Radio shock jock Don Imus should really get this year’s Darwin Award for calling the Rutgers women’s basketball team a bunch of “nappy-headed hos.” Talk about evolution in reverse. He won’t be surviving much longer if he keeps this up.
I mean, the guy’s a media veteran and should know that the unforgivable sin in America today is making “offensive” statements about African-Americans.
Imus’s comments were out of line and stupid. There was no need for them and he was making a poor attempt at being funny. But Imus’s idiocy was like blood in water: once the media got a sniff of what he said, they and every savvy politician and pundit came swimming like a swarm of sharks, looking for someone to devour.
Honestly, I don’t know. Imus apologized, saying he made a “stupid, idiotic mistake,” and that he’s not a racist. For his words, Imus will be suspended from the air for two weeks, a judgment he deemed fair.
But apparently it’s not fair enough. In a world where a contrite apology will get you out of any sort of trouble, Imus is finding that the standards are unreasonably high in his case.
Democratic Senator from Illinois and 2008 Presidential hopeful Barack Obama called for Imus’s firing and said that Imus’s comment is “one that I’m not interested in supporting.” Man, you gotta love Obama and the strong stances he takes on issues.
And, of course, the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were there from the beginning also calling for Imus to be fired. Sharpton pitted Imus’s statement as “racist” and “diabolical.” I wonder if Sharpton would consider the time he was convicted of libel when he falsely accused a white district attorney of raping a black woman to be “racist” and “diabolical.”
Jackson was indignant over Imus’s two-week suspension, calling it a “slap on the wrist,” and demanded that Imus undergo “serious sensitivity training.” I wonder if Jackson, while campaigning for the Presidency in 1988 called New York City “Hymietown,” will consider accompanying Imus to therapy sessions.
I don’t know who appointed these two goons – Sharpton and Jackson – as God the Father and God the Son when it comes to racial issues. Sharpton and Jackson have all the freedom in the world to criticize Imus and his lack of judgment, but it’s a just a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. (Pun intended.)
By the way, why weren’t Sharpton, Jackson, Obama, and others calling for Rosie O’Donnell’s head when she compared conservative Christians to Islamofascists? That’s a fairly “insensitive” and “offensive” statement; why did she get off the hook but Imus is being reeled in and gutted?
Speaking of Rosie…she weighed in on this whole fiasco and, ironically enough, came down on Imus’s side.
Well, maybe it’s not so ironic. Maybe Rosie is still worried about her job because, after all, her comments were more vitriolic in nature than Imus’s. But on the April 11th edition of “The View,” Rosie made strong and emphatic comments in support of Imus.
Said Rosie, “But the point of the story is, if it impedes on free speech in America, democracy is at stake. Because democracy is based on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. So we really have to worry about that in this country.”
Moments later she added, “. . . it’s not a freedom if you outlaw certain words or thoughts, because then the thought police come and then before you know it, everyone’s in Guantanamo Bay without representation.”
Gosh, I’ve seen it all, now. Take me home, Lord, for I just found myself agreeing with Rosie O’Donnell.
There’s certainly something to be said about freedom and responsibility, though. Imus is a doofus and should have thought before he spoke. Even Obama said (what is wrong with me today? First Rosie and now Obama?), “We all have First Amendment rights. And I am a constitutional lawyer and strongly believe in free speech, but as a culture, we really have to do some soul-searching to think about what kind of toxic information are we [sic] feeding our kids.”
It remains to be seen how many kids actually listen to Imus, but most Democrats usually end up making everything about the kids.
I feel sorry for Imus – not because of what he said – but because of how he’s being treated. It seems that the mainstream media and members of the Left hold whites, Christians, Jews, etc to a different standard. The Rosies, Sharptons, and Jacksons of the world can get away with anything and, it should be noted, don’t even care to apologize.
Imus apologized; he’s going to serve a two-week suspension, but it still isn’t good enough. What ever happened to tolerance? To free speech? It’s one thing to criticize and condemn comments like Imus’s, but firing the guy?
I think Someone once said, “He who has no sin, throw the first stone.”
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Why can’t the white man say “n****”?
I know I wrote about Barack Obama last time, but the media coverage surrounding him is fascinating, and as you’ll see, also a bit saddening.
A little over a week ago, LA Times columnist David Ehrenstein wrote a piece entitled “Obama the ‘Magic Negro.’” It’s a strange and wild bit of writing and it raises questions – not to mention eyebrows – about how Liberals view the issue of race and how they view people of different races.
Here’s the link to Ehrenstein’s column to prove I’m not making this s*** up: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail.
Ehrenstein begins his column affirming that “every carbon-based life form on this planet” knows that Obama, Senator, D-Ill., is running for President. Ehrenstein posits that Obama is also running for “an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination – the ‘Magic Negro.’”
According to Ehrenstein and Wikipedia (LA Times columnists are quoting Wikipedia now? There’s journalistic integrity for you.), the Magic Negro “is a figure of postmodern folk culture . . . who emerged in the wake of brown vs. Board of Education. . . . to ‘help the white protagonist.’”
Furthermore, explains Ehrenstein, the Magic Negro is there to “assuage white ‘guilt’ (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American History, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.”
Well, if that’s not stereotypical and racist, then I don’t know what is. Apparently it’s ok to be racist towards people who have acted as racists in their past.
But I digress. Ehrenstein argues that the Magic Negro is most prominently portrayed on the Silver Screen by actors such as Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, Scatman Crothers, Michael Clarke Duncan, Will Smith, and, “most recently,” Don Cheadle. “And that's not to mention a certain basketball player whose very nickname is ‘Magic.’”
Ehrenstein writes at length (see above link) about the roles these actors have played in several movies in which they benevolently help in-need white folks. Some of these Magic Negro figures in the films get killed for helping the white protagonists, to which Ehrenstein quips, “See what helping the white man gets you?”
But the example he gives of “David Hampton — a young, personable gay con man who in the 1980s passed himself off as the son of none other than the real Sidney Poitier. . . . Hampton discovered that countless gullible, well-heeled New Yorkers, vulnerable to the Magic Negro myth, were only too eager to believe in his baroque fantasy” in order to obtain entrance to Studio 54. In the very next sentence, though, Ehrenstein notes that one of the few who didn’t fall for Hampton’s tricks was Andy Warhol, who, according to Ehrenstein, “had no need for the accouterment of interracial ‘goodwill.’”
Excuse me? Because Warhol wasn’t conned by a con man means he’s biased against black people? That’s some great logic.
All the above is s**** and giggles compared to what follows. Ehrenstein really shows how highly he holds white Americans with this preposterous proclamation: “But the same can't be said of most white Americans [comparing white Americas to Warhol], whose desire for a noble, healing Negro hasn't faded. That's where Obama comes in: as Poitier's ‘real’ fake son.”
Ehrenstein chalks-up Obama’s political success to his speaking eloquence, his books, and the way his criticisms have “magically” been “waved away.” Writes Ehrenstein, “Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two (count 'em) books, or even what he's actually said in those stem-winders.” No worries, though, because Obama’s “tone is always genial, his voice warm and unthreatening, and he hasn't called his opponents names (despite being baited by the media).”
Ehrenstein wraps-up his racist rant with this paragraph, and I will quote it in full so that all of its absurdity can be appreciated:
Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.
Let me interpret for you: white Americans are racist because their support for Obama is purely racial.
I coach girls’ high school basketball in Loveland, Colo. I’m the C team coach, and the Varsity coach, Jay Klagge, is a liberal democrat from the lakes of Minnesota. Six months ago Jay had already plastered his mini-van with an “Obama ‘08” bumper-sticker. Jay’s a great guy, great coach, and a civics teacher. We don’t agree on anything politically, but I don’t believe for a minute that he is a racist and would support a black presidential candidate to “assuage his white guilt.”
And no, I have no white guilt. Why should I? I never owned slaves. I never called a black man a “n*****.” I never participated in any racial segregation. Heck, the whole northern and western parts of America were bastions of freedom for people of every “color.” “White guilt” is something that the mainstream media and the world of academia try to pour on us poor white folks whenever they get the chance.
The very idea that white Americans are as shallow and as guilt-ridden as Ehrenstein thinks them to be is highly offensive, stupid, and a tad bit racist. No white support for Obama is good enough for Ehrenstein because we obviously can’t like Obama for political reasons because he’s only been in the Senate for two years and doesn’t really say anything anyway he speaks, anyway. To Ehrenstein, the only reason why white people have jumped on the Obama bandwagon is because this “Magic Negro” will save us from our past.
How do you think this piece makes Obama feel? Like those song-and-dance n******? Like an empty, black bucket of pretty rhetoric, only popular because of an entire demographic’s “guilt”? Like nary a politician but very much like a “fake” folk hero? Like a Magic Negro and nothing more?
Still it amazes me that black people – like Ehrenstein (yes, he is black) – can feel no guilt or shame whatsoever by flinging around “n****” or “n*****.” I mean, if it’s wrong for white people to use the word, why is OK for black people to use it? But if that’s the case, only w**** people should be allowed to use the term “w****” in describing themselves. Or, at the very least, a w**** person should be allowed to use “n****” and “n*****” just as freely as the black people do.
In the world of political communication, columns like this send us back a couple hundred years. We’re told over and over again the racial demographics play a large role in elections, but isn’t Ehrenstein going a bit too far?
Isn’t it fascinating that the leaders of academia and the Left almost always seem to point out the differences of people before any other characteristic. No one is ever a “candidate” or “American,” especially in the political arena. There’s always some identity tag that is applied to political figures, whether they’re male, female, black, white, etc, etc. Obama can never only be a presidential candidate – Ehrenstein made that quite clear.
If we as a society are trying to move away from racism and segregation, why do people like Ehrenstein continue to see color and other differences before they see anything else?
A little over a week ago, LA Times columnist David Ehrenstein wrote a piece entitled “Obama the ‘Magic Negro.’” It’s a strange and wild bit of writing and it raises questions – not to mention eyebrows – about how Liberals view the issue of race and how they view people of different races.
Here’s the link to Ehrenstein’s column to prove I’m not making this s*** up: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail.
Ehrenstein begins his column affirming that “every carbon-based life form on this planet” knows that Obama, Senator, D-Ill., is running for President. Ehrenstein posits that Obama is also running for “an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination – the ‘Magic Negro.’”
According to Ehrenstein and Wikipedia (LA Times columnists are quoting Wikipedia now? There’s journalistic integrity for you.), the Magic Negro “is a figure of postmodern folk culture . . . who emerged in the wake of brown vs. Board of Education. . . . to ‘help the white protagonist.’”
Furthermore, explains Ehrenstein, the Magic Negro is there to “assuage white ‘guilt’ (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American History, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.”
Well, if that’s not stereotypical and racist, then I don’t know what is. Apparently it’s ok to be racist towards people who have acted as racists in their past.
But I digress. Ehrenstein argues that the Magic Negro is most prominently portrayed on the Silver Screen by actors such as Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, Scatman Crothers, Michael Clarke Duncan, Will Smith, and, “most recently,” Don Cheadle. “And that's not to mention a certain basketball player whose very nickname is ‘Magic.’”
Ehrenstein writes at length (see above link) about the roles these actors have played in several movies in which they benevolently help in-need white folks. Some of these Magic Negro figures in the films get killed for helping the white protagonists, to which Ehrenstein quips, “See what helping the white man gets you?”
But the example he gives of “David Hampton — a young, personable gay con man who in the 1980s passed himself off as the son of none other than the real Sidney Poitier. . . . Hampton discovered that countless gullible, well-heeled New Yorkers, vulnerable to the Magic Negro myth, were only too eager to believe in his baroque fantasy” in order to obtain entrance to Studio 54. In the very next sentence, though, Ehrenstein notes that one of the few who didn’t fall for Hampton’s tricks was Andy Warhol, who, according to Ehrenstein, “had no need for the accouterment of interracial ‘goodwill.’”
Excuse me? Because Warhol wasn’t conned by a con man means he’s biased against black people? That’s some great logic.
All the above is s**** and giggles compared to what follows. Ehrenstein really shows how highly he holds white Americans with this preposterous proclamation: “But the same can't be said of most white Americans [comparing white Americas to Warhol], whose desire for a noble, healing Negro hasn't faded. That's where Obama comes in: as Poitier's ‘real’ fake son.”
Ehrenstein chalks-up Obama’s political success to his speaking eloquence, his books, and the way his criticisms have “magically” been “waved away.” Writes Ehrenstein, “Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two (count 'em) books, or even what he's actually said in those stem-winders.” No worries, though, because Obama’s “tone is always genial, his voice warm and unthreatening, and he hasn't called his opponents names (despite being baited by the media).”
Ehrenstein wraps-up his racist rant with this paragraph, and I will quote it in full so that all of its absurdity can be appreciated:
Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.
Let me interpret for you: white Americans are racist because their support for Obama is purely racial.
I coach girls’ high school basketball in Loveland, Colo. I’m the C team coach, and the Varsity coach, Jay Klagge, is a liberal democrat from the lakes of Minnesota. Six months ago Jay had already plastered his mini-van with an “Obama ‘08” bumper-sticker. Jay’s a great guy, great coach, and a civics teacher. We don’t agree on anything politically, but I don’t believe for a minute that he is a racist and would support a black presidential candidate to “assuage his white guilt.”
And no, I have no white guilt. Why should I? I never owned slaves. I never called a black man a “n*****.” I never participated in any racial segregation. Heck, the whole northern and western parts of America were bastions of freedom for people of every “color.” “White guilt” is something that the mainstream media and the world of academia try to pour on us poor white folks whenever they get the chance.
The very idea that white Americans are as shallow and as guilt-ridden as Ehrenstein thinks them to be is highly offensive, stupid, and a tad bit racist. No white support for Obama is good enough for Ehrenstein because we obviously can’t like Obama for political reasons because he’s only been in the Senate for two years and doesn’t really say anything anyway he speaks, anyway. To Ehrenstein, the only reason why white people have jumped on the Obama bandwagon is because this “Magic Negro” will save us from our past.
How do you think this piece makes Obama feel? Like those song-and-dance n******? Like an empty, black bucket of pretty rhetoric, only popular because of an entire demographic’s “guilt”? Like nary a politician but very much like a “fake” folk hero? Like a Magic Negro and nothing more?
Still it amazes me that black people – like Ehrenstein (yes, he is black) – can feel no guilt or shame whatsoever by flinging around “n****” or “n*****.” I mean, if it’s wrong for white people to use the word, why is OK for black people to use it? But if that’s the case, only w**** people should be allowed to use the term “w****” in describing themselves. Or, at the very least, a w**** person should be allowed to use “n****” and “n*****” just as freely as the black people do.
In the world of political communication, columns like this send us back a couple hundred years. We’re told over and over again the racial demographics play a large role in elections, but isn’t Ehrenstein going a bit too far?
Isn’t it fascinating that the leaders of academia and the Left almost always seem to point out the differences of people before any other characteristic. No one is ever a “candidate” or “American,” especially in the political arena. There’s always some identity tag that is applied to political figures, whether they’re male, female, black, white, etc, etc. Obama can never only be a presidential candidate – Ehrenstein made that quite clear.
If we as a society are trying to move away from racism and segregation, why do people like Ehrenstein continue to see color and other differences before they see anything else?
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
And the Lord said y’all got to rise up!
Senator and 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Joseph Biden, let us all know that Barack Obama, fellow Senator and candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential ticket, is a “clean” and well-spoken black man.
Thanks for coming, Mr. Biden. Be sure to run again next time.
While politically suicidal, Biden’s comments do shed light on Obama’s rhetorical abilities. Obama’s eloquence is no secret and his lucidity is responsible for his popularity amongst the press and people. I don’t think Obama even knows where he stands on the issues of the day. But the brother can speak!
The Illinois Senator visited his people this last weekend in Selma, Alabama, speaking at the Brown Chapel A.M.E. church on the 42nd anniversary of the civil rights protest known as “Bloody Sunday.” On March 7, 1965, hundreds of black protesters were beaten and sprayed with tear gas as they marched cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. The event eventually led to the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Obama, being black, was given the prestigious honor of speaking on Sunday morning at the church where the march began 42 years ago. Hillary Clinton, being white, spoke at First Baptist Church, just down the street from Obama. Both candidates littered their speeches with religious talk, especially Obama, who talked at length about Moses and how he led the Israelite’s – or, in this context, black’s – out of slavery into the Promised Land. Obama dubbed this generation the “Joshua generation” because they still need to continue the fight for racial equality.
But the big topic of the day was race and racism and how far a certain race has come in its struggle for freedom.
Hillary took the noble path and neglected the bitterness between her campaign and Obama’s, saying that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 paved the way for Obama to run for President. She continued, noting that “by its logic and spirit, it is giving the same chance to Gov. Bill Richardson to run as a Hispanic. And, yes, it is giving me that chance.”
Well, I’m confused. Does Hillary think she’s black? Andre Sanders, 31, an auto parts supplier in Selma, is confused as well. Said Sanders, “Folks are saying, ‘Yeah, we're going to get us a black president with Obama.’ But Hillary's something, too. She's game tight. You can't run a scam on her.”
“Game tight”? Ballin’!
But apparently there was lots more confusion going on in Selma. Obama and Hillary were in such a tizzy to reach out for more of the black vote – I mean – to commemorate the history of black civil rights in America that they forgot who they were. Hilliary, obviously, forgot her skin color, and Obama forgot he was a “clean” black.
Obama’s speaking style adapted to his religious African-American environment like a gecko against tree bark. Reading the transcript of Obama’s speech is misleading, for it lacks his – how shall I say – southern subtleties.
In his speech, Obama went to great lengths to show that he is indeed part of the heritage, history, and honor of Selma. Being the offspring of a white Kansas woman and a Kenyan makes Obama only “half-black,” and being raised in Hawaii and Indonesia doesn’t do much for his desired connection to the civil rights movement. But Obama talked about his ancestors who were slaves and his father, Barack Obama, Sr., who immigrated from Kenya to America, all thanks to the brave people of Selma and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
When talking about how his father and mother (whose ancestors owned slaves) got together to have a family, he described their unpopular union of a white woman and black man as “some good craziness goin’ on.” In the speech text, it’s “going on.” Not so in the audio.
Obama continued:
“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama.”
In the video, “coming” is “comin’,” and the second instance of “Selma, Alabama” is slurred together so that it sounds like one word, Southern style.
The very next sentence, Obama proclaims, “I’m here because you all marched for me.” On tape, however, Obama goes South yet again, and his “you all” is really “y’all.”
Obama’s southern/black pandering continues: “If it hasn't been for Selma, I wouldn't be here. This is the site of my conception. I am the fruits of your labor. I am the offspring of the movement. When people ask me whether I've been to Selma before, I tell them I'm coming home.”
But I heard this clip on the radio, and Obama’s “before” is “befo’.” “Befo’”? This guy graduated from Columbia with a B.S. in political science and from Harvard with a law degree, and suddenly he’s speaking with a southern drawl in an African-American church in Selma’labama? He’d better watch his step befo’ he alienates his white constituents.
Al Sharpton, referring to Obama and his quest for the White House, said, “Just because you are our color doesn't make you our kind.” I wonder if the Rev. Sharpton would take back that statement based on Obama’s style and “blackness” in his Selma speech.
But the degree to which Obama is gunning for the black vote is astonishing. Obama is bending his own history in order to appear more “black.” His father didn’t come to America because of initiatives spawning from the Voting Rights Act, and Obama himself was born in 1961 – four years before Bloody Sunday. Obama was born in Hawaii, not Selma or anywhere else in the South. When people ask Obama if he’s been to Selma befo’, the truth would be something like, “Hell, no, dog. I was born nearly half-way ‘round da globe. But I’m still black. Vote for me.”
To Sharpton and others, being “black” is being a descendent of slaves. To Hillary, being “black” is being married to Bill Clinton, America’s “first black President,” and she actually brought her hubby to Selma in order to bolster her black credibility. To Obama, being “black” is being the offspring of a black man and a white woman and also speaking the southern, black lingo in order to impress the to-be voters.
It’s sad to see the disregard of an ethnic group’s heritage all for their political support. Some would say we’ve come along way, and we have. Racism will never be completely wiped off the map, but when we look around America today, we see all sorts of ethnic groups in all sorts of high-profile and prestigious positions.
But to me it seems flagrantly racist when politicians change their rhetoric, style, and skin color in order to get a few more votes. Obama and Hillary didn’t go to Selma to honor those who marched for freedom four decades ago; they went to Selma to exploit an ethnic minority and to use their heritage and bravery for political purposes. Obama and Hillary didn’t see Americans; they saw votes; they saw blacks.
And all God’s people said, “How long? How long must we wander in this wilderness?”
Thanks for coming, Mr. Biden. Be sure to run again next time.
While politically suicidal, Biden’s comments do shed light on Obama’s rhetorical abilities. Obama’s eloquence is no secret and his lucidity is responsible for his popularity amongst the press and people. I don’t think Obama even knows where he stands on the issues of the day. But the brother can speak!
The Illinois Senator visited his people this last weekend in Selma, Alabama, speaking at the Brown Chapel A.M.E. church on the 42nd anniversary of the civil rights protest known as “Bloody Sunday.” On March 7, 1965, hundreds of black protesters were beaten and sprayed with tear gas as they marched cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. The event eventually led to the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Obama, being black, was given the prestigious honor of speaking on Sunday morning at the church where the march began 42 years ago. Hillary Clinton, being white, spoke at First Baptist Church, just down the street from Obama. Both candidates littered their speeches with religious talk, especially Obama, who talked at length about Moses and how he led the Israelite’s – or, in this context, black’s – out of slavery into the Promised Land. Obama dubbed this generation the “Joshua generation” because they still need to continue the fight for racial equality.
But the big topic of the day was race and racism and how far a certain race has come in its struggle for freedom.
Hillary took the noble path and neglected the bitterness between her campaign and Obama’s, saying that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 paved the way for Obama to run for President. She continued, noting that “by its logic and spirit, it is giving the same chance to Gov. Bill Richardson to run as a Hispanic. And, yes, it is giving me that chance.”
Well, I’m confused. Does Hillary think she’s black? Andre Sanders, 31, an auto parts supplier in Selma, is confused as well. Said Sanders, “Folks are saying, ‘Yeah, we're going to get us a black president with Obama.’ But Hillary's something, too. She's game tight. You can't run a scam on her.”
“Game tight”? Ballin’!
But apparently there was lots more confusion going on in Selma. Obama and Hillary were in such a tizzy to reach out for more of the black vote – I mean – to commemorate the history of black civil rights in America that they forgot who they were. Hilliary, obviously, forgot her skin color, and Obama forgot he was a “clean” black.
Obama’s speaking style adapted to his religious African-American environment like a gecko against tree bark. Reading the transcript of Obama’s speech is misleading, for it lacks his – how shall I say – southern subtleties.
In his speech, Obama went to great lengths to show that he is indeed part of the heritage, history, and honor of Selma. Being the offspring of a white Kansas woman and a Kenyan makes Obama only “half-black,” and being raised in Hawaii and Indonesia doesn’t do much for his desired connection to the civil rights movement. But Obama talked about his ancestors who were slaves and his father, Barack Obama, Sr., who immigrated from Kenya to America, all thanks to the brave people of Selma and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
When talking about how his father and mother (whose ancestors owned slaves) got together to have a family, he described their unpopular union of a white woman and black man as “some good craziness goin’ on.” In the speech text, it’s “going on.” Not so in the audio.
Obama continued:
“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama.”
In the video, “coming” is “comin’,” and the second instance of “Selma, Alabama” is slurred together so that it sounds like one word, Southern style.
The very next sentence, Obama proclaims, “I’m here because you all marched for me.” On tape, however, Obama goes South yet again, and his “you all” is really “y’all.”
Obama’s southern/black pandering continues: “If it hasn't been for Selma, I wouldn't be here. This is the site of my conception. I am the fruits of your labor. I am the offspring of the movement. When people ask me whether I've been to Selma before, I tell them I'm coming home.”
But I heard this clip on the radio, and Obama’s “before” is “befo’.” “Befo’”? This guy graduated from Columbia with a B.S. in political science and from Harvard with a law degree, and suddenly he’s speaking with a southern drawl in an African-American church in Selma’labama? He’d better watch his step befo’ he alienates his white constituents.
Al Sharpton, referring to Obama and his quest for the White House, said, “Just because you are our color doesn't make you our kind.” I wonder if the Rev. Sharpton would take back that statement based on Obama’s style and “blackness” in his Selma speech.
But the degree to which Obama is gunning for the black vote is astonishing. Obama is bending his own history in order to appear more “black.” His father didn’t come to America because of initiatives spawning from the Voting Rights Act, and Obama himself was born in 1961 – four years before Bloody Sunday. Obama was born in Hawaii, not Selma or anywhere else in the South. When people ask Obama if he’s been to Selma befo’, the truth would be something like, “Hell, no, dog. I was born nearly half-way ‘round da globe. But I’m still black. Vote for me.”
To Sharpton and others, being “black” is being a descendent of slaves. To Hillary, being “black” is being married to Bill Clinton, America’s “first black President,” and she actually brought her hubby to Selma in order to bolster her black credibility. To Obama, being “black” is being the offspring of a black man and a white woman and also speaking the southern, black lingo in order to impress the to-be voters.
It’s sad to see the disregard of an ethnic group’s heritage all for their political support. Some would say we’ve come along way, and we have. Racism will never be completely wiped off the map, but when we look around America today, we see all sorts of ethnic groups in all sorts of high-profile and prestigious positions.
But to me it seems flagrantly racist when politicians change their rhetoric, style, and skin color in order to get a few more votes. Obama and Hillary didn’t go to Selma to honor those who marched for freedom four decades ago; they went to Selma to exploit an ethnic minority and to use their heritage and bravery for political purposes. Obama and Hillary didn’t see Americans; they saw votes; they saw blacks.
And all God’s people said, “How long? How long must we wander in this wilderness?”
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Science runs amuck: film at 11:00
February 1, 2007, was a dark day in Paris…sort of.
In a gesture of good will, the city of Paris doused the Eiffel Tower’s 20,000 lights for five minutes on the eve of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report consenting that global warming is “very likely” manmade.
“Very likely” manmade? Such strong, scientific rhetoric has not been used since the Catholic Church’s assertion that Galileo was full of heresy in his defense of a sun-centered galaxy.
Strangely, some experts frowned on the Parisians’ politically charged (and uncharged) move. They said that the lights-on, lights-off maneuver could actually consume more energy than simply leaving the lights alone because of a massive power spike when all the lights turned back on.
Still, it’s the thought that counts, right?
The communication and rhetoric used and surrounding the global warming issue is, well… let’s just say it doesn’t really fit a scientific issue at all.
Phrases like “consensus” (another favorite proof of the pro-global-warming group) and “very likely” go better with election results than the scientific true or falsity of global warming. The question of global warming is a scientific one, not one of consensus. Science isn’t consensus, because what is a consensus? Agreement. True science isn’t based on blanket statements of consent, for if it did, our earth would still be the agreed-upon center of the galaxy and bleeding would still used by doctors to heal the sick.
There’s also been a lot of name-calling. Usually scientists reserve the name calling for kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, genera, specie, etc. But with global warming, the names are being pelted on people.
Scott Pelley, correspondent for 60 Minutes, compared skeptics of global warming to “Holocaust deniers.” And back in September of 2006, Grist magazine’s David Roberts wrote, “When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
Professor emeritus William Gray from Colorado State University, a staunch global warming skeptic and the World’s Most Famous Hurricane Expert, said in a Washington Post story that Al Gore believed in global warming “almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews.” Elsewhere, Gray took a swipe at noted Colorado University climate researcher Kevin Trenberth, accusing him of “selling his soul to the devil to get (global warming) research funding.”
Ding-ding-ding. End of round one, everyone back to their corner.
Interestingly enough, Gray has been one of the few to acknowledge the lack of love surrounding the topic of global warming. “Yes, I’m incendiary,” Gray admitted. “But the other side is just as incendiary. The etiquette of science has long ago been thrown out the window.”
But if manmade global warming really is happening, if it really is a fact, then why doesn’t the entire scientific community agree to the facts? Facts are facts. The way I see it, there are only two possible explanations for the bickering and heated disagreement amongst the scientific community: (1) Someone is right and someone is wrong and the wrong side is unwilling to admit their wrongness, or (2) The heat of the global warming debate is being supplied by political and not scientific forces.
Last April, 60 scientists and climatologists came together to put in writing their views of global warming, and it’s safe to say they didn’t consent to the “consensus” of manmade global warming. The prominent scientists declared, amongst other things:
“Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future . . . It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.”
The incendiary Gray would agree. “It's about politics,” he says. “Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this.”
In this Postmodern world, aren’t all viewpoints encouraged? Why the inconsistency with “global warming deniers”? Science is all about debate and not about silencing viewpoints that run against the politically correct grain.
“This scare [world destruction via manmade global warming] will run its course,” asserts Gray. “In 15-20 years, we’ll look back and see what a hoax this was.”
Why does no one listen to the skeptics? “No one can hear without a preacher,” the saying goes, and the mainstream media has clearly shown itself to be on the side of the alarmists. One of TIME Magazine’s recent cover headlines read, “Be Worried. Be Very Worried.” Frantic attention was paid to the story about stranded polar bears, but Sweden’s reindeer, starving due to the thick ice that’s guarding their lichen food source, were ignored.
Roger Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climateschi.atmos.colostate.edu), said, “If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change.”
Another reason might be due to the money flow. Global warming alarmists are green in more ways than one: Virgin Air’s Richard Branson gave $3 billion dollars to the global warming cause; the Sierra Club’s 2004 budget was $91 million; the Natural Resources Defense council boasted of a $57 million 2004 budget as well. Who wouldn’t want to consent to global warming?
Is Gray getting in on the money? Hardly. Gray often attributes Al Gore’s rise to the vice presidency as the beginning of funding battles. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA both left Gray out in the cold and began channeling money to those who would consent with manmade global warming.
Then, of course, there’s the UN, which has the power to dish out money and prestige and recognition like ushers hand out bulletins on Sunday mornings. And that’s precisely what politics is all about: money and prestige and power. Neither Gray or other skeptics, like famous meteorologist Neil Frank, have been approached by the IPCC.
Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, sent a mass of chilly air towards the UN and its IPCC, saying, “It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists . . .”
Global warming isn’t solely a scientific issue. It is intrinsically political, for both sides of the argument, but the stronghold of consensus, supported by pillars of political correctness, is debunked by a large number of scientists who refuse to play the PC game.
In a gesture of good will, the city of Paris doused the Eiffel Tower’s 20,000 lights for five minutes on the eve of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report consenting that global warming is “very likely” manmade.
“Very likely” manmade? Such strong, scientific rhetoric has not been used since the Catholic Church’s assertion that Galileo was full of heresy in his defense of a sun-centered galaxy.
Strangely, some experts frowned on the Parisians’ politically charged (and uncharged) move. They said that the lights-on, lights-off maneuver could actually consume more energy than simply leaving the lights alone because of a massive power spike when all the lights turned back on.
Still, it’s the thought that counts, right?
The communication and rhetoric used and surrounding the global warming issue is, well… let’s just say it doesn’t really fit a scientific issue at all.
Phrases like “consensus” (another favorite proof of the pro-global-warming group) and “very likely” go better with election results than the scientific true or falsity of global warming. The question of global warming is a scientific one, not one of consensus. Science isn’t consensus, because what is a consensus? Agreement. True science isn’t based on blanket statements of consent, for if it did, our earth would still be the agreed-upon center of the galaxy and bleeding would still used by doctors to heal the sick.
There’s also been a lot of name-calling. Usually scientists reserve the name calling for kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, genera, specie, etc. But with global warming, the names are being pelted on people.
Scott Pelley, correspondent for 60 Minutes, compared skeptics of global warming to “Holocaust deniers.” And back in September of 2006, Grist magazine’s David Roberts wrote, “When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
Professor emeritus William Gray from Colorado State University, a staunch global warming skeptic and the World’s Most Famous Hurricane Expert, said in a Washington Post story that Al Gore believed in global warming “almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews.” Elsewhere, Gray took a swipe at noted Colorado University climate researcher Kevin Trenberth, accusing him of “selling his soul to the devil to get (global warming) research funding.”
Ding-ding-ding. End of round one, everyone back to their corner.
Interestingly enough, Gray has been one of the few to acknowledge the lack of love surrounding the topic of global warming. “Yes, I’m incendiary,” Gray admitted. “But the other side is just as incendiary. The etiquette of science has long ago been thrown out the window.”
But if manmade global warming really is happening, if it really is a fact, then why doesn’t the entire scientific community agree to the facts? Facts are facts. The way I see it, there are only two possible explanations for the bickering and heated disagreement amongst the scientific community: (1) Someone is right and someone is wrong and the wrong side is unwilling to admit their wrongness, or (2) The heat of the global warming debate is being supplied by political and not scientific forces.
Last April, 60 scientists and climatologists came together to put in writing their views of global warming, and it’s safe to say they didn’t consent to the “consensus” of manmade global warming. The prominent scientists declared, amongst other things:
“Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future . . . It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.”
The incendiary Gray would agree. “It's about politics,” he says. “Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this.”
In this Postmodern world, aren’t all viewpoints encouraged? Why the inconsistency with “global warming deniers”? Science is all about debate and not about silencing viewpoints that run against the politically correct grain.
“This scare [world destruction via manmade global warming] will run its course,” asserts Gray. “In 15-20 years, we’ll look back and see what a hoax this was.”
Why does no one listen to the skeptics? “No one can hear without a preacher,” the saying goes, and the mainstream media has clearly shown itself to be on the side of the alarmists. One of TIME Magazine’s recent cover headlines read, “Be Worried. Be Very Worried.” Frantic attention was paid to the story about stranded polar bears, but Sweden’s reindeer, starving due to the thick ice that’s guarding their lichen food source, were ignored.
Roger Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climateschi.atmos.colostate.edu), said, “If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change.”
Another reason might be due to the money flow. Global warming alarmists are green in more ways than one: Virgin Air’s Richard Branson gave $3 billion dollars to the global warming cause; the Sierra Club’s 2004 budget was $91 million; the Natural Resources Defense council boasted of a $57 million 2004 budget as well. Who wouldn’t want to consent to global warming?
Is Gray getting in on the money? Hardly. Gray often attributes Al Gore’s rise to the vice presidency as the beginning of funding battles. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA both left Gray out in the cold and began channeling money to those who would consent with manmade global warming.
Then, of course, there’s the UN, which has the power to dish out money and prestige and recognition like ushers hand out bulletins on Sunday mornings. And that’s precisely what politics is all about: money and prestige and power. Neither Gray or other skeptics, like famous meteorologist Neil Frank, have been approached by the IPCC.
Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, sent a mass of chilly air towards the UN and its IPCC, saying, “It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists . . .”
Global warming isn’t solely a scientific issue. It is intrinsically political, for both sides of the argument, but the stronghold of consensus, supported by pillars of political correctness, is debunked by a large number of scientists who refuse to play the PC game.
Friday, February 9, 2007
I don't consent to your consensus
Check it out: more evidence of "global warming." Wait, I'm sorry. Citing record snow-fall and cold weather isn't legitimate evidence against global warming. Everyone who's in "consensus" about global warming can use specific cases of abnormally warm weather, but if you're not in the "consensus," then you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Great logic. Thanks, Al.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
“Two Americas” and two John Edwards
In his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech, Senator and then vice presidential nominee John Edwards spoke of how much work he and Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry needed to do in order to strengthen America.
Said Edwards, “The truth is, we still live in a country where there are two different Americas . . . one, for all of those people who have lived the American dream and don't have to worry, and another for most Americans, everybody else who struggle to make ends meet every single day.”
And true to his word, Edwards got to work.
He and his family recently moved into their 28,000 square-foot home in Orange County west of Chapel Hill in North Carolina. The home itself is worth over $4 million, and the 102 acres of land that the home sits on is valued at another $1.1 million.
This marks the first time in American political history that a candidate followed through on a campaign promise without getting elected.
“The Edwardses’ residential property will likely have the highest tax value in the country,” Orange County Tax Assessor John Smith told the Carolina Journal. Smith also thought that the Edwardses’ estate is probably the largest in the country.
Edwards’s crib is reported to have five bedrooms, six-and-a-half baths, a “Barn” that has its own set of living quarters, and is modestly equipped with a handball court, a basketball court, and an indoor pool. Oh, and it also has a four-story tower so Edwards can look down on “everybody else who struggle to make ends meet every single day.”
Edwards and his mansion (see the house here) stand in hypocritical contrast not only to his 2004 DNC speech but also to his 2008 presidential platform grounded in anti-poverty. In December, Edwards announced his bid for the Democratic nomination while standing in an impoverished and Katrina-wrecked home in New Orleans.
But Laurin Easthom, a Democrat on Chapel Hill’s town council, defended her Senator. “I see somebody who has come from a very humble background and with really hard work has gotten to the point where he is,” she said.
I have no problem with Easthom’s statement or Edwards’s estate. There’s nothing wrong with building a palace like Edwards’s if one has the means. It’s one of those “American success” stories. It’s what makes America beautiful and hopeful. President Bush used to own a Major League Baseball team. He’s loaded. And that’s fine.
But what isn’t fine is the Left’s say-one-thing-live-another lifestyle. How demeaning and insincere of Edwards to talk of “two Americas” and pose in New Orleans as a champion of the poor and oppressed and then to own a home that’s worth nearly $5 million.
“Well, I think we know which America he’s living in,” jabbed Jay Leno on the “Tonight Show.”
The Left has made an art of inconsistency and hypocrisy. It begins with well-intentioned words but falls apart in application.
Says the Left: “President Bush shouldn’t politicize the war in Iraq!” The next minute the Left is politicizing and commercializing the war on AIDS. A handful of corporations offered special “RED” products and promised to donate a portion of the sales to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS. Those corporations made a profit off others pain. But at least we felt good buying those products.
Says the Left: “We need to save people dying from AIDS!” A noble cause, but, in the name of “choice,” they’re all for the abortion of over 47 million children in the United States since 1973 and the 50 million children who are aborted every year worldwide (http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/abortion.php). An AIDS epidemic? Sure. But how about an abortion epidemic – the leading cause of death worldwide (go here and here to compare the numbers).
Says the Left: “President Bush is ignoring our rights and liberties!” But the people on the Left have no problem telling us what foods we can and cannot eat; where we can and cannot smoke; what type of light bulbs we can and cannot use; what type of cars we should and should not drive, and what type of gasoline we should and should not use.
The Left wants to stand for life and freedom, but their actions don’t support their words. For the Left, there are two Americas: one where they say what we want to hear and one where they do the exact opposite.
Said Edwards, “The truth is, we still live in a country where there are two different Americas . . . one, for all of those people who have lived the American dream and don't have to worry, and another for most Americans, everybody else who struggle to make ends meet every single day.”
And true to his word, Edwards got to work.
He and his family recently moved into their 28,000 square-foot home in Orange County west of Chapel Hill in North Carolina. The home itself is worth over $4 million, and the 102 acres of land that the home sits on is valued at another $1.1 million.
This marks the first time in American political history that a candidate followed through on a campaign promise without getting elected.
“The Edwardses’ residential property will likely have the highest tax value in the country,” Orange County Tax Assessor John Smith told the Carolina Journal. Smith also thought that the Edwardses’ estate is probably the largest in the country.
Edwards’s crib is reported to have five bedrooms, six-and-a-half baths, a “Barn” that has its own set of living quarters, and is modestly equipped with a handball court, a basketball court, and an indoor pool. Oh, and it also has a four-story tower so Edwards can look down on “everybody else who struggle to make ends meet every single day.”
Edwards and his mansion (see the house here) stand in hypocritical contrast not only to his 2004 DNC speech but also to his 2008 presidential platform grounded in anti-poverty. In December, Edwards announced his bid for the Democratic nomination while standing in an impoverished and Katrina-wrecked home in New Orleans.
But Laurin Easthom, a Democrat on Chapel Hill’s town council, defended her Senator. “I see somebody who has come from a very humble background and with really hard work has gotten to the point where he is,” she said.
I have no problem with Easthom’s statement or Edwards’s estate. There’s nothing wrong with building a palace like Edwards’s if one has the means. It’s one of those “American success” stories. It’s what makes America beautiful and hopeful. President Bush used to own a Major League Baseball team. He’s loaded. And that’s fine.
But what isn’t fine is the Left’s say-one-thing-live-another lifestyle. How demeaning and insincere of Edwards to talk of “two Americas” and pose in New Orleans as a champion of the poor and oppressed and then to own a home that’s worth nearly $5 million.
“Well, I think we know which America he’s living in,” jabbed Jay Leno on the “Tonight Show.”
The Left has made an art of inconsistency and hypocrisy. It begins with well-intentioned words but falls apart in application.
Says the Left: “President Bush shouldn’t politicize the war in Iraq!” The next minute the Left is politicizing and commercializing the war on AIDS. A handful of corporations offered special “RED” products and promised to donate a portion of the sales to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS. Those corporations made a profit off others pain. But at least we felt good buying those products.
Says the Left: “We need to save people dying from AIDS!” A noble cause, but, in the name of “choice,” they’re all for the abortion of over 47 million children in the United States since 1973 and the 50 million children who are aborted every year worldwide (http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/abortion.php). An AIDS epidemic? Sure. But how about an abortion epidemic – the leading cause of death worldwide (go here and here to compare the numbers).
Says the Left: “President Bush is ignoring our rights and liberties!” But the people on the Left have no problem telling us what foods we can and cannot eat; where we can and cannot smoke; what type of light bulbs we can and cannot use; what type of cars we should and should not drive, and what type of gasoline we should and should not use.
The Left wants to stand for life and freedom, but their actions don’t support their words. For the Left, there are two Americas: one where they say what we want to hear and one where they do the exact opposite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)