Goodbye "Big Stein"

.....and speaking of the race baiting king.



I listened to NPR's obituary of Steinbrenner this afternoon after work. It wasn't political - save the mention of how he was cited for illegally donating to Nixon's reelection campaign in '74 - but it was honest, compelling, and painted an accurate portrait of a man that was, in my opinion, a legend in baseball.

But, leave it to Rush - the disgraced ESPN sports announcer and failed NFL franchise owner - to turn that loss of a great man into a tool designed to portray blacks as rank losers unless there is a "great, white, savior" out there to help them.

Greatest Fox Cat-Fight Ever

In which Kirsten Powers has me, then loses me REALLY quick.



Powers has always been one of the "Democrats" on Fox"News" that is really just another blonde with a a Democratic label pasted on her dress. Some style and little if any substance. But here, she really got under Megyn Kelly's skin by correctly stating that J. Christian is nothing but a conservative activist with a history of misleading statements, as well as the fact that this singular case is the Fox"News" way of perpetuating the "scary black man" narrative.

And then Powers completely tanks it in the end.

Was there a producer off camera telling her to tone it down? Was she suddenly filled with this question of whether or not this could cost her her job? Both are likely but I'm not even going to speculate on it any further than that.

The larger point of this segment is that Kelly is continuing to prove herself nothing more than another "pretty blonde" on Fox that is willing to parrot fringe conservative talking points, invite on a completely discredited "whistle blower", and then do her best 'Sean Hannity In A Skirt' impersonation in that hopes that it will garner some of his attention and hopefully lead to a second debate with Powers on his show. I'm thinking it will probably just lead to some supplication from Hannity and more inflammatory rhetoric and race baiting from a man that learned his trade from the king of race baiters - Rush Limbaugh.

Skirting The Edge Of Racism

I was just called a racist jackass for correctly stating there were racial undertones to this piece I saw posted on Twitter.

The film Watermelon Man was about a white man insensitive to blacks who woke up one day to discover that he was turning black.

While unsurprising to many, it is ironic that America is waking up today to find out that the half-black man in the White House is nothing like the post-racial politician he made himself up to be during the 2008 campaign.

Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again."

And now, he gets to warm up the bus before running over his National Security Adviser for an anti-semitic joke, assuming the media doesn't grant him yet one more affirmative action pass. Well, at least he gets to sit in the driver's seat and not in the back. I suppose there's some progress in that!

After the speech, two participants suggested, in private conversations with the Forward, that Jones’ joke might have been inappropriate. After all, making jokes about greedy Jewish merchants can be seen at times as insensitive.

A prominent think-tank source who attended the event said the joke was “wrong in so many levels” and that it “demonstrated a lack of sensitivity.” The source also asked: “Can you imagine him telling a black joke at an event of African Americans?”

It's not difficult to see the race bating nature of this post as well as the racial undertones in the title alone - The Watermelon Man?

So, in response - and certainly not of a reflexive nature - I pointed out the racial nature of the post and when confronted with the "I know you are but what am I" ( The Pee-Wee Herman response ) I offered up the challenge for the self ascribed
conservativecowgirl to provide conclusive proof that I am, in point of fact, this "racist jackass".

Not that it bothers me in the least, as I've had just about any and every label leveled at me since I started blogging. But let's focus on Dan Riehl's post.

For starters, not only is the title of the film used indicative of one of the oldest and most widely recognized racial stereotypes, but the inference that Dan makes that America is waking up to see that Obama is "much blacker than we had first realized" is just as disgusting and makes no headway in the conservative chant of late that there is "no racism" within the movement.

Dan is likely echoing Fox"Nation" when comparing how he feels America should look at Obama while he makes a call to minorities ( and women ) to come together not only to better themselves but their country as well with the upcoming elections.

It appears that it was Dan's intent to get someone "non-white" to respond to this. I, however, am not, but could easily see that this wasn't some idle comment within the broader context of the piece.

Dan follows with this with a two-fer - the obligatory "affirmative action" jab coupled with a "hey buddy, now you can sit up front" schtick. Not only that, but Riehl likely realizes that conservatives have convinced themselves that Obama care little to nothing about Isreal ( as evidenced by the continuing slams against Obama and his relationships with Netanyahu ) and his inference that Obama is going to somehow prove he is pro-Isreal by tossing his National Security advisor under the proverbial "bus".

Regardless of what Obama does, whether he chastises that man for the poor and uncalled for slur or he does nothing, conservatives will either claim that he's willing to kill his own kind or - as is now - that he cares nothing about Isreal. It's a lose/lose.

Dan concludes his piece with a standard point of view that conservatives like to use - the "what if" option. It's much better to never respond to such claims simply because they never happened. But that doesn't mean that it's already happened in the mind of a conservative willing to use racial animus to make themselves look clever amongst their peers.

In the end, I'm not surprised at all by this, nor am I surprised by the response that my clear and honest statement brought. It's a sign of a rank amateur to use racially charged and divisive rhetoric within a piece, and just patently ignorant to use it in one that has no broader context other than to get as close to using the dreaded "n-bomb" without coming out and saying it.

Adventures In Tweeting Pt I : Black Like Me

The racial component in socio-political discourse has been amplified or minimized for a number of reasons. For the most part, liberals/progressives find themselves speaking about race in politics and society as a direct result of statements made by conservatives. A good example would be O'Reilly's shock and awe that a black restaurant in Harlem was just as pleasant as any other eatery that he may find himself in. Though he continues to deny that he ever said this, insisting his context had been distorted, it is a perfect example of conservatives using race as a quantifier for their belief structure.

Conservatives too often use race in socio-political discourse in order to show that those within a minority are often inferior, that they have a hidden agenda that is ultimately anti-American, or to bait those with whom they disagree with. It’s become more prevalent because of the fact that Obama is black. In their minds they think that because we now have a black President that they are free to use racially charged language. They seem to be operating under the assumption that racial animus no longer exists, so their words – no matter how harmful – are validated.

Recently I responded to a tweet posted by someone using the AlinskyDefeater name:



And even though this “connection” between Ayers and Obama was completely overblown from the jump, our intrepid AlinskyDefeater was hell-bent on convince his followers that there was some secret plot that Obama was about to unfold upon us all.

After responding that this link between Ayers and Obama had been seriously distorted, that a few context-shredded lines from a fire-and-brimstone preacher don’t reveal to us that Obama is some evil force that is out to destroy America, I was labeled a racist:






But it apparently wasn’t enough to show that there was absolutely no rationale that could be used to validate this claim being leveled against me. Ultimately, I was no longer just a racist, but a “black racist”:



This is where we come back to the way in which reactionary conservatives use race/racism as a central theme in many of their arguments against Obama and for conservative policies. But there was one problem that our intrepid AlinskyDefeater didn’t bank on – I’m not black.



All one has to do is take a look at my Facebook profile and it becomes quite clear that I am not black at all. So why was this person so eager to label me “black”? The answer is quite obvious.

I was defending Obama against a specious and fact free attack, so in the mind of a fringe conservative that HAS to mean that I am black. To them, this is the only possible reason that someone, that anyone, would stand up against claims that they feel are grounded in reality when all they are are poorly constructed conspiracies designed to divide along racial lines. By and large, reactionary conservatives like this person, like Limbaugh, like Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly can't seem to grasp that being black isn't a disorder, isn't a state of being that means that you HAVE to act in a certain way. Conversely, simply because a person is white it doesn't mean they have to act a certain way. The problem comes in when people like AlinskyDefeator make assumptions.

Of course, this is not to say that our intrepid AlinskyDefeater is racist, but that they are sorely misinformed and should exercise at least an ounce of intellectual honesty when attempting to debate someone. However, seeing as how this person wants to “defeat” Alinsky while praising Glenn Beck for utilizing his “tactics”, I'm afraid that that’s going to be a little too much to ask.

Shorter Michelle Malkin

Racial Thuggery In St. Louis

Nevermind that there is no way to tell what prompted this fight on the schoolbus, or the very real fact that teenage boys are prone to fight on any given day of the week, but let's get some more racial divisivness going. Come on, I'm just a non-white girl trying to live in a all white world. Who's with me?

Shorter Allahpundit

Marion Barry Says D.C. Risks All Out Civil War If Gays Are Granted Right To Marry

Normally, it's my side that attacks and slanders the black man. Here's a black man that I could care less about but he voted against gay marriage so he gets a momentary pass from me. I bet you won't attack him. Go ahead, just try it and I'll call you a racist. Even though I'm race-baiting you and therefor doing something that my side has decried more times than I can think. go on, Michelle Malkin is standing right behind me all giggly-like begging for you to do it.

A Manifest Distortion

Recently, Michelle Malkin - who now apparently carries the label "Whore For The Far Right" - decided that she would weigh-in on Obama's proposed stimulus plan. Not content with approaching this from a perspective that just might be beneficial to the national discussion ( oh, wait, almost forgot who I was talking about ) she goes full tilt and insists that Robert Reich has dealt the dreaded RACE CARD ( OOOoooooh ) by insisting that this plan be beneficial to ALL that need it, not just white people.



Wow.

From the jump, Cavuto is setting this up as "minorities only".

The party of "context" attacks again.

And Malkin wasn't the only one. Hannity and Limbaugh had their own man-on-man-on-racism-disguised-as-socio-political-discourse too.

So, Reich responded to the nonsense:

In a time like this, when tempers are riding high and many Americans are close to panic about their jobs and finances, you have a special responsibility to consider the accuracy of what you say and the consequences of inflammatory and erroneous statements. In the last few days, manifestly distorting my words and pulling them out of context, you have accused me of wanting to exclude white males from jobs generated by the stimulus package. Anyone who takes a moment to examine what I actually said and wrote knows this to be an absurd misrepresentation of my position (see this). My goal is and has always been to create as many opportunities for as wide a group as possible, and not exclude anyone from access. There is and has never been any ambiguity about this. The hate mail I have received since your broadcast suggests that the mischievous consequences of your demagoguery are potentially dangerous, in addition to being destructive of rational and constructive political discourse. I urge you to take responsibility for your words. Words and ideas have real world consequences, and you have demonstrated a cavalier disregard for both.

The "this" in his post was a source that the Right continually froths and salivates over because it, well, exposes nonsense from the Right.

Malki saw this as her chance to pounce, lips fully pursed this time:

Reich’s lone citation to prove his accusation? Media Matters!

Reich refuses to link my post on the subject because I provided full context for his remarks — quoting both his testimony and his blog post advocating for government racial preferences favoring unskilled and non-white workers over skilled and white workers

Well, when checking this context-laden post that Michelle is twitching and crying about, we find that not only isthe video she linked severely cropped, but she seems to have lost the ability to even read words that she has posted from Reich's blog

The stimulus plan will create jobs repairing and upgrading the nation’s roads, bridges, ports, levees, water and sewage system, public-transit systems, electricity grid, and schools. And it will kick-start alternative, non-fossil based sources of energy (wind, solar, geothermal, and so on); new health-care information systems; and universal broadband Internet access.

It’s a two-fer: lots of new jobs, and investments in the nation’s future productivity.

But if there aren’t enough skilled professionals to do the jobs involving new technologies, the stimulus will just increase the wages of the professionals who already have the right skills rather than generate many new jobs in these fields. And if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most — women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed — will be shut out.

What to do? There’s no easy solution to either dilemma…

People can be trained relatively quickly for these sorts of jobs, as well as many infrastructure j0bs generated by the stimulus — installing new pipes for water and sewage systems, repairing and upgrading equipment, basic construction — but contractors have to be nudged both to provide the training and to do the hiring.

I’d suggest that all contracts entered into with stimulus funds require contractors to provide at least 20 percent of jobs to the long-term unemployed and to people with incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. And at least 2 percent of project funds should be allocated to such training. In addition, advantage should be taken of buildings trades apprenticeships — wich must be fully available to women and minorities.

So, did you see anywhere in Reich's post that these jobs HAVE to go to "unskilled" or "minorities"? Also, there was an emphasis on training that Malkin and the others completely ignored.

Nope. That's because he didn't say that.

In manual labor fields, people expect you to be "trainable". That's something that any manager or foreman worth their salt looks for.

Perhaps Malkin and company need to check out the definition of "context".

Are people like Malkin liars for things like this?

Of course. You shouldn't even have to ask.