV. Because, y'know, it wouldn't fit in with Boss Obama's [faux] request for that "soul searching," after all. Or, if you will, The NARRATIVETM.
And the inconsistent race reporting rolls on:
There are regions and groups where mixing with people of other races is more common, especially in the Hispanic community where only a tenth do not have friends of a different race. About half of Hispanics who have a spouse or partner are in a relationship with non-Hispanics, compared to one tenth of whites and blacks in relationships.
Y'see, here the MSM is back to merely using the term "Hispanic" as essentially a separate race. When the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin affair was in full swing, it was then important to note the former's race as "white" -- separate from Hispanic. Of course, Hispanics can be of several races as the classification "Hispanic" (or "Latino") is mainly due to language/cultural difference. Just see any official government/state/educational form if you don't believe me. But the MSM -- as Reuters does here -- rarely, if ever, acknowledges such. If acknowledging the difference can further The NarrativeTM -- that is, that America remains an incorrigibly racist nation that hasn't changed much since the Civil War (as was the case with George Zimmerman) -- it will do so without hesitation. In this article, however, merely utilizing "Hispanic" as a separate racial category paints the group in a positive light -- they're more "racially enlightened" as they have more friends and marriages outside of their "race."
Former Philadelphia Eagles great Hugh Douglas tweeted about embattled current Eagles WR Riley Cooper:
S/O to Riley Cooper.. For keepin it 100.. At least now we know!— Hugh Douglas (@Bighugh53) July 31, 2013
In case you missed it (and how could you, after all, given our MSM?), Cooper used the "N" word in a video taken at a Kenny Chesney concert. He was fined by the team and forced to undergo re-educa, er, um, "sensitivity" training.
Now the ... funny thing:
Hugh Douglas was inebriated and threatened to beat up his colleague Michael Smith three times Friday night, a source who witnessed the altercation at the House of Blues in Orlando tells The Big Lead. According to the source, Douglas, who appears on Numbers Never Lie on ESPN with Michael Smith and Jemele Hill, was trying to get on stage where the DJ was playing, and threatened to beat up Smith if he couldn’t help out. After the third threat, Smith tried to walk away, at which point Douglas grabbed Smith’s wrist and hurled two racial epithets at him, calling him an “Uncle Tom” and a “House N—-.” Smith, the witness says, turned around to protect himself, at which point onlookers rushed in to break it up.
Of course, Cooper's transgression was plastered all over the front page of Philly.com; Douglas' was relegated to the NFL section of their sports page. But, alas, that's how the MSM rolls racially, and we all know that by now.
Last week, 10 checks totaling $3,764.61 were delivered to ex-prosecutor Steven Pagones — the first payments Brawley has made since a court determined in 1998 that she defamed him with her vicious hoax.
A Virginia court this year ordered the money garnisheed from six months of Brawley’s wages as a nurse there.
She still owes Pagones $431,000 in damages. And she remains defiantly unapologetic.
I'm sure she does. Because her mentor, Al Sharpton, remains likewise. In fact, if anything, the Brawley hoax helped his career immensely.
The funniest thing I'll always remember about this whole mess was Howard Stern constantly replaying a clip of Brawley trying to say "Nobody manipulates me or my family." She must have never seen/heard the second word for it came out as "manip-shnapes." It was one of the most hilarious Stern moments ever.
Just read this sadly hilarious Patterico thread all the way through to the end for, as noted, a perfect example.
UPDATE: It gets even better.
... and because you're obsessed with race:
Yep, that's the nitwit, Touré, a man whose obsession with race is only surpassed by Michael Eric Dyson. He indeed said "that Republicans are 'talking about black-on-black crime to block the conversation around a Peruvian-American, not a Hispanic, a Peruvian-American shooting a black man.'"
Got that? George Zimmerman, because of his Peruvian ancestry, now isn't "Hispanic." Except that, of course, he most certainly is:
Hispanic (Spanish: hispano, hispánico; Portuguese: hispânico, hispano, Catalan: hispà, hispànic) is an ethnonym that denotes a relationship to Spain or, in some definitions, to ancient Hispania, which comprised the Iberian Peninsula including the modern states of Andorra, Portugal, and Spain and the British Crown Dependency of Gibraltar. Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catch all to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship either with Spain and Portugal or only with Spain, regardless of race. However, in the eyes of the US Census Bureau, Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity, or any country of origin.
Cripes, first this idiot network selectively edits the 911 call Zimmerman made which was the real catalyst in turning this whole tragic affair into a national "racist" incident, then ABC does the same with an interview with the one minority juror in the murder case. Now, we've descended to denying that Zimmerman even qualifies as the ethnic background that he actually is.
What should we expect next? A member of the Peruvian-American Society on MSNBC claiming that, since Zimmerman has never visited Machu Picchu, he cannot claim Peruvian ancestry? That Zimmerman's genealogy shows him to be a descendant of Francisco Pizarro, and this proves his inherent hatred of "dark" people?
Don't laugh. I wouldn't be surprised to see something exactly like those ridiculous hypotheticals above appear on the usual channels in the near future.
They must be -- the city council took the time to pass a resolution calling for the feds to investigate George Zimmerman.
It'd be hilarious if it weren't so damn pathetic.
CNN's Don Lemon Thinks Non-Blacks Cannot Fairly Report on Blacks ... So Why Can All-Liberal Media Report on Conservatives?
It's gonna be an interesting beginning of the school year what with the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case still hanging over us. Robby Soave notes that the Hairpin, "a prominent liberal women’s blog," asked what teachers and counselors plan to teach about the case. Here's a sample of some of the replies:
An anonymous English teacher in Alabama said that she would be hesitant to formally “teach” the subject, but nonetheless thought it could be brought up in relation to vigilantism in literature such as “To Kill A Mockingbird” and the works of William Faulkner.
“The thing is, I see Trayvon Martins everyday,” wrote the teacher. “I worry about young black men and their prospects in a world where a man is able to kill one without being convicted of something. Even if it isn’t as simple as that, kids will see it that way. Rednecks are holding their heads a little higher and tapping the guns on their holsters eager for a stand your ground moment.”
Lovely. Then there's this:
... another teacher cited the verdict as evidence of the “fact that Florida law allows people to hunt and kill black youth,” and said that it was important to talk about it with students.
It's gonna be an interesting school year. Hopefully, there will be a decent number of sane teachers out there to counter this bullsh**.
NBC's (the network largely responsible for the racial shenanigans in the Zimmerman/Martin trial) Andrea Mitchell earlier this morning claimed Boss Obama was a "moral leader" in his Friday remarks on the case, stating he "taught white people in America — those who were unaware — what it is like to be a black male."
Indeed. And Mitchell's network, especially its white "progressive" anchors, loves to lecture us all on just that. Perhaps it's to assuage their very own racial guilt:
On a warm weekday evening in 2003, a group that can fairly be described as representative of the media elite gathered at one if its favored venues: the garden behind the Manhattan apartment of journalists Tina Brown and Harold Evans.
The occasion was the publication of "The Clinton Wars," by Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to President Bill Clinton. Editors from the New Yorker and the New York Times were in attendance along with media figures like Steven Brill and Rolling Stone co-founder Jann Wenner. The guests mingled and sipped wine. Even Clinton showed up, instantly becoming the epicenter of attention.
I had not been invited but attended the event as the "plus one" of political columnist Eric Alterman, who wrote about the party in The Guardian on Thursday. At the time, I was a freelance journalist not yet employed by The Wall Street Journal. Eager for an opportunity to find a good story or meet an editor who might give me work, I accepted Alterman's invitation to join him at an event littered with literati.
Standing by myself I noticed, on the periphery of the party, a man looking as awkward and out-of-place as I felt. I approached him and introduced myself. He was an Illinois state senator who was running for the U.S. Senate. He was African American, one of a few black people in attendance.
We spoke at length about his campaign. He was charismatic in a quiet, solemn way. I told him I wanted to pitch a profile of him to a national magazine. (The magazine later rejected my proposal.)
The following year I watched as he gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, and then won his Senate seat that fall. On Tuesday, Barack Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States.
But what I will always remember is as I was leaving that party in 2003, I was approached by another guest, an established author. He asked about the man I had been talking to. Sheepishly he told me he didn't know that Obama was a guest at the party, and had asked him to fetch him a drink. In less than six years, Obama has gone from being mistaken for a waiter among the New York media elite, to the president-elect.
Whaaa ... how can this be? Look at who was in attendance at this gig: Tina Brown and Harold Evans, Sidney Blumenthal, Steven Brill, Jann Wenner and Eric Alterman. As Jim Geraghty notes in his Morning Jolt today:
Liberals all, and I'm sure that all of those folks would consider themselves not only not racist, but particularly enlightened to the plight of minorities in modern America.
One of the reasons that discussions about race relations in the United States are so tiresome is that the tone is often, "I'm not racist, but you people are racist, and you people are the problem." Yet here we have a gathering of some of our most prominent and influential media voices, a crowd that undoubtedly would claim to be our society's smartest, most progressive, most enlightened, most open-minded, and most free from prejudice. And a future president of the United States gets mistaken for a waiter.
This is a perfect illustration of why you should turn around and walk away if/when you're being lectured to about race by a self-proclaimed "progressive." That is, after you laugh in their face and point out how condescending and paternalistic he/she is ... not to mention possibly racist as well.
SEMI-RELATED: Boss Obama voted to strengthen Illinois's "Stand Your Ground" law in 2004.
Saw this via a comment at Patterico: Dry asparagus prompts questions about racial discrimination. And even despite this from the complainer --
[David] Olander admitted to being in an “ornery mood” the day he visited the store. “I just felt like stirring it up a little bit, letting them know that somebody cares,” he said ...
-- such nonsense gets printed as a story worthy of coverage.
MSNBC's self-described* Caucasian Chuck Todd said -- with a straight face, mind you -- that his network has been more "mature" about covering race issues than its rivals. He actually stated “Some portions of cable news try to use an incident like this in the wrong ways.”
A person could spend a day, writing straight through, about the numerous times MSNBC has used racial incidents "in the wrong ways." Sheesh.
... in three images.
(h/t to Insty.)
Via the Washington Examiner:
Scott says he acted in self defense when he confronted Cervini and two others saying they were stealing from neighbors cars. He told them he had a gun and ordered them to freeze and wait for police.
Scott says he shot Cervini twice when the victim charged toward him yelling he was going to get Scott.
But check it: Scott is a (self-identified*) black man. [Christopher] Cervini was (self-identified*) white.
Be sure to read through the entire [four year-old] article. It sounds amazingly like the whole Zimmerman-Martin affair. It didn't get any national coverage 1) because it doesn't fit the NarrativeTM, and 2) won't get coverage now for the same reason -- namely that, in Zimmerman's case, if he was black, he'd have been found guilty.
The 'net, newspapers and magazines are now awash with "progressives" making crazy statements like "Young black men cannot walk the streets anymore" due to the [self-described Hispanic*] George Zimmerman verdict. We've already seen what several contemporary comics creators ("progressives" all) think; predictable libs are following suit. Some Facebook friends have even posted stuff like "Don't let your kids grow up to be brown boys ... keep them inside if you do." It's certainly predictable, whether the writer identifies himself* as African-American or white; however, especially with the latter, much of the heated post-verdict rhetoric is about ... "maintaining their liberal cred" ... letting their ["progressive"] peers know they're "hip to the theme" for lack of a better saying.
Just consider the sheer stupidity of statements like "Keep your [black] boys inside" -- because the law in Florida allowed a self-identified* Hispanic to protect himself in a scuffle against a black teenager, whom he ultimately ended up killing. The sad fact of the matter (sad for "progressives," that is) aside for the tragic death of a young boy, is that this instance is actually a rarity in contemporary society. For decades now, young black men have had lots more to fear from "going outside" and "walking down the street" ... from other black men. Fact. And, sadly, some "progressives" even play down this fact in an effort to further the silly NarrativeTM that America hasn't changed one iota in terms of racial progress since the Civil War.
For "progressive" self-identified* whites, they retain their "progressive" credentials by focusing on the modern -- and rare -- instances like the Zimmerman/Martin matter and claiming that racial progress is really a façade. They ignore the wildly disproportionate crime statistics among black men, again most of which are focused within their own community. (There were 2,447 murders of blacks by other blacks in 2011, which is almost the same figure as white-on-white murders; however, the former group is just one-sixth the size of the latter.) Why do they do this? If they are so concerned about the value of young black lives in America, why is this fact so anathema to them?
As Patrick Brennan writes,
And that’s exactly what many are saying about the Trayvon Martin trial — that racially motivated murders in America aren’t common, but murders of black men are. But those ("progressives") highlighting Martin’s death and downplaying the phenomenon of black-on-black crime would like you to think the former is a common-enough but neglected type of event that Zimmerman had to be charged, despite the weak case against him.
It's all mind-boggling, really, to a clear-thinking person. But, again, it doesn't fit the NarrativeTM. To modern self-identified* white "progressives," it's unfair to bring up the vast amount of black-on-black crime ... because African-Americans cannot be held accountable for it. The inherent racist political, cultural and legal system here in American has, and continues, to keep black Americans down. That, and there must be a lot of unspoken and purposely ignored guilt among these self-identified* whites, since it is their social programs which have been largely responsible for the disintegration of the black family.
One last thing for any potential "progressives" who may be obliged to comment: As noted yesterday, just because someone may agree with the verdict doesn't necessarily mean he/she thinks Zimmerman is a great guy and/or are "pro" Zimmerman. Nor does agreement with the verdict indicate a belief that there is no more (white) racism, or that there are no further social and legal injustices that need to be rectified in our country. Calling such folks "racists," "white hegemonists," or any other such nonsense certainly isn't going to help/solve anything.
George Mason will offer a course titled “Race and Politics, Trayvon Martin” in the fall. In it,
the Martin case will be presented alongside historic cases such the Supreme Court’s Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court decision. Martin will also be discussed alongside African-American figures such as Martin Luther King Jr., Emmett Till, and Rodney King.
It's a sociology class which will examine “why, and in what ways, did racial feelings, fears, and animosities surface as they did, how were intragroup and intergroup relations affected by such attitudes and behavior, and what were the short and long-term societal consequences of these attitudes and behavior.”
Got it. But there's no word on whether there will also be a class titled "Race and Politics, Joshua Heath Chellew" in the fall. Not PC enough, I guess.
Furious D takes it to contemporary comics creators for going out of their way to accommodate the demands for "diversity" in their pages:
It seems these days that there isn't a genre character that people aren't calling for a change of gender, race, and sexual orientation, in the name of "fairness." Folks are also fond of saying that anyone who disagrees with that idea is a racist sexist homophobe who is totally and completely unfair.
While some of the opposition to these seemingly weekly brainstorms can be called racist, sexist, and homophobic, those noxious trolls, who are in the minority, are being used as a cudgel to stop any serious critical discussion of the issue.
Chief among the undiscussed is: Just how fair would this be?
Indeed, you may have heard how Amazing Spider-Man star Andrew Garfield recently asked: "Why couldn't Spidey be gay?" Umm, let's see ... because he's not?? As Furious asks, how fair would that be -- just to satisfy the radical diversophiles?
Furious says "it's a form of tokenism." And, not surprisingly, you'll rarely see people who demand such changes agree to changes in their own characters. They also fail to realize that their tokenist views mean that already established minority characters are somehow "not good enough to make it." Changing a well-established character is only good for a short-term bounce "... because the most such changes generate are some brief flurries of media hype, but not much when it comes to increasing the audience," Furious writes.
100% correct. He also alludes to the fact that doing this sort of thing is just to make diversophiles feel good about themselves (this surely isn't surprising) -- not so much because they're doing something "good" for culture and society, but because the "racist, sexist, and homophobic ... noxious trolls, who are in the minority, are being used as a cudgel to stop any serious critical discussion of the issue." We've already seen this sort of thing regarding news that the role of Johnny Storm may be played by a black actor in the upcoming Fantastic Four movie reboot.
At least creator Gail Simone, whose politics I feel are noxious, has been busy doing just what Furious recommends -- that is, creating new characters that are diverse (well, at least "diverse" as the diversophiles demand them). Her The Movement is a good example.
(Thanks for Nate W. for the tip on this!)
Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans.
Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist, while 24% consider most whites racist and 15% view most Hispanics that way.
After looking at the beliefs based on race and political ideology, Taranto concludes:
... the results for blacks are a big surprise. Blacks are more likely (by 7 percentage points) to think most blacks are racist than to think most whites are. Moreover, they are 11 points likelier than liberals (regardless of race) to think most blacks are racist, and 9 points likelier than Democrats. And blacks are 3 points less likely than liberals to think most whites are racist.
All of which suggests that the people likeliest to believe most whites are racist and most blacks are not are those who are both liberal and white. Which reinforces a point we've made often in this column: that a lot of what drives the futile debate over race in America is white liberals' psychological need to feel morally superior to other whites.
Indeed. And look no further than the MSM coverage of the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case down in Florida, especially the [mostly] white and [totally] liberal network MSNBC. Remember how they doctored Zimmerman's phone call to 911 to make it seem he was an anti-black racist. Or them constantly referring to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic." And perhaps most telling, MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews admitting that everyone who "surrounds" him believes Zimmerman is guilty (all white liberals, natch).
*Sigh* Largely as a result of this usual NarrativeTM, anything less than a guilty verdict of 2nd degree murder (which is what the state is prosecuting) is likely to produce social unrest. And watch out if Zimmerman is acquitted.
Meanwhile, the overwhelming number of black Americans who are killed through purposeful violence is committed by ... other black Americans. And guys like Chris Matthews could care less.
You can always count on race-on-the-brain-100%-of-the-time Michael Eric Dyson to make a complete jackass of himself (well, except to the 25% or so of moonbats who've already completely lost it). The Georgetown professor(!!) said, regarding the recent SCOTUS decision invalidating a section of the Voting Rights Act, that Justice Thomas is "a symbolic Jew" who "has invited a metaphoric Hitler to commit holocaust and genocide."
Of course, he was on MSNBC.
The most unintentionally funny "article" in a long time: Tommy Christopher's attempt to get you to believe that the term "cracker" is actually -- wait for it! -- a term of endearment down there in Florida.
No wonder this nimrod contributes to the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers. Just check out his latest "cartoon." Aside from the fact that it is woefully factually wrong, not to mention downright racially insensitive to the one African-American justice on the Supreme Court, it totally ignores (purposely, no doubt) the obvious: "How is it that we can't expect certain people/areas/regions to evolve when it comes to race, but we expect same to evolve when it comes to sexual orientation?"
So, indeed: Let's base national policy around what one person said a while ago (and part of which was under extreme duress). Meanwhile, let's continue the deprecation that it is perfectly acceptable to denigrate black Americans if they do not think and believe as "progressives" want them to.
ITEM: Our new Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, "jokingly" asks an Indian college prof if he's "a member of the Taliban":
As JWF asks, "What is it with these bigots constantly insulting Indians?"
ITEM: Then there's southern cooking guru Paula Deen, who apparently likes using the "N" word a lot. I don't know which is more disturbing -- Deen's predilection for racial slurs, or those who wish she'd die because of it ... like the supposedly "tolerant" comics writer Gail Simone:
Paula Deen, please eat lots more butter. LOTS more. And some rocks and dirt and poison.— GailSimone (@GailSimone) June 20, 2013
ITEM: Insty's Glenn Reynolds thinks the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case in Florida was "all about boosting black turnout for 2012."
ITEM: Ace discusses an uncomfortable fact about the immigration debate: the high Latino DUI rate.
ITEM: John Rosenberg showcases An Unusually Wacky Defense Of Affirmative Action:
Tanya Hernandez, a law professor at Fordham, argues that affirmative action is necessary to counteract the implicit biases of university admissions officers and prevent from discriminating against blacks. Really. I’m not making this up.
She really does argue that that admissions officers — probably the most pro-preference cohort of citizens anywhere — need affirmative action to keep them from acting like bigots.
Hernandez also argues that the academic achievement gap is the result [white] teacher racism (or, "implicit biases"). Gee, now where have I heard that before?
UPDATE: Yeesh, how could I forget this one? The prez of the Chicago Teachers Union has blamed "racism" and “rich white people” for the fiscal hassles of her city's schools.
Is Bobby Jindal’s reputation for intelligence anything other than ethnic stereotyping?— Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias) June 18, 2013
To which Fort Liberty [rightly] tweets that this "reminds me of Biden's racist comment about Indians working at 7-11 and Dunkin Donuts."
At least, yes.
First, you guessed it -- an MSNBC panel labeled pro-lifers as white supremacists: Panel Suggests Racist Motivation by Pro-lifers, Goal of 'Reproducing Whiteness'
So I think that there's a kind of moral panic, a fear of the end of whiteness that we've been seeing a long time in that I think, you know, Obama's ascension as President kind of symbolizes to a certain degree. And so I think this is one response to that sense that there's a decreasing white majority in the country and that women's bodies and white women's bodies in particular are obviously a crucial way of reproducing whiteness, white supremacy, white privilege. And so I think it's just a kind of clamping down on women's bodies, in particular white women's bodies, even though women of color are really caught in the fray.
Of course, what this dolt (University of Pennsylvania Assistant Professor Salamisha Tillet) fails to realize is that pro-lifers don't just care about white babies. And, since black women are approximately five times more likely to have an abortion than white women, how is lobbying to eliminate that statistic ... an example of wanting to preserve the white race??? Unbelievable.
Elsewhere, I was alerted to a recent (and past) post by one of my favorite scifi authors, John Scalzi, on the subject of white privilege. Scalzi has written the superb Old Man's War series, the most recent book of which is The Human Division. Unfortunately, Scalzi, like many other a successful liberal, feels the need to assuage his guilt over his having "made it" by giving a rhetorical hat tip to his fellow "progressive" academic types (like the above Professor Salamisha Tillet). But Michael Z. Williamson takes Scalzi to task:
Predictably, when invited to discuss the issue further with the above people, in a polite email, Scalzi completely ignored the issue. I can't presume his motives, but someone did suggest that the purpose of his posts is more to promote his books in the guilt-ridden, white, racist, liberal sellout market than to actually accomplish debate.
I have no doubt from his scribblings that Scalzi played life on the easy setting. Now that he's gotten rich, he needs to properly excoriate his success to avoid being a bad liberal.
An actual racist (I've met a few) would say, "Well, yes, I've done well, because I'm genetically and intellectually better than those lesser races." They would have no reason to get upset with his post, because it would tell them exactly what they wanted to hear: That they're at the top of the heap, awesome.
I had lengthy discussions with black writers and editors about Scalzi's post, and their concurrence seemed to be that it was shallow. I'll go a step further: It was an elitist white male passively-aggressively talking down to others about how awesome he is, but he feels guilty about it, so don't judge him too harshly.
How about going even further? If Scalzi is so guilty about having made it, partly (mainly?) because of the "leg up" he initially started with, why doesn't he abrogate the rights to his published properties to a minority writer and let him/her continue the stories? The same premise applies to the imbecilic Chris Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell, Ed Schultz, et. al.: Really put you money where your mouth is. Resign your position and hand it over to a member of a minority group. Otherwise, you're a bloviating hypocrite like way too many a vocal "progressive."
UPDATE: Nate notes in the comments a blogger who has dissected Scalzi's "progressivism" quite thoroughly.
UPDATE: Scalzi digs in deeper, claiming he doesn't feel guilty about being a straight white male, and delves further into the usual I-know-better-than-you condescension. In spades.
... so what does NBC's website do? Trot out "experts" to show how the peons in the poll are clueless:
Weldon Latham, a Washington DC attorney, advises that "just below the surface" things aren't that positive because "things that are very important, like jobs -- African-American jobs and female jobs are still some percentage below what white males are.” Latham "advises corporations on diversity issues." What do you think he would say?
Kevin Brown is the next person consulted, a law professor at Indiana University. Though he acknowledges that the election of Barack Obama was a great positive -- wait for it! -- he "stressed the ongoing need for programs to assist minorities." One of Brown's beefs is that too many "international" blacks are snagging spots at elite colleges instead of "traditional" African-Americans. Brown has written articles critical of Clarence Thomas, critical of "disproportionate" school discipline, and in support of affirmative action.
Princeton sociology prof Thomas J. Espenshade is up next, co-author of “No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal.” Gee, what do you think his opinion is? Just take a gander at this NY Times op-ed of his, in which he writes "We also found that self-segregation dilutes the educational benefits of diversity that proponents of affirmative action rightly prize." In other words, he's a fan of that "critical mass" made famous (or infamous) by the noted Michigan affirmative action cases which stressed (among other things) the educational "benefits" of a [racially] diverse student population. ("Benefits" which are highly questionable.)
Then there's Richard Kahlenberg, the only semi-critic of [race-based] AA, who argues that class-based AA -- based on income -- would make more sense. But he was critical of a study which argued that busing (moving poor children to more affluent schools) had little educational benefits. Nevertheless, he's quickly shot down in the NBC article by the aforementioned Brown, who says that Kahlenberg "misses the point" ... that "it's really both (socioeconomic status and race)."
Who's quoted in the article who supports the polls findings? No one.
Two scholars who each primarily identify as a scholar of critical race/whiteness studies and a scholar of disability studies, respectively, engage in this article in a purposeful dialogue that responds to the invitation put forth by Baglieri, Bejoian, Broderick, Connor, and Valle to engage with the construct of inclusive education, writ large. Through purposeful engagement with one another’s discourse communities, the authors explore both the challenge and the tremendous promise of more theoretically integrated efforts toward abolishing ideological systems of oppression in schooling.
Even better are the "Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study," and the "Conclusions/Recommendations." Did you know that “smartness” is "an ideological system" and has its basis in ... whiteness? In addition, "smartness is nothing but false and oppressive." Who knew? Who knew that being bright, and that studying and working hard to improve one's intellect not only is "false," but keeps others down?? Is this merely a ridiculously wordy way of saying "Studying and being smart is 'acting white?'" At last! The "validation" that minorities need to do zilch in school!
But the best is saved for last! See if you can decipher this one: "... attempts to theoretically rearticulate or rehabilitate smartness may serve to illuminate, but ultimately fail to dissolve, the normative center of schooling."
I can't think of a more clever way to say "absolute bullsh**."
“Moral responsibility is the essence of humanity. It is what sets Homo sapiens apart from other animals. Assigning moral responsibility to whites while denying it to nonwhites is therefore a way of dehumanizing the latter. Multiculturalism turns out to be a disguised form of white supremacy.”
Indeed. The examples are too numerous to mention, but recently there's MSNBC's Martin Bashir who thinks we can't say "IRS" anymore because that'd be calling Boss Obama the "N" word, and the commenter "Proud Progressive" at JoshuaPundit who says there's nothing linking the scandal to Obama -- it's just that the GOP can't "stand the idea of a black man kicking the Republican's butts and being in the White House." In other words, like Taranto said, Bashir and PP are denying moral responsibility to a non-white: Barack Obama (I know, I know, he's half white, but "progressives" always ignore that).
Who's "racist," again?
Via The Corner: MSNBC's Martin Bashir claims that saying "IRS" is akin to saying -- wait for it! -- "ni**er."
Yes, I'm serious.
In Westchester County, NY north of New York City, another Boss Obama cabinet department is drastically overreaching its authority by demanding rather affluent areas build "affordable housing" to supposedly "eliminate" discrimination/racism:
At issue is a 2009 settlement with HUD in which Westchester committed to develop 750 public housing units in mostly white neighborhoods over seven years. County executive Rob Astorino has financing for 305 units (110 of which are already occupied), putting Westchester ahead of schedule. HUD could have declared victory and moved on to a real mess like, say, Detroit.
Instead, the agency is interfering with local zoning in Westchester to force more racial diversity on suburban neighborhoods. Last week, HUD New York's Director of Community Planning and Development Vincent Hom wrote Mr. Astorino and threatened to cancel $7.4 million in unrelated housing and community development funds. To keep the cash, Westchester must produce "a satisfactory zoning analysis and plan to overcome exclusionary zoning practices."
HUD ignored the county's research into discriminatory practices (which found zippo evidence of such) as well as Pace University law professor John Nolon's analysis of the county's findings (which just so happened to agree with the county). HUD feels that "if neighborhoods are majority white they are ipso facto discriminatory." HUD is also "pressing" the county to pass legislation which would force landlords to accept Section 8 housing vouchers. Yeah, that will be a boon for well-to-do neighborhoods, won't it?
Sadiki Kambon, who said he represents a group called Friends of Roxbury Community College, sent Patrick a letter Monday demanding that Gerald Chertavian, who was named board chairman last week, be replaced by “another qualified candidate (Black).”
“It’s important for our young people to see someone who looks like us who is the position of leadership in our academic community. We feel that someone from our community has the skill set necessary to run that institution,” Kambon told the Herald.
The college is predominately black, therefore, Kambon says, it requires a black leader. Of course, if you applied this ridiculous standard across the board, then there would be a lot less blacks in positions of leadership. But as usual, no one ever seriously argues that racial bean counters/diversophiles are very strong in the logic department.
The "progressive" foul-mouthed comics writer, like Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton and Emanuel Cleaver, apparently believes the only scandal surrounding the president currently is that the GOP is showing its racism -- they're just being "clever" as to how they hide it:
Boehner scrambles for a way to say "uppity" without actually using the word: livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/boehner-…— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) May 16, 2013
Gosh, what did the Speaker of the House actually say? That Obama is "displaying an 'arrogance of power.'"
Nice to know that Waid is yet another of those limousine libs who believe that the formerly oppressed need their special "protection" from consequences for which others are not so entitled.
Because when you say sh** like this, it's gotta be proof that there's no more actual racism:
And here's Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D) for good measure, claiming that Boss Obama's “'pigmentation' [is] the driving force behind Republicans’ outcry over the scandals ..."
Let's face it, folks -- Barack Obama could be on videotape murdering someone and moonbats like Matthews, Sharpton and Cleaver would blame racism/white supremacy/bigotry for it. I mean, after all if a black man cannot legitimately be held accountable for his actions ... and this is precisely what Chrissy and Big Al are saying.
NAACP President Emeritus Julian Bond defended -- DEFENDED!! -- the IRS for targeting groups like the Tea Party because such groups are “admittedly racist.”
“I think it’s entirely legitimate to look at the tea party,” said Bond, whose group was audited by the IRS during the Bush administration. “I mean, here are a group of people who are admittedly racist, who are overtly political, who’ve tried as best they can to harm President Obama in every way they can. I don’t think there are correct parallels between these incidents. It was wrong for the IRS to behave in this heavy-handed manner. They didn’t explain it well before or now what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. But there are no parallels between these two.”
"No parallels ...?" Wait -- did we hear about the IRS selectively targeting liberal groups during President Bush's terms? Does anyone seriously doubt we wouldn't have heard knowing our MSM as we do? As such, Bond is totally full of sh**. Even moreso when he says garbage like the T.P. being "admittedly racist" and that the Tea Party is the "Taliban wing of American politics."
That schtick is beyond old, dude. We have guys like you to "thank" for making the term "racist" virtually meaningless now.
So say the rumors. Michael B. Jordan (Chronicle and Friday Night Lights) is in the running. To which comics guy Ron Marz makes yet another interesting Tweet:
All those movies with a black guy playing Nick Fury were box-office disasters, and no fun to watch, right? #Torched— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) May 2, 2013
Well duh, Ron. Maybe that's because the African-American Nick Fury was already well established in comics continuity before the latest crop of Marvel films came out (that featured the character). Marvel's popular Ultimate Universe is where the Samuel L. Jackson-based character began -- over a decade ago at the turn of the milennium.
On the other hand, where has there been a black Human Torch/Johnny Storm in comics? I haven't bought a new book in some time, but I keep up with what is going on regularly. I don't recall ever seeing an African-American Torch. Spinoff's article author Steve Sunu indicates same. Such a deviation certainly doesn't mean the reboot FF film won't be successful; however, it could be problematic if there's a decent amount of concentration on the team's origin. Maybe one way around that is to make Sue and Johnny half-siblings, or one adopted. That sounds easy enough. And a new FF film, however altered, certainly can't be much worse than the original two!
That all said, why the change in the first place? Is this just another example of needless political correctness for the sake of ... political correctness?
UPDATE: The ultra-PC creator Gail Simone chimes in with her "coherent" thoughts:
I swear to god, I am NOT going to listen to a bunch more dumb outrage about a black actor being cast in a superhero movie. GOOD. #FuryRules— GailSimone (@GailSimone) May 3, 2013
Why the hash-tag "FuryRules"? Is there really a pissed off fan base out there regarding Samuel L. Jackson being cast as Nick Fury? If so, where? As I noted, at least this Fury actually has a basis in the comics. A black Johnny Storm does not. I really wonder what Simone's reaction would be if, in the upcoming Captain America sequel, a white guy was cast as the Falcon. Or, what if a movie studio took one of her characters ... and completely altered him/her?
I've opined in the past already that I could care less if African-American actors are cast as characters that were originally portrayed as white (or something else) in the original comics -- because most of the most popular characters in the biz were created when blacks were still considered second-class citizens. We've seen Heimdall portrayed by a black actor in Thor; Jamie Foxx is slated to play Electro in the upcoming Amazing Spider-Man 2. And big deal. But, again, the Fantastic Four is a bit different. It's a major property of one of the Big Two comics companies with a rich (and immense) continuity history. It'd almost be akin to putting out a film with a black guy playing Superman ... just for the sake of having a black guy playing Superman. In other words, it really makes no sense.
But whoever said political correctness ever made sense?
Via Ace: PBS's Gwen Ifill Tweeted the other day:
Disturbing that it's OK for TV to ID a Boston bombing suspect only as "a dark-skinned individual."— gwen ifill (@pbsgwen) April 17, 2013
Apparently it isn't disturbing when the suspect is a white guy, though. And, after all, we certainly don't want the public to have any information that may assist in ID'ing criminals, right?
Yet another example of outrageous PC insanity, this time from Phoenix, AZ:
To diversify the lifeguard force, Phoenix will spend thousands of dollars to recruit minorities even if they’re not strong swimmers, according to an official quoted in a news report. Blacks, Latinos and Asians who may not necessarily qualify can still get hired, says the city official who adds that “we will work with you in your swimming abilities.”
There’s a good reason the city is hiring lifeguards that can’t swim. Public pools are largely used by Latino and African-American kids, but most of the lifeguards are white and this creates a huge problem. “The kids in the pool are all either Hispanic or black or whatever, and every lifeguard is white and we don’t like that,” says a Phoenix official quoted in the story. She added that “the kids don’t relate; there’s language issues.”
First, imagine a white city official saying that "the kids don't relate" and "we don't like that" with regards to, say, a basketball camp where most of the instructors were black and the clientele white. Second, consider what this idiot city official's response would be to a lawsuit as a result of a child drowning ... because the lifeguard didn't know what the f*** he was doing.
Maybe he/she will get lucky and the suing attorney will be a minority. Y'know, the lawyer will "understand" why the city hired on the basis of diversity and all. Cheeyeah, good luck with that.
They have a book called "Clueless at the Top," which is not an autobiography but a meditation "on outdated hierarchies in American culture," whatever that means.
Two items came to my attention these past few days the exemplify the Catch-22 diversophiles and the denizens of political correctness put themselves in. First, from the Big Apple:
“I'm Muslim and I believe 110 percent in Sharia law.”
“You know what happens in Islamic countries? You know what happens to the gay people, correct? They're beheaded,” the caller said. “I'm going to fight as hard as I can with all my Muslim brothers and sisters to make Sharia law in the United States.”
“So people should be beheaded for being gay? Come on, this is America,” host Maria Milito complained.
“I'm not anti-Muslim,” Milito asserted.
“You're anti-Muslim if you are saying that about my religion.”
You see? You are an Islamophobe if you oppose the beheading of homosexuals ... merely for being homosexuals. What is a "progressive" devotee to PC to do??
Next, a couple of "progressive" twins are featured in the Washington Post to argue that mass shootings are a white (male) cultural problem ... and they don't want to talk about it:
Imagine if African American men and boys were committing mass shootings month after month, year after year. Articles and interviews would flood the media, and we’d have political debates demanding that African Americans be “held accountable.” Then, if an atrocity such as the Newtown, Conn., shootings took place and African American male leaders held a news conference to offer solutions, their credibility would be questionable. The public would tell these leaders that they need to focus on problems in their own culture and communities.
But when the criminals and leaders are white men, race and gender become the elephant in the room.
There is so much that is plainly ridiculous about this I don't believe I could fit it all in one post. Just read the article and guffaw. And keep in mind the byline of the authors' own website:
Harriet and Charlotte are consultants, authors, and college faculty who have researched, written, and spoken about issues related to social and political change for more than two decades.
Ah yes -- "social and political change." Enough said.
Ace, as you might expect, has a field day:
That first paragraph is very nearly self-refuting. A couple of Newtowns worth of people, almost exclusively African American people, die on the streets of gun control-loving Chicago every month, yet the media flood the authors suggest would happen simply hasn't. I wonder why that is ... ?
He then points out this chart and says "Looks to me like (a) the black homicide rate dwarfs the white homicide rate and (b) the gap is greatest where gun control is most strict." And this is probably the best comment regarding Ace's commentary.
Is this what it's come to in our country? It's bad enough when idiots like the pundits on MSNBC discover "racism" under every nook and cranny (this has to be the best example ever, so to speak); now a sports "writer" at SB Nation sees fit to find "racism" in ... white guys celebrating their home team beating a rival who's won 27 games in a row.
Was this writer, Bill Hanstock, just trying to be ... "funny?" It seems like it. But not only is his article not funny (and hey, I think "poke fun at white people" humor is hilarious if done well -- like here and here, for example), what exactly is he trying to get across? Aren't their plenty of black Chicago Bulls fans? How would an article from the other side of the color spectrum come across?
Yeah, I think we all know ...
I'm serious. Check out the following panels of Uncanny Avengers #5:
In a word (two, actually), "Aw, C'MAHN!"
As the article notes, Marvel typically has used the term "mutie" as the derogatory derivative of "mutant" ... sort of like how "homo" is the nasty version of "homosexual." But using "homosexual" isn't viewed as negative, or "divisive" as Havoc (Alex Summers) says in the panels. It's the actual technical term for those who are attracted to the same sex. Just like "mutant" is the actual technical term for a genetic aberration of a standard human.
Further, consider what Havoc says: "We are defined by our choices, not the makeup of our genes." But ... the latter is precisely what homosexuals themselves claim. It is those who oppose the "gay agenda" (whatever that is, precisely) who frequently claim that being gay is a choice. And they're pilloried for it.
So, writer Rick Remender has tied himself into a ridiculous PC knot. We're told (in the real world) that gays are defined by their genetics, but (in the Marvel Universe) mutants -- who've typically been utilized as allegories for oppressed minorities like homosexuals -- should not be. Because it's "divisive." If Remender is trying to make a statement here, he's failed miserably. He just comes off as some sort of anointed, annoying (and confused) social commentator. A commenter to the article reminds us how Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of "color blindness" has been utterly corrupted by the denizens of political correctness. Now, believing in this vision -- not acknowledging someone's skin color -- is viewed as "racist." It's truly (and sadly) remarkable.
Keep in mind, too, that Marvel's own term for mutants is "Homo superior," or, "Homo sapiens superior." The word "superior" already indicates a divisive aspect -- that members of this sub-species of humanity are "better" than the average joe. And doesn't the PC crowd consider any sort of claim of "superiority" to another person or group ... anathema?
UPDATE: Tom Spurgeon opines:
Marvel's use of X-Men related imagery and concepts as potentially valuable tools in getting at nuances of racism, classism, sexism and homophobia has a generated a couple of posts on other sites -- here and here -- and likely a lot of well-meaning, agitated comments threads of the potentially high-traffic variety. The only thing that pops into my head when I hear about stuff like that is that these are really broad metaphors at best, and a first-class ticket to the Land Of Stupid at worst.
I vote the latter.
Elsewhere, from the first link in Spurgeon's quote, which misses the actual point:
The idea that ‘mutant’ is an ‘m-word’ is comprehensively wrong. The idea that equality is reached via erasing differences is wrong. And the message this scene puts across is that minorities – for, of course, mutancy in the Marvel Universe is used as a metaphor for the struggles of persecuted minorities round the world, be they of a different sexual orientation, gender, race, religion – should want to become invisible and fit into their surroundings. It’s a message that minorities should feel ashamed of who they are, and seek to become, quote “normalised”.
Aside from ignoring the idiocy that "mutant" should be a pejorative, this writer, Steve Morris, seems to be of the crowd I mentioned in my post -- that of the MLK "revisionists" who see color-blindness as a societal negative. Be sure to read the comment thread there as the convo is pretty good from both sides of the issue.
Avi at FCMM reports that DC writer Joshua Fialkov is quitting his gigs with the company because ... the comics giant wants to "kill off" one of its main black characters (the Green Lantern John Stewart).
To which I say, "So what??" If this is supposed to be some socially/racially/morally conscious objection, gimme a royal break. As if "death" means anything in comics anymore. If anything, I'm willing to bet this editorial mandate is just another sales gimmick -- pretty much like all comicbook "deaths" are.
At any rate, today Bleeding Cool is reporting that Stewart will not be killed off.
Philly Abortion Doc Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Case 'A Lynching.'
A lawyer for a Philadelphia abortion provider on trial for allegedly killing live babies and a woman patient calls the murder case "an elitist, racist prosecution."
Defense lawyer Jack McMahon also accuses city officials of "a prosecutorial lynching" of his client, who is black.
McMahon says city officials are applying "Mayo Clinic" standards to Gosnell's inner-city clinic in West Philadelphia.
As the text lingo goes, "LOL." And anyone else note the irony in the racism claims ... and then the last sentence in the quote?
The implication — which I think is very strong — that the “speech” is indeed unprotected by the First Amendment under the “incitement” exception is absolutely wrong: Under Brandenburg v. Ohio and Hess v. Indiana, the speech in the article is clearly protected. (It’s true that a narrow range of speech that is intended and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct, with imminent meaning within hours or at most a few days, rather than at some unspecified future time, is unprotected, but the magazine article definitely does not fit within that.) And it’s quite troubling, I think, when a mayor (who has power over, among others, the Police Department) suggests that the expression of opinions that he disapproves of about race is constitutionally unprotected.
Which should go without saying. It's way beyond "troubling." It's sheer, unbridled idiocy is what it is.
Philly's Mayor Michael Nutter has asked for an investigation(!!) into this Philadelphia Magazine article. An investigation. And, most frighteningly, he "also asked it (the city's Human Relations Commission) to consider whether the article was the "reckless equivalent of 'shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater.' "
In other words, he wants to see if criminal charges can be brought against the magazine, and the article's author.
These small-minded leftists keep, as I titled my previous post, making the "offensive" article's point. Perfectly.
The BBC tweeted:
"LIVE VIDEO: Chimney of Sistine Chapel as conclave votes for #Pope - will smoke be black or white?"
This so enraged MP David Lammy that he tweeted back:
"This tweet from the BBC is crass and unnecessary. Do we really need silly innuendo about the race of the next Pope?"
This is just too damn funny.
Robert Huber writes what he must have known would be a provocative article in Philadelphia Magazine. His thesis is essentially that white people are afraid to speak up on matters of race (in and around Philly). Daniel Denvir at Philly City Paper chides Huber in a childish "nyah nyah" fashion, because, you know, Caucasians have absolutely nothing to complain about (regarding race).
Let's cut the bullcrap already. It is entirely possible to feel muzzled in "honest" racial discussions while at the same time recognizing the historical wrongs perpetrated against African-Americans, as well as the advantages whites have enjoyed since the country's founding. The [easily predictable] reaction to this article proves how correct we've been in the past when we've called programs such as "Courageous Conversations" and "Difficult Dialogues" frauds -- frauds because, like Huber, if you're white and you want to be "courageous," you'd better be prepared to endure a lot of criticism, not to mention the typical accusations of ... RACISM! Such programs are usually skewed from the start; "Courageous Conversations," for example, at the onset states that student home life, socio-economic status, and parental situation are "off limits."
How "courageous" is that?
Huber may be wrong, or he may be right. Or somewhere in between. But the [liberal] visceral reaction proves much of his point: Honest, frank discussions about race are still a long way off (apologies to Eric Holder notwithstanding).
After reading through this article about stereotypes, I got to thinking (again) about this superb article by Comics Alliance's David Brothers. Interestingly, David addresses the matter of writer Reginald Hudlin's Black Panther from an "angry black man" perspective (and its critics), while two and a half years ago I did so from an "It's just comics!" viewpoint (while also mostly supporting Brothers' points). But here's a point that struck me from David's article:
People suspecting creators of writing while black is much, much more common than you might expect, and it's never pretty. Dwayne McDuffie got it bad, particularly when he was working on Justice League of America for DC Comics.
It comes from the thing I mentioned earlier, when people look at books featuring black characters or black creators working on black characters as a "black book." That sets up certain expectations, for better or for worse.
But ... whose fault is that, primarily? I Tweeted my response to David about these thoughts (without reply, which is perfectly fine, of course), but let's face it: It is the progressive political ideology which primarly permeates Comic Alliance's site (and most comic creators, too). It is "progressives" who are racial bean counters in education and employment, and (especially in the former) expect African-Americans (and other minorities) to "represent their race." And then these same "progressives" wonder why folks expect black people to ... represent black people? And are offended by it? Gimme a break!
Just look at what happens to African-Americans who dare to journey away from the confines of the Democratic Party. (Or worse: join the GOP.) Martin Luther King Jr. talked about looking beyond skin tone; now, "progressive" pundits opine that colorblindness is "an adolescent view of race relations." The examples are endless.
So, if you're looking at someone to blame, David, for the perceived stereotype that black creators have to "write black," it ain't conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, or even people with anachronistic racial views. It's the "progressives" who have inculcated our contemporary culture with the opinion that is not only "good," but necessary, to have "proper proportions" of individuals from different racial groups to "embody" said groups.
Comics guy Mark Waid, who makes a ton of money and has a very successful career, bafflingly is an incredibly angry man. He's still really pissed off about this post, insisting I "lied" about him and his views. Here's a sampling of his umbrage from Twitter last night:
In response to Douglas Ernst's comments about Waid's profanity:
In response to my comments about Waid's selective choice of "actionable actions" that can be used to legitimately fire a writer (like Orson Scott Card from Superman):
Waid then accuses me of "prosecuting him":
Waid then accuses me of selective editing to make me look good, and him bad:
After I tell him "Pot, Kettle," Waid then offers up this:
I'll grant that the "racist" remark was made in jest (I really don't think Waid is that far gone, like Rachel Maddow apparently is regarding SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia), but he's way off on my being "pro-NOM" (National Organization for Marriage). Couldn't be farther from the truth. The fact is, I vehemently disagree with Orson Scott Card's views on homosexuals, and specifically with regards to gay "marriage," I couldn't care less about it. In my view, if gay Americans are granted the same benefits as heterosexual couples in civil unions, the matter is settled.
If you're like Waid and believe I "edit things to my favor," don't just take my word about all the above quotes. Merely visit my Twitter feed and read the exchanges for yourself.
Embattled NJ Senator Bob Menendez is using the RACE CARD to blame all his woes on the GOP:
At a Black History Month event held at a Trenton, N.J. church on Sunday, Democratic Senator Bob Menendez blamed conservatives for his ethics scandals, framing them as a racial attack on him because of his Hispanic heritage. “I have felt the sting of discrimination,” he told approximately 300 worshipers, according to the Bergen Record. ”It has never been easy.”
“Now we face anonymous, faceless, nameless individuals from right-wing sources seeking to destroy a lifetime of work,” Menendez said at Shiloh Baptist Church.
*YAWN* Hey Bob, at least Anthony Weiner had the dignity not to claim his accusers were anti-Semitic.
You can decide for yourself if this is actually a big deal; personally, I'd just like the companies to hire good writers without an agenda of some kind. But what cracks me up about this is we see this same complaint in Hollywood and in network news -- like comics, bastions of "progressivism." So, if skin color diversity is of such import, then why don't those who clamor most about it ... do something about it?? Why doesn't NBC's Brian Williams step aside for a black man? (Or better yet, a black woman?) Why doesn't ABC's Diane Sawyer do same? Ditto for CBS's Scott Pelley?
Why don't the actors of some of Hollywood's hottest TV shows and movies also step aside for more minorities? The cast of The Big Bang Theory can be replaced with all African-Americans. What? "That's silly!" you say?
Maybe now you're catching on ...
So writes the WaPo's Krissah Thompson:
The first lady’s critics “are reacting to the culture in which they’ve grown up or they are using it as a code to racialize Michelle Obama and remind people that she’s black,” says Andra Gillespie, an associate professor of political science at Emory University. “It is unreasonable to expect a nearly 50-year-old woman to have the body of a 25-year-old. She looks great for her age.”
Who knew? Everyone I know who says Michelle Obama has a fat ass says so because ... Michelle Obama has a fat ass.
Once again, we see how so-called "progressives" are uniquely "qualified" to ferret out the clandestine racism of the body politic. Whether it's using golf to equate Boss Obama to Tiger Woods' extra-marital dalliances, or noting how referring to the president as "cool" is racist, to claiming peanut butter sandwiches are racist ... the typical garden variety American hears all this and goes "WTF??"
And here's a little advice for Boss Obama and crew, and the racer mainstream media: Obama and co. are from Chicago, for cripe's sakes. So grow up. If you can't stand the legitimate political heat and political comedy, make way for someone who can.
"Yes," says Mike Florio:
Really? Do people really think that professional sports franchises don't want the very best coaches and general managers available? They want the best players, after all.
And seriously, the Rooney Rule -- which requires NFL teams to interview minority candidates for coaching positions -- is cosmetically applied anyway. Teams in search of coaches usually have a good idea of who they want in advance based on current availability, and to comply with the RR they'll merely grant a "courtesy" interview to a minority interviewee. An expansion of the RR would result in ... what -- more mere "courtesy" interviews?
The only way people like Florio will get what they want is if a mandatory quota -- NFL affirmative action, if you will -- is implemented. And that would go over even worse than this silly Rooney Rule.
It’s fitting that the annual observance of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birth and the inauguration of President Obama for a second term are occurring on the same day.
Four years ago, America’s inauguration of its first black president brought great optimism about a post-racial era. And indeed, the United States has made significant progress toward being the colorblind society King envisioned in his “I Have a Dream” speech 50 years ago from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
But most reasonable people would agree that there are more steps to be taken in ensuring that character, not skin color, is the dominant means by which people are judged.
Say what?? "Dominant means"?? Dr. King actually said (in his famous speech),
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
He did not say "...where they will be judged partly by the color of their skin, but mostly by the content of their character."
This little added "dominant" nugget is just one example of how "progressives" have twisted Dr. King's vision. The editors of the Inquirer are acting exactly like college admissions departments (to name one), who fight tooth and nail to be able to consider race as one factor in admissions. So-called "diversity" directors and consultants tell us now that color-blindness is wrong ... that we must now see race, else how can we fight against racism? And, else, how can the majority view and accept their "white privilege?"
Yeah, I know the logic is beyond twisted. Attempting to derive any sense from such is like trying to decipher a post-modernist poem on feminism.
This past weekend a furor erupted in southern Delaware as radio talk show host Dan Gaffney snapped some photos of signs posted at Milford School District playgrounds -- signs in English and in Spanish ... but with two totally different meanings. The English sign merely states that parental supervision is required at the playgrounds, while the Spanish version states that permission/a permit must first be obtained, and violators could be prosecuted.
So if you are a white English speaking “American,” you can play here at your own risk so long as you have a parent or guardian watching. If you are brown, if you dare play here without a permit we will arrest your immigrant ass. That is the fucking height of racism, and I will see to it that who ever [sic] is responsible for this sign will have their public careers ended immediately.
... this is not a #fail situation. This is intentional.
As you probably know, Delaware Douche has a habit of anointing himself the "moral arbiter" of pretty much everything. Remember, his belief that the GOP's advocacy of deregulation and their supposed "greed" meant that they should all be "rounded up and shot." This past weekend on Facebook, DD lambasted those who suggested that the sign mix-up may simply have been [an unfortunate] mistake: "Stop defending racists," he told one commenter.
But lo and behold, it appears those who advised not being hasty were correct: as you can see in this photo, the English sign says precisely what the Spanish sign says. The signs here are located at a sports field/complex; however, as noted above, the differing signs are located some playgrounds. It seems that somebody simply screwed up -- signs meant for sports fields/complexes were inadvertently placed at playgrounds. The News Journal eventually covered the story, and Milford Superintendent Phyllis Kohel confirms the mix-up:
Matched English and Spanish versions of the signs mentioning permits are posted at sports fields in other schools in the district, Kohel said. They went up at those sites because a glut of adult recreation sports teams were using the public fields, sometimes during school hours. School officials had met with the teams and amiably worked out a permit system, she said.
“That’s why those signs, which say you must have permission to play, were created,” Kohel said. But about a year ago, when new playground equipment was added to the elementary schools, the Spanish version of the same sign was posted by mistake, she said, along with the more lenient English signs.
Kohel herself worked to remove the signs as soon as she was alerted to the discrepancy in message.
Were the differing signs hurtful and just plain wrong? Of course. Was their placement intentional? It certainly seems not. I am guessing that some non-Spanish-speaking maintenance workers put up the signs ... and lamentably didn't know any better.
Meanwhile, personally I got a kick out of those who became sudden "experts" on the Spanish language during this imbroglio. For example, LGOMB commenter "Aoine" writes
USTEDES- very rude and aggressive form of address. A friend put it like this: ” it’s like someone goes up to a groups and says, HEY, YOU ALL, YEAH YOU ALL, THERE, YEAH, YOU, while pointing their finger at you all, in the group.
In Spanish the personal pronoun is only used with the verb for emphasis, generally the ending on the verb denotes the WHO, I.e. necessitas. One needs, or you ( plural form) needs.
Uh, no. As you may know, I've spoken and taught Spanish for over twenty years. I'm loath to say "never" about anything related to the language's grammar and especially vocabulary (since there are many, many differences among the many Spanish-speaking nations), but in all my years I've never heard that "ustedes" (or "Uds.") is a "very rude and aggressive form of address." If so, then I wonder why my in-laws in Costa Rica always use it, why they take no offense when I use it with them, and why my Mexican, Dominican, Venezuelan and Puerto Rican friends have never taken offense when I've used it ... not to mention that they frequently use it themselves.
Please read John Young's response to County Councilman Jea Street over at Transparent Christina (newly linked in our Delaware Bloggers section). It deals with the recent federal Dept. of Ed. probe into the Christina District's (Delaware's most populous) [supposed] discriminatory discipline practices.
MSDNC's Andrea Mitchell claims John McCain's attacks on Susan Rice won't "help Republicans at all," because Rice is "a woman of color," and for McCain "this was personal" = RACISM.
Documentarian Ken Burns says that the falsely accused Duke lacrosse players were "three rich white boys" who were "mildly inconvenienced" by the rape charges = NOT RACISM.
Lack of media coverage of deceased Latina music star Jenni Rivera = RACISM.
Black ESPN commentator calls Redskins QB Robert Griffin III ("RG3") a “cornball brother" because he's is engaged to a white woman, and could be a Republican = NOT RACISM.
Legal Insurrection has the vid of a black hot dog vendor who was caught up in the violence precipitated by union goons in Michigan the other day. This vendor claims he was the subject of racial taunts and epithets. To be fair, so too claimed members of the Congressional Black Caucus a couple years back during the crucial healthcare vote, and Andrew Breitbart offered $100K (yes, $100K not $10K as I previous blogged) for video proof. No such proof ever came forth, despite a plethora of recording devices on the scene.
So, in the interest of fairness, does anyone have proof of what this gentleman claims?
Of course, the mainstream media dutifully reported the claims of the CBC. There's been nary a word about this hot dog vendor, of course. The NARRATIVETM after all.
We've said it here many, many times: Forced proportionate representation is a laughable joke, yet the Obama DOE's civil rights division has chimed in on Delaware's Christina District. Kilroy has all the details.
It's worth noting here Hans Bader's past column wherein he notes,
Crimes and infractions are not evenly distributed among racial groups, as the Supreme Court noted in United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996). As that 8-to-1 Supreme Court ruling emphasized, there is no legal “presumption that people of all races commit all types of crimes” at the same rate, since such a presumption is “contradicted by” real world data.
Kilroy shares a News Journal analysis which found that
... black students made up about 32 percent of the state’s public school population but accounted for 55 percent of students who were suspended or expelled.
Which, according to the United States Supreme Court, this in and of itself means zilch. But then again, this is Obama's America -- where the mere suspicion of racism means ... racism. School officials, instead of enforcing standard, rational discipline, will look the other way now -- because they certainly do not want to be labeled a "racist."
Get ready for chaos, American teachers.
Gag video mocks Harrisburg, PA's mayor = RACISM.
Jamie Foxx jokes about killing all the white people in his latest movie = NOT RACISM.
The NY Times' Maureen Dowd says that the GOP is a "universe of arrogant, uptight, entitled, bossy, retrogressive white guys" = NOT RACISM.
Boss Obama's 2008 inauguration reverend claims "all whites are going to hell" = NOT RACISM.
Bill Thurnau of Elkton, MD rightly mocks the Wilmington News Journal's race emphasis -- but the emphasis only manifests itself for the "right" reasons:
The new Delaware State Police superintendent, Maj. Nate McQueen, is obviously an admirable man, judging by the article, saying he is a veteran state trooper, and U.S. Marine. I applaud his achievements and sincerely hope he continues his service in his new appointment. I am sad, that The News Journal had to point he is a black man.
The unfortunate thing for everyone, is when reading the crime report, race and color are rarely in the description of the perpetrator. It would help the reader if they knew, was it a white, black, Hispanic, or Asian?
Correction, Bill: The paper never prints the race of crime suspects. And long-time readers will be familiar with the reason why. 'Ya gotta like this utter nonsense:
Our policy is not about being politically correct, it's about being accurate. Race is such an unreliable descriptor. What race is Halle Berry or Tiger Woods or Jennifer Lopez? They are extreme examples, but project them onto everyday people and you see the problem.
Or what real information is conveyed in a description that says: She is a 5-foot-6-inch white woman with brown hair? How many women fit that description? Who is that of use to? By the way, that description is of me -- and I haven't committed any crimes.
It is truly amazing how these PC dopes think. Didn't they ask themselves "Or what real information is conveyed in only noting the height of the suspect and what they were wearing"? Because that's about all you read in WNJ crime reports these days. Saying "it's not about being politically correct" is laughable in the extreme. It's precisely what it's about. Including the race of a crime suspect gives the public a lot more info than just an approximate height and weight, and especially what they were wearing. Or has the WNJ forgotten that people, y'know, actually change their clothes?
And if "race is such an unreliable descriptor," then why is it worthy of mention in the report about Mr. McQueen, hmm?
Simply put, the News Journal places political correctness over the public's safety. Period.
Documentarian Ken Burns claims a friend of his attended a Tea Party meeting once, and "almost every one she met there invoked the 'n-word' about the president." Yeah -- I guess that's sort of like someone saying "some of my best friends are black." Puh-lease.
Recall that despite myriad claims that [Tea Party] protesters hurled racial epithets at black members of Congress during the ObamaCare showdown, not a single piece of audio or video evidence ever came forth to substantiate such claims (even from Jesse Jackson Jr. who had a video camera at the event). Even after Andrew Breitbart offered $10,000 for such proof. (And despite this, the MSM still reported on the supposed epithets as fact.)
Burns has recently put out a film titled "'The Central Park Five,' a documentary detailing how five innocent teens were convicted of a horrific rape which shocked the Big Apple back in 1989." Maybe Burns could next turn his docu-eye on another 1980s travesty of justice, Al Sharpton and the infamous Tawana Brawley case. Burns also claims "there wouldn't be a birther movement with a President Joe Biden in the White House." Actually, if Joe Biden had purposely sold himself as a foreign student like Boss Obama did, that claim would be inaccurate.
*Yawn* Just another day in Racerville.
Documentary maven Ken Burns claims that the current "secession" movement going in the wake of Boss Obama's election victory is -- WAIT FOR IT!!! ...
“Every time I think the Democratic race card players could not get more vile, more deranged, more patronizingly demeaning to blacks, someone manages to defy even my vivid imagination. This time, it is the Editorial Board of The Washington Post.”
If West was a Democrat, the MSM, the NAACP, Sharpton, Jackson, et. al. would all be down in Florida raising all sorts of hell.
Boss Barack Obama has won a second term by a wide electoral margin, but the Left is still crying "racism" every chance they can get. And why not, really? As utterly ludicrous as many -- most -- of the charges are, apparently enough bozos buy 'em ... and then vote on 'em. Whether they're black or white.
The most recent case in point is a former far-left Delaware blogger who wrote on Facebook last evening (no link provided as I am not certain he would appreciate and/or authorize such, especially as I am FB friends with him) that the GOP was showing its "true" racist colors because they apparently only go after the African-Americans in the Boss Obama administration. (He writes that Republicans have "hated" Obama, Eric Holder and Susan Rice "the most.") The most recent of these is the last listed, our UN Ambassador Susan Rice. Rice has gotten heat for going on numerous Sunday talk shows right after the Benghazi attacks in Libya, and parroting the now-debunked line that a silly anti-Islam YouTube video. Boss Obama acted all tough yesterday in defending Rice stating, "Come after me." (Of course, he made little sense in that defense for, if Rice "knew nothing" of Benghazi, then WTF was she doing out there on all those talk shows??)
Then there's Eric Holder. Indeed, I suppose "Fast and Furious" has absolutely nothing to do with how the opposition views him, not to mention his department's views on enforcing civil rights laws.
Heck, I'll even add Van Jones in there for good measure. Indeed, why in the world did he get so much crap? I mean, it's not like he was a well known 9/11 Truther or anything!!
But this is all beside the point. This far-left former DE blogger only has his [very] skewed opinion that the blacks in the administration are "hated" more than others. He has absolutely no proof of this other than some GOP legislators criticizing them. Obama appointed numerous African-Americans to various positions, and if they suck at the job, what are people -- especially the opposition -- supposed to say? "Oh, sorry, you're black. You're doing just wonderfully!!"?? This, I believe, is known as the bigotry of low expectations. Does anyone seriously believe that if this was a GOP administration that the attorney general would not get any heat from a Democratic House about "Fast and Furious"? Does anyone seriously believe that members of a Democratic House would not excoriate a GOP-appointed UN ambassador for going on myriad Sunday talk shows to forward a lie about an attack on a US consulate that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including an ambassador?? If you do not believe these things wouldn't happen, you're a nut. Period.
Our former far-left DE blogger conveniently forgets administration members like Tim Geithner. The GOP was all over him for not paying his taxes, and most recently about the Libor rate-rigging scandal. Then there's the favorite target of Delaware edu-blogger Kilroy, Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Duncan's tenure as head of Chicago schools has been panned by many, not to mention the whole federal Race to the Top initiative (frequently -- and rightly -- dubbed "No Child Left Behind on steroids") is one huge wasteful boondoggle. Ask any teacher that is signed on to it (like here in DE), conservative or liberal. They'll confirm such.
It's pretty damn unbecoming that a person such as this former blogger who prides himself on being such an intellectual (and he is) so easily falls prey to the specious "racism" canard whenever it's convenient, or when there's some heat being put on a few officials who just happen to be black. On the one hand, it's not surprising that so-called "progressives" feel that African-Americans, whether gov. officials or not, should be held to a different -- i.e. lower standard. They feel this way in other realms of life, after all (employment, education). On the other, if this is the excuse that will continually be utilized, then why not just give their positions to some Caucasians so at least critics can question them and complain about them without the PC police constantly harassing them?
Via Doug Ross@Journal:
1) Virtually every retailer, restaurant and grocery store south of 38th street is CLOSED. This is in an area covering 8 square miles. I only observed a handful of bodegas in Soho and the East Village, along with Ben’s Pizza on W3rd and MacDougal serving customers. Whole Foods Union Square had a sign reading “because there is no electricity, we cannot open.” There is no food, other than what you have in your refrigerator.
2) To that point, there are close to 400,000 people living below 38th street without power. The mayor earlier said it could be 3 days without power; some Con Ed guys I spoke with in the East Village think it could be longer. Nobody knows.
3) No working traffic lights in this region (drivers are generally being cautious and appropriately yielding to pedestrians). Apartment stairwells are pitch black. High rises have no elevator access...
5) There is no running water or flushing toilets for people living in the Jacob Riis Houses and surrounding NYCHA buildings on the Lower East Side. In my estimate, this is roughly 20,000 people. One family I spoke with is packing their bags and moving to Brooklyn until services are restored. But it did not appear that all residents were evacuating, even as their toilets did not flush.
6) I did not witness a single Red Cross Truck or FEMA Vehicle or in lower Manhattan. Recall the assistance these agencies provided after 9/11 - this is NOT HAPPENING. There are bound to be hundreds of elderly people, rich and poor, who live on the upper floors of buildings with elevators that are now disabled. IF POWER IS NOT RESTORED, THIS WILL MOVE FROM BEING AN ECONOMIC DISASTER TO A HUMANITARIAN DISASTER.
Of course, if this was Mitt Romney's LDS pastor (do they call them "pastors?"), the mainstream media would pound this for days. As it is, a small outlet in Georgia reports the following (via the Georgia Tipsheet):
[Dr. James] Lowery said that when he was a young militant, he used to say all white folks were going to hell. Then he mellowed and just said most of them were. Now, he said, he is back to where he was.
"I'm frightened by the level of hatred and bitterness coming out in this election," said Lowery.
Reverend Wright, Dr. Lowery, Father Pfleger, Bill Ayers ... yeah, we're all supposed to believe that Boss Obama shares nothing in common with what these folks fundamentally believe.
Yeah. Again, just imagine if Romney had even the remotest connection to someone like them on the other side of the poli spectrum.
Racialist Michael Eric Dyson on why Boss Obama (and, presumably then, most blacks) like the government:
The reason Obama knows that the government is not the enemy is because he comes from a people who were owned, and it was a government-sponsored project. If the government sponsored your ownership, the government has to step in. Now, that’s 100, 200 years ago, but we’ve seen the legacy of slavery, economic inequality, Jim Crow laws, all of that stuff operates in our own time.
But, as you can see, Dyson basically contradicts himself by stating that slavery was a "government-sponsored project." So, uh ...?
Look, I understand one big reason African-Americans aren't as distrustful of big government as others (mainly whites) -- because if the feds didn't step in during the civil rights era of the mid-20th century, then certain [Southern] states would have crapped all over their basic rights and freedoms. But just as most blacks once voted GOP (the party of slavery abolition), the very structure of government has evolved to insure that states cannot do what Mississippi and others did 50+ years ago. Believing that government (at all levels) will do what you cannot (or refuse) leads to debacles like, to name a few, the trap that is public housing, failing [public] schools, and natural disaster imbroglios.
John Young of the Transparent Christina blog commented on my Education Notes post from a few days ago noting that the First State is doing just what Florida was noted implementing in the post -- namely, measuring student progress by race:
So the U.S. Department of Education, through the waiver process, shifted the focus to closing achievement gaps between groups of at-risk students. And so while Handy and other critics are focusing on that end number—and how those numbers differ by race and ethnicity—it's important to look at the number at the beginning, and the resulting rate of growth. Those numbers also differ by race and ethnicity—but because they demand that schools show more growth in learning for the kids farthest behind.
In my example above from Delaware, the rate of growth for white students would be 12 percentage points, while the rate of growth for black students would be 26 points, and special education students would see 35 points of growth.
To me, this is mind-numbing. Not only is SES (socio-economic status) apparently ignored (a black student from a wealthy family would be expected to show more growth than a white student from a destitute background), but again we see so-called "progressives" clamoring to make more palatable the "message": "As the Center on Education Policy's Maria Ferguson told me, the problem is one of 'optics.' In other words, the messaging is problematic."
This is the conundrum "progressives" put themselves into. It's as I noted in my previous post: Remember -- "progressives" want you to consider skin color. That is, for anything with a positive connotation. It's "palatable" in this case to weigh students differently on their [academic] growth because, well, minority students apparently are "starting out behind." It's just head-scratching, then, that these same folks (the "progressives") cannot take into account that the same factors that cause these students to be behind academically are frequently the very same ones that result in disparate discipline stats in schools/districts. But in the latter case, schools/districts hold workshops that inform educators that their own latent, inherent racism is to blame, and our US Dept. of Education is going after districts for their racial "imbalance" of student discipline.
University of Rochester Professor Stephanie Li claims Romney is successful "because he is white."
The Romney’s [sic] shortsightedness on this issue demonstrates their ignorance of one of the central ideas in the field of critical race studies, the unearned privileges accorded to whiteness. In her foundational essay, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” Peggy McIntosh likens whiteness to “an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools and blank checks.”
Oh gee! The Romneys are ignorant of Critical Race Theory! What a shame! As if there is something wrong with ignoring a theory that is, for all intents and purposes, post-modernist bullsh**. Whoopee-freakin'-do.
I had to read McIntosh's essay for grad class way back when. The [graduate student] instructor didn't like it much when I questioned it and pointed out its shortcomings.
Via Insty comes word that French President François Hollande has proposed banning homework from all French [public] schools. Why? Because "some homes are more conducive to homework than others." If you think that's silly, well, it is; however, sadly, I've heard similar stories (just not on such a scale) from districts across our own country. It's in the name of "social justice" and "fairness," dont'cha know.
Speaking of our own beloved United States, in Florida controversy has arisen as that "anointed" educational establishment has come up with the "terrific" idea of measuring student progress by race:
By 2018, Florida’s Department of Education wants 90 percent of its Asian students to be reading at or above grade level, compared to 88 percent of white students, 81 percent of Hispanic pupils and 74 percent of African-American children. In math, state educational officials want that figure to be 92 percent for Asian students, or 18 percent higher than that of African-American students and 11 percent higher than their American Indian counterparts.
“Separate but equal is not,” said Kris Amundson of Education Sector, an independent education think tank based in Washington. “I understand that this is recognition that students are beginning at different places — and that’s honest — but I think it is, at best, ill-advised to set different learning standards for students based on the color of their skin.”
*Sigh* Remember, though -- "progressives" want you to consider skin color. That is, for anything with a positive connotation. But while we're lumping students by racial group, perhaps these educational simpletons could recognize -- honestly -- just why certain groups do better than others. Nah ... because that would have to venture into the realm of the negative, and that is only reserved for the racial majority.
Sci-fi author Tom Kratman (Caliphate) has come up with "The Right’s Twenty Rules of Racism." My faves:
3. Racism could be eliminated in the United States if we could just eliminate the white liberals who so plainly depend on it so much and do so much to keep it going.
8. It’s not racist to note that white liberalism managed to do in about thirty years something that three hundred years of slavery could not, seriously damage the black family, generally though not universally, and ruin it completely over wide swaths.
12. The system of education that white liberals have inflicted on inner city blacks is a crime against humanity. No amount of money that they toss at it helps to overcome the elimination of discipline liberalism has caused. It’s neither racist to note this…nor wrong.
18. The worst racists are liberals, mostly white ones, who assume that blacks and hispanics are so inferior that only affirmative action in perpetuity would give them a remotely fair chance. (That this also keeps a lot of liberal white social workers and bureaucrats employed is, of course, merely incidental. Ahem. Dipshits.)
Be sure to check 'em all out.
(h/t to Right on the Left Coast.)
It's those ridiculously racist "Courageous Conversations" again, led by the "heh -- we suckered you out of your school tax dollars again" Pacific Educational Group. This time they're infecting a school in Portland, Oregon ... where peanut butter sandwiches are -- you guessed it -- "racist." Yep -- "white privilege" is responsible for a "misguided" lesson that uses the bigoted sandwich.
Remember, "Courageous Conversations" are anything but. "White privilege" is all they look at ... and blame for social ills. They should be called "Cowardly Conversations."
H/T to Buckhorn Road who suggests a counter-button which says "Once you vote white, you have done what is right." But ... that would be racist.
That's what you get when an MSNBC "pundit" talks with an intellectually challenged Democrat member of Congress. In this case, Thomas Roberts queries Sheila Jackson-Dunce, er, uh Lee if Voter ID laws are basically a poll tax:
“One issue impacting minority voters is voter ID – early voting restrictions,” Roberts began his question. “In your home state, a federal appeals court tossed out a voter ID law last week saying that it was an ‘unforgiving burden on the poor.’ Governor Rick Perry responded saying, ‘chalk up another victory for fraud.’ With 19 states now involved in this fight, why does the Republican Party – the party of smaller government and less taxes – want to institute more red tape and basically a poll tax on Americans to vote?”
Earth to Roberts: Poll taxes are unconstitutional, you complete cretin. As such,
[E]ach state that has imposed a strict requirement that voters must present photo identification at the polls has also made free identification available to voters that do not have them. Had those states not done so, the question of whether voter identification requirements constituted a poll tax would be valid.
But some loony "progressives" have even argued that using a stamp to register to vote (like I recently had to do because I had moved) is a freakin' "poll tax." Cripes, what's next -- using gas to drive to your polling place? Makes about as much sense as the cost of a f***ing stamp, after all!
The US Supreme Court has ruled favorably in voter ID cases, where the Texas case will end up and be heard next year. Meanwhile, Georgia and Indiana have had voter ID laws on the books since 2006, and Boss Obama won the latter in 2008 -- the first time a Democrat won that state since 1964. B-b-b-b-but how did he do that with that "voter suppression" ID law in place? Good question, as minority voter turnout increased after the Indiana ID was passed!
Go figure. Remember -- the usual racialist rhetoric about the poor and minorities when it comes to having an ID is merely the bigotry of low expectations. After all, you'll have to show ID several times this week at the Democrat National Convention, and there'll be plenty of minorities there, right?
On the absolute insanity that is the modern Left's obsession with race:
You just can’t win, if you’re a Republican. No matter what you say, you’ll be a racist. You know this — but here is an illustration, and one that features golf:
Two or three weeks ago, Bill Maher said about President Obama, “In many ways — especially for progressives — he is too white for them. He plays golf, he’s too cozy with bankers.” So, golf is white, in the “progressive” mind (or at least in Maher’s).
But then comes Lawrence O’Donnell to say, No, golf is black — and if you’re associating Obama with golf, you’re associating him with blackness. (Or Cablinasianness or something.) (Years ago, Tiger Woods coined the word “Cablinasian” to encompass his mix of races.)
Remember, if you’re a Republican, you can’t win — you just can’t. So you might as well just go ahead and live life.
I see my boy Duffy beat me to it today; great minds, and all that. Nevertheless, this insanity comes from admitted socialist and admitted coward (he noted he would never criticize Muslims out of physical fear, but Mormons, for example, are fair game) "Crazy" Larry O'Donnell of -- of course -- MSNBC. He amazingly said the following after a portion of GOP Senator Mitch McConnell's speech the other night at the GOP convention:
MARTIN BASHIR: We have seen an early draft of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s forthcoming oration. Can I quote something from you? “For four years, Barack Obama has been running from the nation’s problems, he hasn’t been working to earn re-election. He has been working to earn a spot on the PGA Tour.” How about that?
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: Well, we know exactly what he’s trying to do there. He is trying to align to Tiger Woods and surely, the — lifestyle of Tiger Woods with Barack Obama. Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. They find every way they possibly can to –
Now, you tell me -- here is what McConnell said in his speech that led to "Crazy" Larry's truly crazy remark:
For four years, Barack Obama has been running from the nation's problems. He hasn't been working to earn reelection. He's been working to earn a spot on the PGA tour.
Really? Really?? REALLY???
Just the other day I was involved in a slightly heated message exchange with our old friend Mike Matthews about "crazies" in the Republican Party, and conservatives in general. He hilariously stated "Where are the crazies in the Democrat Party? I don't see 'em." Yep, he said that. Such a statement rivals that of O'Donnell's absolutely gut-busting attempt to claim McConnell was linking Boss Obama to Tiger Woods' questionable (personal) lifestyle. There are thousands of pro golfers, whom one of the best happens to be black -- and that's what O'Donnell sees. It just couldn't be the fact that Boss Obama has played an insane amount of golf while the country suffers through the worst "recovery" in seventy years.
Credit, by the way, goes to fellow MSNBC talk host Martin Bashir for pressing O'Donnell on his asinine statement.
What do you do when your record is abysmal and have really nothing to run on? Play. That. Card. And get your mainstream media buddies to assist you all the way.
You've probably seen the vid of MSDNC's Chrissy Matthews ripping RNC chief Reince Priebus, but here it is just in case:
Thankfully, Newt Gingrich later on that day gave Matthews a taste of his own medicine:
I especially love Matthews gets all hissy, condescendingly asking Newt if he really believes that it's people like him (Matthews) that are the problem. Matthews loses it when he says "You've got that diabolic smile of yours, and I know you think you’re winning here, but everybody out there who’s black or white knows exactly the game that’s being played here." No, Chrissy, everybody who's a radical "progressive" who's black or white "knows exactly the game that’s being played here" -- and it's so much bullsh**. Republicans/'conservatives can NEVER win when it comes to issues that surround race (most especially in the MSM), however peripherally, and Matthews knows this. And he exploits it for all it's worth. He's upset at any mention of "welfare" or "food stamps" because the implication is supposedly a negative stereotype of African-Americans; however, Matthews' ideological brother on his same network, Chris Hayes, recently complained because a Mitt Romney didn't include black people! Wha-a-a-a-a ... ??
Then there's idiot deluxe Michael Tomasky of Newsweek/The Daily Beast comparing Mitt Romney to Richard Nixon. Why?
And yet, different as they are, their campaigns, their appeals, are undeniably similar: Nixon led, and Romney is now leading, a vengeance campaign against an Other America, an America their supporters despise. Romney’s is a campaign that seeks to win, that can only win, by dividing the country into an “us” and a “them.” I confess that I’ve been genuinely shocked by the baldness of Romney’s lies about welfare and Medicare and about the way he’s racialized this campaign. I guess that’s precisely because, whatever he seemed, he did not seem sinister like Nixon.
The Left really is insanely obsessed with race. Say something seemingly innocuous and it's "coded racism." Don't say/do something and it's ... [fill in the blank] racism. Is it because the Democrat Party is dreadfully ashamed of the past racial history (as it should be) that it acts this way? So much so that it even feels like it's the arbiter of who is "authentically [fill in the race/ethnicity]?"
Guess it's time to break out this 'ol sign again:
9/11 Truther and co-host of his own MSNBC show Touré is at it again:
Yes, he said "ni**erization." He also offered this nonsense:
But they're (the Romney campaign) talking to people who are trained to hate him, who want to hate him. It's a base turnout election, so this is how we can rev up the base to, to work against him.
Um, if these people already "hate" Boss Obama, why the hell would Romney waste time speaking to them? He already has their vote!
Continuing with the theme highlighted by Hans Bader regarding the Obama administration's pressuring school districts to implement what are, essentially, quotas in school discipline, Heather Mac Donald follows today with a rather lengthy -- and scary -- essay on the topic. Here's something we've heard of before -- and an example of the type of teacher we need more of to speak up against this politically correct garbage:
Aaron Benner, a fifth-grade teacher in St. Paul, Minnesota, scoffs at the notion that minority students are being unfairly targeted for discipline. “Anyone in his right mind knows that these [disciplined] students are extremely disruptive,” he says. Like districts across the county, the St. Paul public school system has been on a mission to lower the black suspension rate, following complaints by local activists and black parents. A highly regarded principal lost his job because his school had “too many” suspensions of black second- and fourth-graders. The school system has sent its staff to $350,000 worth of “cultural-proficiency” training, where they learned to “examine the presence and role of ‘Whiteness.’ ” The district spent another $2 million or so to implement an anti-suspension behavioral-modification program embraced by the Obama administration.
Benner sees the consequences of this anti-discipline push nearly every day in the worsening behavior of students. He overheard a fifth-grade boy tell a girl: “Bitch, I’ll fuck you and suck you.” (“I wanted to throw him against the locker,” Benner recalls.) The boy’s teacher told Benner that she felt powerless to punish the misbehavior. “This will be one of my black men who ends up in prison after raping a woman,” observes Benner. Racist? Many would so characterize the comment. But Benner is black himself—and fed up with the excuses for black misbehavior. He attended one of the district’s cultural-proficiency sessions, where an Asian teacher asked: “How do I help the student who blurts out answers and disrupts the class?” The black facilitator reminded her: “That’s what black culture is”—an answer that echoes the Obama administration’s admonitions to teachers. “I should have said: ‘How many of you shouted out in college?’ ” Benner remarks. “They’re trying to pull one over on us. Black folks are drinking the Kool-Aid; this ‘let-them-clown’ philosophy could have been devised by the KKK.”
Delaware's Christina School District gets a mention, too. It seems it was the target of a federal investigation into "disparate" discipline procedures because it supposedly "failed" to properly distinguish between a white first grader's Cub Scout tool (“a combination of folding fork, knife, and spoon”) and and 11 year-old black girl's box cutter. The girl claimed she had no idea how the box cutter got there. When school officials moved on expulsion, the mom screamed "racism" to the Delaware Human Relations Commission, and the rest is history.
And "history" is what school and classroom order will become very quickly if the current administration gets its way. Delaware already has the highest percentage of school children per capita attending private/parochial schools. Stand by for a national upsurge in such ... or, at least a lot more vociferous demands for charters, vouchers, and school choice.
On the heels of Maryland's educational head-scratcher regarding "proportionate representation" in school discipline, a school district in Florida is now the target of a federal lawsuit based on the same principle:
A federal civil rights complaint filed Tuesday against Flagler County schools alleges black students are suspended and expelled at a rate far higher than white students.
The Southern Poverty Law Center filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights against Flagler County and four other Florida districts -- Bay, Escambia, Okaloosa and Suwannee.
Black students made up 16 percent of Flagler students but accounted for 31 percent of the in- and out-of-school suspensions in the 2010-2011 school year, the complaint states. Black students accounted for 69 percent of those expelled and 22 percent of those held back a grade.
Flagler Superintendent Janet Valentine said the district will "take it very seriously," but she can't explain the disparities in the discipline rates for white and black students.
I wonder if it ever occurred to Ms. Valentine to ponder if it's because latter are ... more disruptive in school/class? Or, is that just way too anti-politically correct to even suggest?
As Hans Bader noted in his article about Maryland's shenanigans,
This proposed rule violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by pressuring schools to discipline students based on their race, rather than their individual conduct and the content of their character. That is at odds with court rulings like the federal appeals court ruling in People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, 534 (7th Cir. 1997), which forbid both racial-balancing, and quotas, in school discipline.
Crimes and infractions are not evenly distributed among racial groups, as the Supreme Court noted in United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996). As that 8-to-1 Supreme Court ruling emphasized, there is no legal “presumption that people of all races commit all types of crimes” at the same rate, since such a presumption is “contradicted by” real world data. For example, “more than 90% of” convicted cocaine traffickers “were black” in 1994, while “93.4% of convicted LSD dealers were white.” Crime rates are higher in some ethnic groups than others.
It's a wonder why school districts faced with such nonsense complaints don't stand their ground more often, based on such legal precedent. If there's the documentation to back up the statistics and consistency of applied discipline, there should be little to legally fear. Then again, maybe not: the ever-present (and ludicrous) fear of being labeled "racist" by groups like the SPLC and NAACP (among others) can override all rational thought and considerations.
If groups like the SPLC and NAACP are successful in getting schools to implement "proportionate" discipline statistics, it will lead to chaos, frankly. Teachers and adminstrators will be reluctant to discipline minority students out of fear of being called "racist" and/or "increasing the [minority discipline] figures," whereas white students will be disciplined more harshly for even innocuous infractions.
In addition, the SPLC and NAACP are miffed that there aren't sufficient numbers of blacks in gifted and AP classes. While it's certainly easy enough to increase these figures -- just add more black students to these classes -- the practical effect is too often ignored. As in higher education, the concern that black students are successful is of secondary concern; as long as the enrollment numbers are there, "all is good." So, sure, increasing the black enrollment in AP and gifted classes is easy. But what happens if they're in [way] over their heads? Then we have a widening of the achievement gap, which is yet another academic area which is too often addressed by PC means.
Perhaps the Southern Poverty Law Center and the NAACP ought to look at more carefully at this racial disparity (snippet from here) and the role it plays on academic achievement and disruptive behavior.
Two follow-ups to this post from lawyer Hans Bader; the first is Hans' letter to the Maryland State Board of Education about their racial quotas in school discipline, and the second is titled "Obama Administration Aggravates The Minority Achievement Gap, Increases Risk Of School Violence."
Be sure to check them out!
... because some people -- the usual suspects, of course -- ONLY see such.
Such is the case with racialist Anna Holmes' soliloquy on race and sports at Yahoo! News. Thankfully and mercifully, as evidenced by the thousands of comments, your average folk are simply TIRED of this sh**. And that's exactly what Holmes' article is: One big pile of smoldering feces.
Yeah, this will work out just dandy: Maryland Board of Education seeks racial quotas in school discipline.
This proposed rule violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by pressuring schools to discipline students based on their race, rather than their individual conduct and the content of their character. That is at odds with court rulings like the federal appeals court ruling in People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, 534 (7th Cir. 1997), which forbid both racial-balancing, and quotas, in school discipline.
Crimes and infractions are not evenly distributed among racial groups, as the Supreme Court noted in United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996). As that 8-to-1 Supreme Court ruling emphasized, there is no legal “presumption that people of all races commit all types of crimes” at the same rate, since such a presumption is “contradicted by” real world data. For example, “more than 90% of” convicted cocaine traffickers “were black” in 1994, while “93.4% of convicted LSD dealers were white.” Crime rates are higher in some ethnic groups than others.
But the Board of Education seems to have forgotten that reality in proposing a rule that would require school systems to discipline and suspend students in numbers roughly in proportion to their racial percentage of the student body, and require school systems that currently don’t do so to implement plans to eliminate any racially “disproportionate impact” over a three-year period. Thus, it is imposing quotas in all but name.
This is, simply, a recipe for disaster for schools. As Bader notes in the article, teachers and administrators will be skittish to discipline, say, black students but may be more inclined to administer severe discipline to a white or Asian student that would have gotten a black student a mere warning. All in the name of "proportion."
Mitt Romney’s plan of blatantly lying about President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” speech is clearly drawing blood. But what makes the attack work so well is not so much the lie itself but the broader subtext of it. Watch Obama’s delivery in the snippet put together by this Republican ad:
The key thing is that Obama is angry, and he’s talking not in his normal voice but in a “black dialect.” This strikes at the core of Obama’s entire political identity: a soft-spoken, reasonable African-American with a Kansas accent. From the moment he stepped onto the national stage, Obama’s deepest political fear was being seen as a “traditional” black politician, one who was demanding redistribution from white America on behalf of his fellow African-Americans.
UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg has more:
I don’t think liberals appreciate how much conservatives laugh at this stuff. We’re constantly being told we’re racists and that conservatism is full of racist codes and dog whistles aimed at conservatives. And yet the only people who consistently decipher these codes or hear these dog whistles are liberals themselves.
Indeed. The outrageousness is further exemplified here -- Slate's Tim Noah notes how journalists had to be careful not to call attention to the fact Boss Obama is -- wait for it -- thin. Goldberg responds: “Hey this Obama guys looks like he’s got a 32 inch waist . . . Wait. A. Second. He’s black! I can’t vote for him!”
Back in October I had a bit of fun throwing this "racism" nonsense right back at our local "progressive" lunatics. They were busy blasting former GOP prez candidate Herman Cain at every turn, whereupon I accused their criticism of being ... "racist." One of the LGOMB responded thusly: "Are you really this much of an idiot or did you just sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night?"
Thanks a million for making. My. Point. Perfectly.
You may have heard about this idiot state senator from Virginia who went off on Mitt Romney as simply appealing to racists everywhere in order to defeat Boss Obama:
The comments Friday by Democratic Sen. Louise Lucas during a local radio interview on behalf of President Barack Obama's re-election campaign have taken on a life of their own, particularly in conservative media.
On "The John Fredericks Show" on WHKT (1650 AM), Lucas said Romney is "speaking to a segment of the population who does not like to see people other than a white man in the White House or any other elected position."
Lucas was responding to a question from Fredericks about Romney's criticism of Obama for his lack of private-sector experience.
"Let's be real clear about it. Mitt Romney is speaking to a group of people out there who don't like folks like President Barack Obama in any elected or leadership position," Lucas said.
Lucas reiterated, "He's speaking to that fringe out there who do not want to see anybody other than a white person in a leadership position."
Now Ms. Lucas -- why would Mitt Romney even need to speak to such a fringe? If this segment of the population is so incorrigibly racist, doesn't it stand to reason that they'd never, ever vote for Barack Obama anyway? Romney already has their vote, then!
Incredibly (well, not really), Lucas "is a member of the Obama 'truth team' in Virginia, a roster of Democratic officials tasked with 'promoting the President's achievements, quickly responding to unfounded attacks on his record, and holding Republicans accountable for their actions.'"
Here's a definite bit of truth for 'ya: Ms. Lucas is a f***ing moron.
A story from the Des Moines Register notes that a teacher's aide was fired from her private school for disrupting a classroom discussion about the novel Huckleberry Finn.
[Naiya] Galloway allegedly announced to a classroom full of students in October that Mark Twain’s “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” was a racist book and should not be taught in schools. The next day, she was on a school bus with students when she allegedly renewed her criticism of the book as “racist,” forcing the bus driver to intervene, according to state records. School officials alleged she voiced objections to the book on numerous other occasions.
It seems Ms. Galloway didn't like it when the actual teacher brought up the Ku Klux Klan "in a discussion of historical and political events." She also allegedly accused a math teacher of being a racist on another occassion.
But what gets me is this:
At a public hearing dealing with her subsequent request for unemployment benefits, Galloway denied all of the allegations that she had questioned the school’s use of the book. She acknowledged that she had disrupted a classroom discussion of the Ku Klux Klan because it had triggered “flashbacks,” noting that she’s both black and Japanese.
Flashbacks?? About what? She's 31 years old. That's obviously not old enough to have suffered through slavery or Jim Crow, nor the World War II internment of Japanese-Americans. The KKK is still around, yes, though greatly diminished from its heyday. Ms. Galloway did claim to have been a victim of racism in the past ... but never said it was via the Klan.
And that is "kitchen cabinet." I'm not kidding.
... yet another example of the ludicrous dumbing down of how "racism" works:
The Romney campaign has been accused of deliberately getting the Republican presidential candidate booed by black people during his NAACP speech to attract votes 'in certain racist precincts', by MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell.
Romney was booed for 15 seconds at the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People conference in Houston on Wednesday when he stated he would 'eliminate' unnecessary programmes like the Obamacare health reform.
Democrats united in saying that Romney planned to get booed to appeal to his conservative base. But O'Donnell and his guests went a step further by saying that Romney was making a play for white racists.
Hmm. So, according to admitted socialist O'Donnell, blacks can be so easily manipulated into expressing their displeasure merely at the utterance of a basic political campaign issue (ObamaCare, in this case). Just like, it seems, how blacks shouldn't be expected to possess savings accounts and/or find a way to work.
Always remember how "brave" Larry O'Donnell is, folks, when you consider what kind of "journalist/pundit" he is.
In the winter months, [Eric Jackson's girls] use an $11,000 golf simulator in the basement that the girls are rapidly outgrowing. Between practice, tournament fees, traveling, lodging, coaching and equipment, the family spends about $40,000 a year for the girls to compete.
"This is an expensive sport, and the better you get, the more expensive it becomes. The last club I bought Erica cost $1,000," Eric said. "I believe golf is designed to price black people out, and if these girls don't get the financial backing they need, it could be the end of them competing."
As Geoff Shackelford notes (from the link above), "Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but oftentimes golf prices just about everyone out. Especially at the prices quoted in this story."
Indeed. The most I ever paid for a golf club was $250, and that was for an oversized-head driver several years ago. I won a better driver two years after that in a raffle; that club was priced at over $400. It was considered to be one of the best drivers available, then, too. So, $1,000 for a freakin' club? $11,000 for a simulator in their basement? Cripes, who the f*** is Jackson kidding? Hardly anyone can afford that stuff, no matter what color.
(h/t to Right Field.)
Charlette Stoker Manning, the chairwoman of Women in NAACP, after GOP prez nominee Mitt Romney spoke to the group:
“I believe his vested interests are in white Americans,” Charlette Stoker Manning, the chairwoman of Women in NAACP, told the website BuzzFeed following the Republican candidate’s Wednesday speech in Houston.
“You cannot possibly talk about jobs for black people at the level he’s coming from. He’s talking about entrepreneurship, savings accounts — black people can barely find a way to get back and forth from work,” Manning said. (Link)
Wow. Just ... wow.
That's how James Taranto ends his column today on "Race and Privilege." It comes from his last paragraph which reads,
In our view, cries of racism are becoming more intense because they are becoming less effective. Obama is in political trouble not because he is black but because he has done a poor job as president. We will hear a lot about the scourge of racism between now and November, in part because his supporters need to blame somebody other than him for his failures of leadership and in part because they hope that black fear and white guilt will help him to win re-election. In the absence of the latter outcome, things ought to calm down after the election.
The first sentence really says it all. Precisely because more and more people guffaw at spurious charges of "racism," the methods by which it is invoked then become more outrageous -- so outrageous, in fact, as to almost defy reality. Here's just a recent sampling:
I don't want to start too much forest fire here, but it is my instinct: Is this ethnic?"
And it'll only get more and more ridiculous as November approaches. And, if Obama wins re-election, all of the above will quickly be forgotten, and these folks will invoke the same meme as the immediate post-2008 election: That, despite the first black president being elected and then re-elected, race relations still have a looooong way to go.
After all, if they didn't, these folks would be out of a job.
Of course, these same dolts laughed when George W. Bush had a shoe tossed at him by an Iraqi reporter, and when Sam Donaldson interrupted, say, President Reagan ... well, that was just being a "good reporter." Oh, and who can forget Dan Rather yelling at, and then cutting off, then-presidential candidate George HW Bush in 1988?
If I didn't know better, I'd say these faux progressives were engaging in the bigotry of low expectations -- that Pres. Obama somehow can't handle such "tough" exchanges ... because of his color.
UPDATE: Jason "Reasonable People Can Disagree Whether George W. Bush Knew In Advance About 9/11" Scott of the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers jumped right on the bandwagon with this crap ... as if his ultra-idiot self ever had any respect for any Republican. Alas, this sort of stuff is absolutely justifiable to him ... because the object of the "disrespect" were Republicans.
Remember this recent post where a Congressional Black Caucus official said that using the word "cool" to describe the president was "racist?" Hmm ...
Yep, that well known white nationalist magazine Ebony is doing just what that official said!
(h/t to The Corner for the pic.)
But of course!
Google search data proves it, says Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, who is a candidate for a Ph.D. in economics, and wrote a post for the New York Times' “Campaign Stops” blog entitled “How Racist Are We? Ask Google.” Unfortunately, the study is a classic case of confusing correlation with causation.
Stephens-Davidowitz used Google Insights, a service which tells researchers how often words are searched in different parts of the United States.
After ranking 200 metropolitan areas by their racially charged search data, Stephens-Davidovitz then came up with a way to compare it to the election results – a way that depends solely on his own conjecture about how many votes Obama should have gotten. In short, he assumes that Obama “should have received” more votes everywhere than John Kerry did in 2004, simply based on how much better Democratic congressional candidates did in 2008, on average, than in 2004.
The higher the racially charged search rate in an area, the worse Mr. Obama did,” says Stephens-Davidowitz. He concludes that “racial animus cost Mr. Obama three to five percentage points of the popular vote” and “racial prejudice gave John McCain the equivalent of a home-state advantage nationally.” (Link)
*Sigh* As Newsbusters chief Matt Sheffield notes, "There's no data anywhere which ties a specific person's voting record to their online search record, so Stephens-Davidowitz is only looking at two different sets of data and coming to a conclusion driven by his own assumptions. He went into the study looking for signs of racism, and, lo and behold, he claims to have found them."
Elsewhere, Angela Rye, Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus, has argued that opposition to Barack Obama this election year is -- wait for it! -- "racist!" But before you shake your head and roll your eyes, you gotta take a gander at the "reasoning" on this one:
She said that "a lot" of conservative opposition is racially-charged, citing the use of the word "cool" in an attack ad launched by Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS superPAC.
"There's an ad, talking about [how] the president is too cool, [asking] is he too cool? And there's this music that reminds me of, you know, some of the blaxploitation films from the 70s playing in the background, him with his sunglasses," Rye said. "And to me it was just very racially-charged. They weren't asking if Bush was too cool, but, yet, people say that that's the number one person they'd love to have a beer with. So, if that's not cool I don't know what is.
She added that "even 'cool,' the term 'cool,' could in some ways be deemed racial [in this instance]."
Time to break this out again:
Via Reason. And there's many more examples other than those at the link, to be sure.
... I'll try to rectify that by making insanely irrational statements, says Jesse Jackson. Or, that's what he should have said. Crap like this:
Yes, that’s Schultz paraphrasing Jackson as saying, “He called this (Wisconsin recall) election one of the biggest moments in the history of our democracy. He compared it to Emmett Till’s Lynching and Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat.” And of course he then played the audio of Jackson comparing [WI Governor] Walker to segregationist Alabama governor George Wallace.
Geez, why stop there, Jesse? Isn't Scott Walker also like Hitler? Stalin? Genghis Khan? Idi Amin?
Please -- slither back under the rock of irrelevancy.
... Democrat Senate candidate from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren is claiming she'll be "the first Native American Senator" from that state.
Is there any doubt in your mind that if Warren was a Republican and was attempting to claim such ancestry that she would be a nationwide laughing stock? (See: Delaware and Christine O'Donnell.) Yet, amazingly, she is right on opponent Scott Brown's heels in the latest poll.
By now I'm sure you've heard/read about Massachusetts US Senate candidate (and self-proclaimed originator of the Occupy movement) Elizabeth Warren's claims that she is a Native American. After some curious folks began checking out these claims and found them wanting, Warren is miffed, claiming her family is "being attacked." All this simply adds to the hilarity; her justifications, such as they are, would get an average joe laughed at in a heartbeat. The fact that Warren is an elite academic makes this all simply gut-busting.
Finally, Warren said, “I am proud of my family and I am proud of my heritage.”
Hiller followed up: “Does it include an Indian background?”
Warren replied, “Yes.”
“How do you know that?” Hiller asked.
Warren responded, “Because my mother told me so."
I wonder if Warren would accept such a source on a research paper from one of her Ivy League students. I can see the footnote(s) now:
1 My mother said so. (Dinner conversation with family and Asian-American neighbors, April, 2009.)
And then there's also this gem: "She also referenced a photo of her grandfather who had 'high cheekbones.'”
I think this ridiculousness can best be summed up by this classic Mad TV skit titled "The Octoroon." At least this guy had one-eighth minority blood, not a measly 1/32!
NAACP President: "America more racist now than in Revolutionary Times."
If asked, Toot [Obama’s maternal grandmother, Madelyne Payne Dunham] would turn her head in profile to show off her beaked nose, which, along with a pair of jet-black eyes, was offered as proof of Cherokee blood.
That's from pages 12 and 13 from The Messiah's book, Dreams of My Father. And, as we also noted yesterday, the mainstream media wasn't who picked it up. As with practically anything to do with liberal Democrats, that's left to the right-wing new media (in this case, Breitbart).
And, like the case of Elizabeth Warren in the Massachusetts US Senate race, Obama has no way of proving this:
But, as we all know, family lore does not Cherokee ancestry make, and following the line back, neither Franklin McCurry’s parents, grandparents, nor great-grandparents were Cherokee, based on all available records.
What a riot. So, we've learned Obama himself is the original Birther, and now, like the original Occupier (Warren), he claims Indian ancestry -- all to prop himself up in the eyes of his politically correct racial bean counting academic overlords.
ABC is reporting that Trayvon Martin's killer, George Zimmerman, was indeed pummeled in a scuffle with the victim in the tragic encounter this past February. He had a broken nose, two black eyes, lacerations on the back of his head, and a back injury. Martin's autopsy revealed that he had bloody knuckles. Unbelievably (or, believably, given the current Justice Dept.), Eric Holder's department is considering hate crimes charges against Zimmerman ... which could, theoretically, lead to the death penalty.
Hate crimes charges?? Based on what? Merely because Martin was black? There is virtually nothing else known that could substantiate such charges; MSNBC did its level best to make it appear that "white Hispanic" Zimmerman was racist, but that turned out to be a debacle. And yet, where is the DOJ in this case? Or this one? Or this one? Or when the New Black Panthers put a bounty on George Zimmerman?
We've already heard testimony that Holder's Justice Department acts any way but race neutral. And hate crimes statutes are traditionally selectively enforced -- like the two white reporters in Norfolk, police and media are reluctant to consider such for fear of "stirring the race pot." Of course, it doesn't matter when it works the other way (i.e. the Martin incident), though! Delaware's largest newspaper as well as others won't even report the race of crime suspects out of the same ridiculous politically correct concerns.
What a sorry joke.
UPDATE: Reason has more:
1. There is very little evidence that Zimmerman hates black people, let alone that he shot Martin because he hates black people.
2. In the absence of a legal justification (such as self-defense), killing people should be a crime, but hating them because of their skin color should not be. By treating crimes more severely when they are motivated by bigotry, hate crime laws effectively punish people for their beliefs.
3. Federal hate crime laws are even worse, because they expose defendants to double jeopardy (although the courts deny this reality by calling it "dual sovereignty"). The federal investigation means that even if a Florida jury acquits Zimmerman of second-degree murder and manslaughter, he can be tried again for the same crime (killing Martin) under a different label (a possibility I noted two months ago).
I actually changed my position on #2 years ago. I don't have much of a problem with adding a "degree" of severity to a crime if it was indeed motivated by some sort of bias -- racial, religious, ethnic, etc. After all, there are degrees of murder, manslaughter, etc. But the main problem with hate crimes laws, in my view, is what's not mentioned by Reason: their selective enforcement. See the links above.
UPDATE 2: Hans Bader dissects the third issue noted by Reason above.
If you didn't know this MSNBC meme by now, you live in a cave: Obama Held To Higher Standard On Gay Marriage Since He's Black.
But of course.
UPDATE: MSNBC contributor Keli Goff should take a gander at just who has an problem with gay marriage.
Be sure to check out Hans Bader's latest. Well worth the read.
Via the Washington Examiner:
"[Obama] now has a specific record of governing," MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry said today on her show. "A record that, I contend, because of his race will be held to a much higher standard than it would have been for a white incumbent. Those white voters who found what they were looking for in 2008 will not necessarily be so enthusiastic in 2012."
Alex Wagner, host of MSNBC's NOW, agreed. "I think race absolutely has to do with the conversation about reelection," she said.
*Sigh* Sorry, but that "specific record of governing" didn't help Jimmy Carter back in 1980, and Obama's "specific record of governing" is arguably much worse than his. Alas, though, this is to be expected from MSNBC and its fellow travelers -- that is, race will be blamed for virtually every criticism of the president this election season, just as it was back in 2008.
... because the most preposterous charges of "racism" have begun to pop up re: the Romney campaign. Like Tommy Christopher over at Mediaite:
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney rolled out a new accessory at a speech in Ohio today, delivering his remarks in front of a black banner that said “Obama Isn’t Working”
Now, stop right there. What's the first thing that comes into your mind upon reading that slogan? Probably what popped into mine: The Obama administration has been a failure. But Christopher thinks differently:
... which is also the name of a website his campaign set up several months ago (in case you didn’t get the message from the banner, it was also on the front of Romney’s podium).
The slogan is a multiple entendre, but one of those entendres, intentionally or not, is evocative of a nasty racial stereotype about black men.
When I first saw the banner this afternoon, the multiple meanings were clear: President Obama‘s policies aren’t working, the Obama presidency isn’t working, President Obama…isn’t working, as in, doing any work. That’s not a nice thing to say about any president, but like it or not, it becomes a more loaded accusation when leveled at our first black president.
To which The Corner's Charles C.W. Cooke notes:
What actually is racist is for someone to look at a pretty standard campaign slogan, notice that it triggered racist thoughts within them, and then project those thoughts onto somebody else before publicly impugning their motives. It wasnt Mitt Romney who considered there to be a link between the banner and an ugly stereotype, it was Tommy Christopher.
He who came from money, attended mostly-white schools, and is a known 9/11 Truther ... the no last name Touré (his actual last name is Neblett) thinks he knows more about "being black" -- and what is racist and what's not -- than Bill Cosby.
... here's a few things to keep in mind:
Everyone stay tuned ... as I know you will.
ABC News continues The NarrativeTM in the Trayvon Martin shooting case with the following report by Candace Smith:
Six shots were fired into an empty police cruiser early today in the Florida neighborhood where black teenager Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.
The police cruiser was stationed outside of the Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, Fla., the town that has been wracked with tension since the Feb. 26 shooting.
It was not clear what prompted the shooting, but it was the latest incident in which racists, neo-Nazis or white supremacists have used the controversial case as a rallying point.
Martin, 17, was unarmed when he was shot by George Zimmerman, 28, a white Hispanic neighborhood watch captain.
A group of armed neo-Nazis from the National Socialist Movement have descended upon the town, touting their intention to patrol the town to protect whites against a race riot.
The ultra-politically correct "white Hispanic" nonsense shows up yet again; however, that isn't the biggie here. The so-called "descension" of neo-Nazis into Sanford is a myth -- which ABC would have known if they had but made a simple phone call. A phone call like that which was made by Legal Insurrection's William A. Jacobson:
My initial e-mail (which included an embedded link to the Memeorandum thread):
“There are a number of reports in the media that Neo-Nazis are conducting armed patrols in Sanford. Can you confirm or deny whether this is true, and provide any information you have on the subject? If someone is able to get back to me as soon as possible (and before Monday) that would be appreciated, since such rumors are spreading.”
Response from Sanford Joint Information Center:
“At this time the City of Sanford has not confirmed the presence of Neo-Nazis groups.”
My follow up:
“You say “not confirmed.” Is there any indication of such patrols that the Department is aware of?”
Further Response from Sanford Joint Information Center:
“We have no indication of any such patrols at this point in Sanford. The only large gathering was the children and their parents at the Easter egg hunt.”
Unbelievable. Jacobson wrote that back on April 7th, yet here we are three days later and one of the biggest news organizations on the planet is still running this false nonsense. Jacobson today notes how one MSM outlet, the New York Daily News, "retreated" -- somewhat -- in a headline today. It went from "Neo-Nazis patrolling streets of Sanford, Fla." to "Neo-Nazis pledge to descend on Sanford, Fla."
Back to Smith's ABC report, it's also sadly hilarious that she fleetingly notes "And the New Black Panther Party offered a $10,000 bounty for Zimmerman." Gee, that's all they've done, eh? In addition, Smith highlights the director of a black student center at Ohio State University calling pro-[George] Zimmerman graffiti "a hate crime." But, "it was not clear what prompted the shooting" of the police cruiser. Of course.
The special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin shooting has decided not to take the case to the grand jury:
In Florida, the decision on whether to indict someone in capital cases must be made by a grand jury. In all lesser cases the decision to file charges are routinely made by prosecutors. But in highly controversial or difficult cases, prosecutors often defer to a grand jury, leaving the politically charged decision to a panel of citizens.
[Special Prosecutor Angela] Corey’s office pointed out that the decision not to take the case to a grand jury should not be taken as an indication of which way she’s going to decide.
“The decision should not be considered a factor in the final determination of the case,” her office said in a release.
I think, based on this initial report, this is a terrible idea. As it notes in the highlighted text above, why not leave it up to a panel of citizens to decide? The case already has an aura of political shenanigans; won't this decision just add to that? The case had been scheduled for a grand jury tomorrow by the previous prosecutor; now, Corey will decide alone whether to file charges against George Zimmerman.
George Zimmerman apparently passed a lie detector test the night of the Trayvon Martin shooting:
George Zimmerman’s defense team is growing, suggesting that he’s planning for a grand jury indictment and a subsequent criminal trial. Interestingly, his new attorney has begun releasing some previously unknown facts.
Did you know that, on the night of Trayvon Martin’s death, Sanford police gave George Zimmerman a voice stress test?
They did, and the results probably contributed to his release.
A voice stress test is like a polygraph, but instead of measuring heart rate and blood pressure, it looks for changes in an individual’s voice patterns that are thought to suggest psychological stress. With the help of software, investigators record a suspect answering baseline questions and then compare them to answers about the case.
This technology is not unique to Sanford. The National Institute for Truth Verification, a manufacturer of the technology, claims that over 1,800 local, state and federal law enforcement agencies use their product. They also claim to have trained U.S. Military personnel.
Zimmerman apparently "came out clean," but a study by the Justice Dept. says this type of test is really "no better than flipping a coin."
No word yet on whether Zimmerman will appear on the Maury Show to see if he can pass his lie detector test ..
This Daily Caller story sheds some new light -- doubts -- about George Zimmerman's claims of self defense for his shooting of Trayvon Martin.
Valez-Mitchell is another example of the descent into outright idiocy that the Trayvon Martin case has brought us. Watch as she wonders why police need to know what race a suspect is:
Valez-Mitchell would be extremely proud of our own Wilmington News Journal for its policy on the reporting of police/criminal activity, eh?
Also laughable is her contention that we "have to move beyond" race. But this is precisely what the Left demands, Jane -- looking at people in terms of their race! One will go insane attempting to figure out just what the Left actually desires when it comes to discussing race matters. Color-blindness is great when it suits them; it is racist at other times.
Basic logic simply cannot be applied to the Left and race -- period.
The CNN host takes it to the budding Al Sharpton replacement who can't afford a last name, Touré:
The coverage of this tragedy has been pretty much what you'd expect from the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers, Pandora; however, today she uses a video from MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell show, along with accompanying commentary from "progressive" websites, as definitive "proof" that George Zimmerman is lying:
Ever since the press started reporting on Zimmerman’s injuries I fully expected to see pictures of a bloody nose, a bleeding gash on the back of his head that his attorney said should have required stitches. I expected to see George Zimmerman looking like he was beaten up.
Watch the video. We get to see Zimmerman’s nose, back of his head and the back of his jacket. I can’t really tell if there are grass stains on his jacket, but at this point I’m tossing out Zimmerman’s version of events.
This is why the new media -- those who do not (rightly) trust the mainstream media -- is needed. The Daily Caller:
At the scene of the incident, according to a three-page preliminary police report, Zimmerman was given “first aid” by Sanford Fire Department paramedics. It is unclear what that treatment consisted of, and how much time elapsed between the paramedics’ intervention and Zimmerman’s arrival at the Sanford Police Department.
Perhaps this first aid given by the fire dept. cleaned up Zimmerman's bloody nose and laceration on the head?
Does anyone see this gash? Lord knows, we’ve heard enough about it.
Pandora goes on to call law enforcement authorities "liars," and then says "given all this I’m ready to charge certain members of the Sanford Police and other law enforcement officials as accessories to a crime."
Isn't it just wonderful how "progressives" see no need for detailed investigations or a grand jury (which is scheduled to weigh evidence in this case on April 10) when they have networks like MSNBC? Y'know, the same network that allows one of its hosts to actively participate in protests in Sanford, FL, and purposely doctors quotes so that people will derive a preconceived opinion about the whole case.
Again, it is hilarious to watch "progressives" like Pandora -- so incredibly vociferous about granting terrorists Miranda rights and the like, and decrying waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation methods -- being so cocksure about Zimmerman's (and the Sanford police's) guilt that she, before any trial, declares them all criminals.