Patterico's Pontifications

5/11/2011

Like Superglue to Stupid: Oliver Willis Believes You Can Never Criticize a (Liberal) Person of Color Even if That Person is Clearly Racist (Update: Willis Responds)

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 12:36 pm



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

Update: Willis responds only by pointing out that one of these was actually a retweet. I sincerely apologize for missing that one retweet and will note that below.

Now will you correct the serial falsehoods you have put out today and for your cheap use of the race card?

Update (II): Common made his appearance at the White House and praised the man whom he wished hadn’t been born.

And I wanted to kick myself at dinner tonight when I remembered this.  Oliver Willis himself has a history of bigotry toward an interracial couple.  You might happen to know that Michelle Malkin was born Michelle Maglalang and then married a white man with the last name Malkin.  She then did the perfectly ordinary thing and gradually took on his last name.

But in Willis’ mind that simple act was some kind of ethnic betrayal. He claimed her “real” name was Maglalang and accused her of ethnic whitewashing. Smilely has, ahem, whitewashed the post from his site, but an old post at Say Anything has the details.

—————————

Blogger, Twitterer and writer for Media Matters for America Oliver Willis set off a bit of a Twitter firestorm today when he tried to distract from the increasing controversy over Common’s visit to the White House.

Now he claims that he never “defended” Common’s racism.  Sure he didn’t defend him.  He just wrote this, for instance [Update: That was technically a retweet.]:

Fox News calls @Common a “vile rapper” undeserving of attention. Comon’s last two movies? Date Night (Fox) and Just Wright (Fox Searchlight)*

Which actually demonstrates journalistic independence between Fox News and the entertainment affiliates, but of course Willis is never going to notice that.  And later, he asserts that it is a “non-story.”  But of course what he really wants to get to is insinuating that all of this opposition to racism is racist:

conservatives BLACK have very good reasons BLACK to oppose BLACK common’s BLACK scheduled appearance BLACK at the white house BLACK

But later what caught my eye was when he wrote this:

the same people who have been attacking obama’s parents for their relationship are suddenly defenders of interracial relationships. wow.

So I wrote back with a challenge:

who has attacked Obama’s parents for having interacial relationships. name and citations, please.

Now he has given no indication he has even paid attention to what I said, but someone must have asked him the same thing, because he came up with these tweets (here and here, respectively):

here’s fox news promoting an attack on the obama’s interracial marriage http://bit.ly/jXXHzY

here are some more conservative attacks on obama’s parents: http://bit.ly/ly3knk http://bit.ly/jWix50 http://bit.ly/jFVLUb

That first link was to a Media Matters post attacking not Fox News, but Fox Nation for a post linking to a Daily Mail article which is all about Obama’s father, suggesting he had bad character for having multiple wives and abandoning the future president as a child.  There isn’t a word in the article attacking their interracial marriage, period.

The second link is to a post attacking Pamela Geller for knocking Obama for his “illegitimate” birth even going as far as to write:

That would make the president illegitimate. In 1787, illegitimate children had different rights. There is no way the founders of this great nation intended for an illegitimate child of a foreign bigamist to attain the highest, most powerful position in the new land.

All this means that President Barack Hussein Obama is not natural born.

Now there is a lot to object to in what Geller wrote there.  First, actually the founders probably would have been okay with an illegitimate child becoming President.  There is a little-noticed provision in the qualifications for President that becomes particularly relevant here:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

(emphasis added).  Now, needless to say that emphasized passage has not been relevant for well over a hundred years, but it was relevant to the founders.  The founders could have limited that to persons born in the colonies, but they chose more expansive language because of several patriots who fought in the American revolution and otherwise served the young republic such as Alexander Hamilton.  Yes, they specifically were thinking Hamilton when they wrote that language because he was actually born in the West Indies…  to an unwed mother.

Besides Geller would have us invent a new constitutional doctrine out of thin air, imagining that the founders meant to say something they didn’t actually say.  That is not how to read our Constitution.

And more fundamentally I object to that term: “illegitimate.”  It stigmatizes the child for the mistakes of the parents.  If you want to condemn parent for unsafe sex outside of the context of marriage, that’s one thing, but to hold a child accountable for the sins of the parents is just plain wrong and I consider it a serious moral failing on her part.

Indeed, it is profoundly un-American to insinuate that in a nation that still proudly revels in the humble beginnings of Abraham Lincoln and declares that anyone can grow up to be President, that somehow if you have the misfortune to be born without married parents you should be categorically disqualified.

But none of that has anything at all with the races of the people involved.  So we are zero for two.

The next citation is to a bit on the Mike Savage show.  Now first, who cares about Savage?  Seriously who cares?  And even then they have nothing on the guy.  I am honestly shocked to write those words.  I thought that if anyone was going to say something about their interracial relationship it would be him, right?  I mean he is kind of a hateful idiot, which is why I pay no attention to him.  Well, here’s the clip:

The closest that he comes to knocking her for interracial relationships is mentioning that she married two men from the “third world” and that they were Muslims.  Feel free to criticize that, but there is nothing clearly racist in that.  So Willis has actually managed to do the impossible: to defame Mike Savage.

And then we get to the fourth citation, a clip from Glenn Beck, which doesn’t even mention his mother or their marriage. Seriously watch it:

All he is saying is that Obama was raised by radicals.  True, false or indifferent, what does race have to do with that?

So then Willis starts to get flak including one twitterer who writes:

Hey @owillis, it’s no wonder you work at tax cheats @mmfa, you cannot back up your tweets with facts. #SorosMonkey

OMG, you have committed the cardinal sin of calling a person of color a monkey!  Because no one would ever call a white guy a SorosMonkey, right?

@EricBoehlert Stop lying about the Tea Party, you basement dweller. N-word never happened and you know it. Stop with your lies #SorosMonkey

And of course you probably know by now that Boehlert is a white guy.  You see, here is the reality.  We all as humans look like apes and monkeys.  Indeed that resemblance is a huge part of why scientists say we evolved from them.   Therefore it is common to call people of all colors to indicate disapproval.  Yes, at one time black people were uniquely singled out for that comparison, but we are past the point in time where we can assume that every time someone is called a monkey its a racial thing.

But the hilarious thing about all of this is how quick Willis was to say that this was racist…

i do like the con tweeters claiming theyre not racist while also describing me as a monkey. #winning

…but he never (to my knowledge) said a word of disapproval of Common’s comments.  Here he is trying to dig in into the supposed subliminal racism behind the twitterer who called him a SorosMonkey, but can’t notice nor disapprove of Common’s blatantly racist comments.

He goes on to suggest that it’s okay to welcome a racist into the White House because the President was the product of an interracial marriage.  And as for Common’s anti-police lyrics, Willis explains that some of Obama’s best friends are cops.  Yes, really.

If you pretended for a moment that Willis was honest you would have to conclude that Willis believes that you can never criticize a person of color for anything without being a racist—even if what you are criticizing them for is racism.  Which is itself a racist belief.

But that requires you to pretend that he is honest.  We should know better by now.  This is how the game is played by too many on the left.  They try to shut down every discussion of substance by calling everyone who disagrees with them racist.  This is true even when they are pointing out that someone else is a racist.  But each false and cynical assertion of racism is a silent confession that he doesn’t believe his side can win on the issues.

But even as that absolves him of the racist belief that you can never criticize a (liberal) black person for anything without being racist, the fact is Willis can only do this because the subject of criticism is black.  That may not be racism, but it is racial discrimination.

————————-

* All twitter quotes are presented as is.  The bad grammar (including mine) are all in the originals.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: “[T]he media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.” — R.S. McCain.

If Common said that, would that be cool?

476 Responses to “Like Superglue to Stupid: Oliver Willis Believes You Can Never Criticize a (Liberal) Person of Color Even if That Person is Clearly Racist (Update: Willis Responds)”

  1. Twinkie boy was the one that brought us the idea that articulate is a racist descriptor.

    JD (b5a780)

  2. Aaron, are you prepared to be branded a racist for even noticing this asshats antics today?

    Oh wait, Big Median/Hax Vobiscum has been conspicuous in his absence since Pat realized and outed him as a trolling under a new identity.

    So maybe you won’t have to hear it today; outside of the usual and customary denouncment by JD 🙂

    Bob Reed (5f2db5)

  3. Claims of racism, whether they come from the left or from the right, are instant dead-enders. It’s an argument that sheds only heat, no light.

    That said, if you look at the targets of the conservative blogosphere: from Van Jones to Shirley Sherrod to (more recently) Common and (now) Oliver Willis, the focus of conservative outrage does seem disproportionally skewed against people of color…. even when you don’t factor in Obama.

    Now why is that?

    No, I don’t think it’s racism — certainly not in the sense that we think of that word historically. But something should account for it. Perhaps, as a commenter stated here once, some form of tribalism.

    I don’t know. All I can say is, if “my side” seemed to go after minorities a lot — not as groups but as individuals — I would start to wonder if it is a coincidence, or if there is something else at work. I don’t think enough conservatives are asking themselves those questions (and maybe that’s because they’re too busy defending themselves against conclusory and premature charges of racism).

    Kman (5576bf)

  4. “…Claims of racism, whether they come from the left or from the right, are instant dead-enders. It’s an argument that sheds only heat, no light.

    That said, if you look at the targets of the conservative blogosphere: from Van Jones to Shirley Sherrod to (more recently) Common and (now) Oliver Willis, the focus of conservative outrage does seem disproportionally skewed against people of color…. even when you don’t factor in Obama…”

    LOL. This is sort of like the “I”m not an anti-Semite; some of my best friends are Jews.”

    You really did make me laugh with this one.

    It’s like performance art, isn’t it? It’s like you are trying to get people to sneer at you for being a hypocrite.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  5. I have my doubts about, and problems with, your assertion Kman.

    What it really reflects is the phony “tribalism” that was created, is promoted and maintained, and is one of the sources of the political left’s power and faux-populism in our nation; and the incongruency of that construct with the principle of E Pluribus Unum.

    Bob Reed (5f2db5)

  6. Shorter Kman:

    RAAAAACISTS!

    Sure, you pretend you aren’t saying that, but we see the wink and the nod.

    Bob

    > Aaron, are you prepared to be branded a racist for even noticing this asshats antics today?

    Yes, and as you can see, it didn’t take long.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  7. Plus, he is a stalkerboi.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  8. I am not calling you racists, you just act like racists. Maybe it is subconscious. Kmart is pathetic.

    JD (b98cae)

  9. No, Kman, you can’t accuse conservatives of racism for merely criticizing ideas they disagree with.

    You also can’t get away with it by saying ‘I guess it’s tribalism or something’.

    Your imagining things.

    There was nothing racist in criticizing Sherrod (who was quite racist herself!) Same for criticizing Common.

    In both these cases, you overlooked ACTUAL racism while pretending there is some secret racism. You ignore the face value of people’s arguments.

    You provide no evidence, and even pretend you didn’t say what you said. You’re actually slithering around at this point.

    Aaron, thanks for the great overview. It is amazing how hard Willis tries to avoid a real honest discussion of racism, while picking any excuse to paint people as racists when they aren’t showing any racial preference at all.

    I guess there’s a pretty good pattern of Kman just blindly following the structure of whatever you’re arguing against.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  10. Interestingly, since the Obama election, I see more conservatives MAKING ACCUSATIONS of racism than I do being labelled racist.

    AW’s post is prime example. And it’s not the first time he calls a black person with whom he disagrees a “racist”. In fact, I’m struggling to think of a time where AW disagreed with a black person and he DIDN’T call that person a “racist”.

    Kman (5576bf)

  11. And I’m struggling to think of a post by Aaron where you didn’t tippy toe over to comment in your creepy way.

    Just saying that, um, you may have some issues that have not been resolved. And the internet isn’t the place to do that.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  12. Kman

    > In fact, I’m struggling to think of a time where AW disagreed with a black person and he DIDN’T call that person a “racist”.

    Really? Think harder.

    https://patterico.com/2011/05/09/good-news-two-thirds-of-pakistanis-don%e2%80%99t-believe-bin-laden-is-dead/

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  13. Ah, but Aaron…the focus is you, not the topic. You have to know that by now.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  14. LOL @ Willis.

    Here is a palate cleanser that illustrates black paranoia and violent imagery about the Prez wasn’t limited to Bush. George Clinton / NWA, recorded in the Clinton era – “Paint the White House Black” . I bet Tipper Gore put a sticker on this one.

    For the funk impaired, the title is a reference to “Chocolate City,” by Parliament, which had these lines:

    And don’t be surprised if Ali is in the White House
    Reverend Ike, Secretary of the Treasure
    Richard Pryor, Minister of Education
    Stevie Wonder, Secretary of FINE arts
    And Miss Aretha Franklin, the First Lady

    Gainin’ on ya!

    carlitos (1596cc)

  15. Really? Think harder.

    No, I’m talking about a black PERSON. Someone in particular that you have an issue with.

    Kman (5576bf)

  16. Interestingly, since the Obama election, I see more conservatives MAKING ACCUSATIONS of racism than I do being labelled racist.

    I would be surprised that you hadn’t noticed, but honestly I don’t watch MSNBC much either, nor do I read the NYT or visit HuffPo, DailyKos or DU.

    But if we did, I suspect we could find a lot of examples…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  17. Speaking of someone in particular that you have long, long had some kind of weird issue with…

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  18. Unfortunately for this controversy, lefty rap fans will just laugh, Common is probably one of the most positive rappers out there. Lots of messages about family responsibility, respect for women, etc. on his records.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  19. “LOL. This is sort of like the “I”m not an anti-Semite; some of my best friends are Jews.””

    Another one: “I’m no an anti-semite, some of my best friends are Jewish grandmothers that think their granddaughters shouldn’t date goyim.”

    Bruuuuce (b970c6)

  20. But if we did, I suspect we could find a lot of examples…

    Ah! Well, I’m convinced!

    Kman (5576bf)

  21. Interestingly, since the Obama election, I see more conservatives MAKING ACCUSATIONS of racism than I do being labelled racist.

    ?

    What does this mean, exactly. Are those accusations legitimate? You and Oliver Willis (whom you are merely parroting) seem to want to refuse to dignify these arguments, and yet you are dumb enough to rely on the argument’s existence as proof of some sinister bigotry.

    But was it legitimate to call the black panterh voter intimidators racist? Was it legit to call Sherrod’s refusal to help a white man as much as she helped a black man, or the NAACP’s happy reaction to this (before she moved on to a her new class warfare focus) racism? Was it legit to call Common’s hatred of interracial relationships and race loyalty racism?

    Is it legitimate to all out Kman’s dismissal of bigotry as a really good sign that Kman is himself a bigot? It’s crystal clear from Kman’s sneering generalization of conservatives, and his refusal to honestly look at his own evidence, that he is a bigot against people who have a political opinion he doesn’t like.

    Sorry, Kman, it’s OK to call racists what they really are. If people are doing that more often lately, and seem to actually have a point, you need to ask yourself why we’re entering an era of heightened racism from Obama supporters.

    I think you know damn well that Obama shills rely on racism against whites to justify their demonization of the Tea Party, et all. That probably has a very corrosive impact on society.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  22. @owillis
    Oliver Willis
    look how much obama hates the police! http://bit.ly/mqnak1

    He loves the police. Has them over for beers once in a while. 🙄

    carlitos (1596cc)

  23. Ah! Well, I’m convinced!

    Kman, it takes nothing but your own hysterical assumptions to conclude there’s racism throughout the conservative movement. Anyone can read your first comment here, where you assert we’re “tribal” and that has caused us to discriminate against blacks. You said it, you can’t justify it, and you are therefore an unreasonable bigot.

    Absolutely nothing Scott or Aaron says will every convince you. You will never attempt to understand anything a conservative says. That’s why you ignore whether someone (be they black or not) accused of racism is actually showing some. That’s why you are so often exposed for not even reading the post you’re commenting on (As is plainly the case here, as you’re not actually referencing much of the post).

    You are too bigoted against conservatives to even read them before bashing them.

    And then you boast that a conservative can’t convince you. Well, no sh!t, Sherlock.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  24. And then you boast that a conservative can’t convince you. Well, no sh!t, Sherlock.

    His evidence was “I’ll bet it’s true”, Dustin. No, I didn’t find that convincing.

    Kman (5576bf)

  25. Kman

    > No, I’m talking about a black PERSON. Someone in particular that you have an issue with.

    You didn’t notice the black person i was disagreeing with in that post?

    https://patterico.com/2011/05/09/good-news-two-thirds-of-pakistanis-don%E2%80%99t-believe-bin-laden-is-dead/

    I’ll give you a hint. I told him he did a heckuva job. And i have disagreed with him alot but in fact specifically defended him from charges of racism.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  26. Shorter Kman-You people need to admit interracial marriages lead to oppression of black people by the typical white svengali mindset.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  27. His evidence was “I’ll bet it’s true”, Dustin. No, I didn’t find that convincing.

    Convincing of what, exactly? He was making a completely unserious comment about the hysterics of those stations, rather than asserting he had proven anything. Your reaction is completely ridiculous, as usual, to a JOKE.

    You are just trying to change the subject, now that you can’t convince us that your argument isn’t completely insane.

    This is very predictable. You enter a thread, show no awareness of the post, and make an ass of yourself.

    Had you bothered to read the post, you’d see that Aaron neatly explained that someone was going out of their way to ignore proven racism, while asserting racism without good cause. Instead, you just make an even broader and more ridiculous version of Willis’s argument. When you repeat an argument that just got hammered down without any attempt to overcome the counterargument, it’s pretty clear that you didn’t read the post, isn’t it?

    Again, who cares that Scott didn’t convince you? You’re a bigot.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  28. KMan:

    Find one post on here that charges a black person with racism that is false …

    Lord Nazh (821ae1)

  29. No, I’m talking about a black PERSON.

    Kman, do you think it’s somehow remarkable that a black guy is a person? Why allcaps “person”?

    I just want to note that the liberals I’ve met that see racism in any argument a conservative makes are invariably quite racist liberals. They just can’t process a black man or woman without the blackness being super relevant.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  30. There’s actually a rather amusing “side effect” to declaring Obama to be illegitimate.

    According to the British law that is cited to “prove” he is a dual citizen, birthright citizenship by blood only passes to legitimate children, not to illegitimate children.

    By harping on Obama Jr. being illegitimate because the marriage was a sham, she is actually proving that he qualifies as a single citizenship, natural born citizen.

    Sam (8d527c)

  31. Dustin

    > You enter a thread, show no awareness of the post, and make an ass of yourself.

    And laziness is probably the biggest issue. i mean if he actually put effort into this he might actually be convincing. But for instance, when i cited a post where i did criticize a black man for something, without calling him a racist, all he would have had to do is read the very first line of the post to see i had met his challenge. But he couldn’t be bothered to do that.

    > Kman, do you think it’s somehow remarkable that a black guy is a person? Why allcaps “person”?

    no, no… i just figured it out. he means that the “person” i referred to was not actually human! Holy crap, this means the President is an alien! Run!

    (joking, of course)

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  32. Sam

    Very interesting if true. I’ll have to look that up.

    But it makes sense. If a child is illigitimate, it is harder to be certain who the father was. I mean often in Common law legal systems we assume that if a couple is married, all children the wife gives birth to is the husband’s. This can sometimes be an unrebuttable presumption even when it is obvious he is not–like if they are both chinese and the child comes out half black. In some jurisdictions that husband is still the father as a matter of law, responsible for things like child support. (And yes, the S.C. put its stamp of approval on that.)

    When it comes to the definition of “natural born” as it was understood in the 1780’s, it would make a lot of sense, then that if a child is illegitimate that citizenship flows from the only parent they can be certain of. After all, in 1789, there were no DNA tests.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  33. Chris Christie was paid off by teh wall street execs so he put those words in this rapper thug’s mouth.

    /Lefturds

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  34. in Common law legal systems

    I see what you did there.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  35. Carlitos he is still a vile bush hating thug but itt’s all god since he has NOW’s approval.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  36. Kman

    That said, if you look at the targets of the conservative blogosphere: from Van Jones to Shirley Sherrod to (more recently) Common and (now) Oliver Willis, the focus of conservative outrage does seem disproportionally skewed against people of color…. even when you don’t factor in Obama.

    So what you’re saying is, if you selectively compile a list of “targets” to include only blacks, you can then detect a “disproportionality” of blacks on the list? Yay, tautology!

    Never mind Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schulz, Chris Mathews (nearly everyone on MSNBC, really), Paul Krugman, John Kerry, Nurse Bloomberg, Governor Moonbeam, Richard Trumka, Al Pires, Hillary Clinton, Craig Becker…

    Yes, the common element definitely seems to be racial animus.

    cnh (3b3713)

  37. cnh, Kman will be replying with a carefully-conducted, methodological study in which he analyzes the “targets” of the conservative blogosphere in 3, 2, 1 …

    Seriously, I just surfed over to Powerline. Of the front-page posts that could be conceived as “targeting” anyone, it’s 6 non-black, 2 black, including one for each adult Obama in the White House. If I, per Kman’s suggestion, “didn’t factor in Obama,” that would be 6-0. It’s almost like he just has a meme he wants to push, and doesn’t care about the facts.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  38. Willis has a right to his stupid opinion. Doesn’t mean I have to care what it is.

    Bigfoot (8096f2)

  39. Well we oppose Pelosi and all the others because they are black

    /Sarcasm off

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  40. When a man commits bigamy, but his partner in the invalid marriage believed she was validly married (i.e., married him in good faith) even in common law the children are considered his children, and the laws of most, states recognize them as legitimate issue, and have since the days when things like that mattered a lot more than they do now.

    SarahW (af7312)

  41. What’s amazing about Willis is his power of self-delusion: He will link items like the Beck and Savage clips, say that it’s evidence of racism, and expect his readers to believe him. But then again, maybe he’s smarter than he seems — enough idiots believe him so that he was invited to the White House.

    L.N. Smithee (6bbfe0)

  42. If you pretended for a moment that Willis was honest you would have to conclude that Willis believes that you can never criticize a person of color for anything without being a racist—even if what you are criticizing them for is racism. Which is itself a racist belief.

    It sure is.

    Common and the Soft Racism of Low Expectations

    no one you know (325a59)

  43. Modern racism in this country is overwhelmingly concentrated in the black community, the Democrat Party, self-hating white liberal apologists, MSM, academia, Hollywood, urban centers, and in the federal bureaucracy.

    It’s initiated, nurtured, funded, and disseminated by overt racists in the expectation they can silence their opponents and advance their personal financial interests in addition to their collectivist totalitarian inclinations at the expense of descent, honest, well meaning, hard working, taxpaying, American citizens.

    ropelight (584fcf)

  44. So if a republican invites Eminem to the white house and he talks about killing former president Obama the left would not be outraged?

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  45. So if a republican invites Eminem to the white house and he talks about killing former president Obama the left would not be outraged?

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  46. Kman, care to expand on the liberal opinion of Clarence Thomas, Herm Cain, and Col. Alan West? Condoleezza Rice? Bet you can’t do it without using the term ‘house n——‘.

    Birdbath (19803d)

  47. Gingrich a conservative?

    Surrrrrrrrre and i’am the emperor of Japan.

    Birdbath he cannot.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  48. Oliver Willis only got where he is because about a decade ago, Glenn Reynolds thought he was a bright, energetic young guy and promoted his blog.

    Willis pissed that away with a huge dose of douchbaggery and dishonesty within a few months of gaining the limelight and has done nothing of note in many many years since to justify anyone bothering to follow his twits.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  49. When a man commits bigamy, but his partner in the invalid marriage believed she was validly married (i.e., married him in good faith) even in common law the children are considered his children, and the laws of most, states recognize them as legitimate issue, and have since the days when things like that mattered a lot more than they do now.

    Bulldust. If that were so, Richard III would never have become king.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  50. So what you’re saying is, if you selectively compile a list of “targets” to include only blacks, you can then detect a “disproportionality” of blacks on the list? Yay, tautology!

    Never mind Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schulz, Chris Mathews (nearly everyone on MSNBC, really), Paul Krugman, John Kerry, Nurse Bloomberg, Governor Moonbeam, Richard Trumka, Al Pires, Hillary Clinton, Craig Becker…

    Yes, the common element definitely seems to be racial animus.

    Comment by cnh — 5/11/2011 @ 1:43 pm

    kman,

    When will you answer cnh’s question or Carlitos’ comment?

    cnh, Kman will be replying with a carefully-conducted, methodological study in which he analyzes the “targets” of the conservative blogosphere in 3, 2, 1 …

    Seriously, I just surfed over to Powerline. Of the front-page posts that could be conceived as “targeting” anyone, it’s 6 non-black, 2 black, including one for each adult Obama in the White House. If I, per Kman’s suggestion, “didn’t factor in Obama,” that would be 6-0. It’s almost like he just has a meme he wants to push, and doesn’t care about the facts.

    Comment by carlitos — 5/11/2011 @ 1:55 pm

    Anytime…

    Tanny O'Haley (12193c)

  51. Tanny

    Kman ran like a whipped dog when i pointed out that I had very often criticized black people without calling them a racist.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  52. Oliver “Lard Willis is 1 of 8 people on the planet that can make epwj seem sentient.

    JD (306f5d)

  53. Oliver Willis makes Jharp seem competent.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  54. “[T]he media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.” — R.S. McCain.

    If Common said that, would that be cool?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  55. I do not like Twitter. It is un-serious (except, perhaps, in its effect on reasoned discourse, which may indeed be serious, and corrosive).

    Beldar (4e4145)

  56. and get off my yard

    Beldar (4e4145)

  57. They do not seem the same to me. I did not agree with that natural revulsion thingie back then.

    JD (d56362)

  58. twitter is communication amway

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  59. I do not see how the update relates to how brain jarringly stupid and fat Oliver Willis is.;-)

    JD (0d2ffc)

  60. I do not like Twitter. It is un-serious (except, perhaps, in its effect on reasoned discourse, which may indeed be serious, and corrosive).

    139 characters.

    and get off my yard

    19 characters.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  61. I’m really disappointed in Beldar. His argument should really be more fully formed. Correctly, it would read:

    “Hey, you kids, get off my lawn.”

    I know, I only shouted it out the window a couple of hours ago. IRL.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  62. They do not seem the same to me. I did not agree with that natural revulsion thingie back then.

    They are perhaps not “the same” but both that quote and Common’s statements are at odds with a colorblind society, which I believe is the American ideal.

    That’s what I teach my kids.

    Yet one quote gets conservatives up in arms against the speaker, while another quote gets conservatives up in arms against me for criticizing the speaker.

    To the point where it is fair game to combine my name, job title, and the term “anti-Semitic” on Google, to punish me for the offense of criticizing that quote.

    Just something I think about when conservatives leap on someone for being against interracial relationships. I wonder where those people stood when I was being raped on Google for the offense of criticizing McCain’s quote.

    Many stood against me. Many stood on the sidelines. Few stood with me, that I recall.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  63. all my life I had to fight

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  64. Seeing how the former has spoken out in favor of cop killers and terrorists, not to mention, entertaining a presidential assasination, it makes
    the distinction meaningful.

    narciso lopez (79ddc3)

  65. Seeing how the former has spoken out in favor of cop killers and terrorists, not to mention, entertaining a presidential assasination, it makes
    the distinction meaningful.

    I thought we were talking about whether the *quotes* are different. Of course the *people* are different. Very different.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  66. When will Oliver and others like him get it through their heads that Obama is not the black President, but is instead President of the United States and only incidentally black? And that criticism of him and his policies is based upon legitimate disagreement with those policies, just as Oliver’s disagreement with Bush’s policies were based (presumably) on legitimate policy differences rather than race.

    Rhymes With Right (6ca302)

  67. Beldar

    i do like how twitter allows fools to self-identify more easily.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  68. If Common said that, would that be cool?

    I don’t think there’s anything natural about that revulsion, no.

    MayBee (081489)

  69. I am glad there is not a natural revulsion, and that Better Half doesn’t think like Common, or Better Half would not be married to me, and my little angels wouldn’t be here.

    JD (d48c3b)

  70. They won’t get it.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  71. Many stood against me. Many stood on the sidelines. Few stood with me, that I recall.

    Oh sorry! I don’t really remember anything about it, but then RS isn’t someone I follow.

    MayBee (081489)

  72. Well, anyway. Common went to the White House and didn’t sing about killing cops, but he did recite a poem about how wonderful Barack is.

    So that’s what our taxes paid for today. A President being serenaded with a song praising him. Very Hugo Chavez.

    MayBee (081489)

  73. What if Palin invited eminem to the white house where he talked about chopping off Obama’s balls?………………..Forgot he lacks balls.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  74. What if Palin invited eminem to the white house where he talked about chopping off Obama’s balls?………………..Forgot he lacks balls.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  75. Eminem would only threaten to chop off Obama’s balls if he caught Obama chatting up Kim.

    MayBee (081489)

  76. __________________________________________

    All I can say is, if “my side” seemed to go after minorities a lot — not as groups but as individuals — I would start to wonder if it is a coincidence, or if there is something else at work.

    You’re definitely one of the types I think of when I muse about what would happen to this society if black America suddenly went from being 90-plus percent pro-liberal and often blindly loyal to Democrat/leftist politicians to truly centrist to rightist. IOW, I bet a lot of “progressives” would suddenly lose their ardor for civil rights and diversity.

    I observe the tempered enthusiasm (or lack of such, period) for the great story and plight of minorities in the US when, as one example, Clarence Thomas was up for confirmation to the Supreme Court in the early 1990s, or when Alan Keyes was running for a major political office a few years ago.

    Mark (411533)

  77. So that’s what our taxes paid for today. A President being serenaded with a song praising him. Very Hugo Chavez.

    Comment by MayBee

    Thanks for the synopsis. Like I said in one of these threads, the real outrage is that we don’t have a real president, rather than the fact some people cling to racial nonsense.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  78. Considering what a wretched violent, PDS ridden hack, he is, I don’t think that would be an appropriate analogy. But I wonder if this is a losing battle, about 20 years ago, this was the Ice T gig, he wasn’t repudiated and his anti copmessage was incorporated into the larger culture, same with Ice Cube, who has received a degree of respectability.

    narciso lopez (79ddc3)

  79. Many stood against me. Many stood on the sidelines. Few stood with me, that I recall.

    Comment by Patterico — 5/11/2011 @ 6:36 pm

    Aww. You poor thing, all that criticism over just calling out another blogger AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN for being racist. I’m sure you’re just trying to promote understanding and not continuing a pissant feud, right?

    alwaysfiredup (23de9f)

  80. all that criticism over just calling out another blogger AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN for being racist

    Link me a single case where Patterico called the guy a racist, please.

    My recollection is that he called a comment racist, while noting this doesn’t prove anything about the person who said it.

    Anyway, you’re right that it wasn’t an attempt to feud. It was an earnest discussion of an issue.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  81. Also, when you’re fomenting a feud, usually you do not completely ignore the people you’re feuding against for months at a time.

    There are blogs that care about paranoid conspiracies between GOP money, actual jerk Charles Johnson, and any moderate Republicans who discuss not being hypocrites about racism or political derangement (like BDS). Go there.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  82. “same with Ice Cube, who has received a degree of respectability.”

    Common got into a feud with Ice Cube. Common was criticizing where the gangster rappers took hip-hop. See Common’s “I used to love H.E.R.”

    bruuuuce (8992e5)

  83. I live in the neighborhood in Chicago that probably has the second highest concentration of interracial (white/black) relationships in the city. I live here on purpose, in a small effort to combat things like the “natural revulsion.”

    Patterico, I just read the RS McCain thread that you mentioned. I honestly did not remember commenting on that issue, yet I had actually researched his usenet posts and stuff. Interesting dialogue. Looking at the writing style, I guess that “AW” is Aaron Worthing.

    I realize that you could rightly call me a hypocrite for not caring, but I find artists like Common to be too vapid to consider their views. RS McCain is a purported political commentator. Common is an entertainer. Maybe it’s hypocritical, but I just can’t get that excited over the political / racial “deep thoughts” of the entertainer class. An entertainment magazine in London presses them for their views, and they reach back and deliver stupidity. Not a surprise. On the bright side, many of them make really good music and art.

    narciso is right. This is a battle from 20 years ago, when Tipper Gore was busy being outrageously outraged and putting stickers on cassettes. Artists say shocking, revolting, even racist things. They are artists. That’s what they do.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  84. Like I said in one of these threads, the real outrage is that we don’t have a real president, rather than the fact some people cling to racial nonsense.

    Yeah. He flew over Texas without looking at the fires and flew over the Mississippi without looking at the flooding. All so he could go to two Austin fundraisers and make a speech about Republicans wanting alligators in a moat on the border. We paid for that.

    He returned to have another Wednesday Night Austerity Party, complete with celebrities and a song about him. Which we paid for.

    This is all just a bit over a week after the celebrity-filled WHC Dinner and the “stakeholders” meeting with Eva Longoria and America Ferarra.

    All of this after he complained about his loss of anonymity.

    MayBee (081489)

  85. “Many stood against me. Many stood on the sidelines. Few stood with me, that I recall.”

    Patterico – Was McCain being honored at the White House? I don’t recall that part.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  86. No, that wasn’t the point I was going for, Dustin, the fact that the likes of the two Ices, as well as Al Sharpton, were legitimized says something very
    detrimental about our culture, and what does it say that Obama entertains the idea of awarding high honors to this character.

    narciso lopez (79ddc3)

  87. alwaysfiredup,

    How do you feel about Common’s views on interracial couples?

    How do you feel about the American ideal of colorblindness?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  88. Common is the lovechild of Helen Thomas and Ice-T.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  89. “Many stood against me. Many stood on the sidelines. Few stood with me, that I recall.”

    Patterico – Did McCain talk about how it was OK to bang black chicks but marrying them was bad?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  90. over the political / racial “deep thoughts” of the entertainer class.

    Yet those “deep thoughts” were precisely what he was asked to the WH tonight to convey.

    MayBee (081489)

  91. Was McCain being honored at the White House? I don’t recall that part.

    Well, he is the “other” McCain…

    carlitos (1596cc)

  92. Patterico – Was McCain being honored at the White House? I don’t recall that part.

    I don’t either. Nor do I recall saying that.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  93. It’s one thing to say “I don’t care about the deep thoughts of the entertainer class”. But you must recognize this White House solicits their thoughts and their supports, and uses taxpayer funds to provide them a stage on which their thoughts are celebrated.

    MayBee (081489)

  94. Yet those “deep thoughts” were precisely what he was asked to the WH tonight to convey.

    No, he was asked there for poetry night. Maybe you gleaned the reason for his invitation much as you gleaned the knowledge as to whether Obama looked out the airplane window on his recent flights?

    carlitos (1596cc)

  95. Patterico – Did McCain talk about how it was OK to bang black chicks but marrying them was bad?

    Daley,

    Since you have quoted the last line of my comment twice, may I assume you read the first line?

    Just in case you missed it, I’ll say it again:

    They are perhaps not “the same” but both that quote and Common’s statements are at odds with a colorblind society, which I believe is the American ideal.

    In other words, I do not contend that the two situations are exactly the same. So if that’s what you’re trying to prove, do me the favor of recognizing that you’re not disproving an assertion I have made.

    Both are, in my view, at odds with the American ideal of a colorblind society. Which is my point.

    Also, that for making that very criticism, many considered it justified to link my name, job title, and the term “anti-Semitic” on Google. Which I know you don’t approve of — and that is what I am referencing when I talk about those who stood with me. In fact, on that issue, you were certainly one of the ones who DID stand with me, and I won’t forget that.

    That doesn’t mean you agree with me re McCain, nor must we agree on everything to be friends.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  96. “I don’t either. Nor do I recall saying that.”

    Patterico – I did not claim you said it. If you are looking at conservatives being outrageously outraged over quotes I am merely suggesting the context for the outrage is very different.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  97. I realize that you could rightly call me a hypocrite for not caring, but I find artists like Common to be too vapid to consider their views.

    Except . . . that he was invited to the White House because of his “poetry” — despite the fact that some of his poetry espouses views that frankly are more concerning than this interracial relationship stuff. Like using guns against cops and such.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  98. Patterico – I did not claim you said it. If you are looking at conservatives being outrageously outraged over quotes I am merely suggesting the context for the outrage is very different.

    But I’m not comparing low outrage to high outrage. I am comparing high outrage, on one hand, to outright SUPPORT, on the other.

    That is more difficult to explain by reference to context — at least, when the beef being discussed is Common’s comments on interracial relationships.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  99. No, he was asked there for poetry night. Maybe you gleaned the reason for his invitation much as you gleaned the knowledge as to whether Obama looked out the airplane window on his recent flights?

    Poetry is about deep thoughts. Isn’t it?

    I gleaned the information about Obama looking out the window from a reporter, who asked Jay Carney. Who said no, he didn’t or at least he didn’t make an effort to.

    MayBee (081489)

  100. He returned to have another Wednesday Night Austerity Party, complete with celebrities and a song about him. Which we paid for.

    It’s pathetic.

    I was driving up I-35 and noticed that green and white helicopter and noted to my wife that it definitely wasn’t the President’s helicopter, because he’s not about to actually come down here and tour the fire damage. But apparently he came down here and toured the rich trial lawyers’ pocketbooks.

    And I’m sure he’s taking yet more and more credit for the success of the SEALs in taking down Bin Laden, too.

    And he’s bringing in some pathetic thug to offer a worship hymn to Obama now. Great.

    This country is getting exactly the government she deserves. We had every indication that Obama did not have John Mccain’s character (such that it is). Republicans have to worry about some frankly stupid issues like the height and attractiveness of our nominee, just to have a chance. If we nominated the modern day Abraham Lincoln, we’d lose all but 3-4 states. Thankfully, I actually suspect Texas is one of the few places that would see through the vanity.

    This Common guy is just a symptom, though, and even if everything possible went right, it would be decades before the culture came around to looking for what really matters in our politicians.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  101. This is why Obama said he had poetry night. To which he invited Common to perform:

    “The power of poetry is everybody experiences it differently. There are no rules on what makes a great poem,” Obama said. “Instead, a great poem is one that resonates with us and challenges us and teaches us something about ourselves.”

    Are you really going to say this wasn’t about Common’s thoughts?

    MayBee (081489)

  102. “They are perhaps not “the same” but both that quote and Common’s statements are at odds with a colorblind society, which I believe is the American ideal.”

    Patterico – I saw the above line and agree with it and feel we have moved backward from that ideal under our post-racial president as can be seen from the actions and words of his administration in numerous areas.

    I wanted to emphasize how different the quotes and the context of the outrage are, which you probably did not appreciate.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  103. George W Bush invited Ozzy Osbourne to the White House. Seriously, who the hell cares? He’s a rapper. Rappers talk about violence and represent that their **** is bigger than everyone else’s. Ozzy sang about satanism. This is not news. If you want to feel outrageously outraged, go ahead. In my opinion, these manufactured controversies distract from real issues.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  104. we have moved backward from that ideal under our post-racial president

    Amen. Kman was complaining about many people identifying racism lately, without considering the possibility that Obama and his shills have actually made America more racist. How many people out there see a white Tea Partier and assume that person hates black people? More than a handful. Without this argument that the GOP is automatically against the interests of so many blank-hyphen-Americans, a lot of the appeal the Democrat party has goes away.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  105. “But I’m not comparing low outrage to high outrage. I am comparing high outrage, on one hand, to outright SUPPORT, on the other.”

    Patterico – Comments crossed. Okay, different matter. Dude has no business being feted at White House, just as I would object to Reverend Hatey or Louis Farrakhan being honored at the White House. Obama is a divider, not a uniter.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  106. Ozzy sang about satanism.

    What did Ozzy say that was as bad as talking about killing cops or this racial and sexual nonsense?

    Actually, never mind. Two wrongs don’t make a right. This is still a poor defense. Obama is elevating scum, and he’s doing it because the scum is elevating Obama. That is not presidential, and that doesn’t change if you can show how Bush did something remotely similar (though probably not at all similar, actually).

    Dustin (c16eca)

  107. Are you really going to say this wasn’t about Common’s thoughts?

    Comment by MayBee — 5/11/2011 @ 8:21 pm

    Yes. That’s what is meant by “There are no rules on what makes a great poem” – any knucklehead can write great poetry. Most great poets have been psychologically / chemically altered from normalcy.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  108. If you want to feel outrageously outraged, go ahead. In my opinion, these manufactured controversies distract from real issues.

    It takes a lot to outrageously outrage me nowadays. Mainly I don’t have time, which, come to think of it, it’s time for me to get back to work.

    But before I go, let me say: I probably find this sort of thing hitting home more than, say, Ozzy Osbourne, because I think the rapper culture of advocating violence against police and such is not only very destructive, but is part and parcel of a culture — worship of gangsterish ideals — whose ill effects I deal with daily. It is not a “manufactured” issue for me, I assure you.

    I am told on Twitter that this fellow also has positive things to say on fatherhood and such. Good for him — on that issue.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  109. If you want to feel outrageously outraged, go ahead. In my opinion, these manufactured controversies distract from real issues.

    My criticism is this White House is too distracted from real issues. This party is just one more bit of evidence.
    Our President doesn’t need to be the lifestyle-guru Celebrity in Chief. It isn’t his job to keep America entertained.

    MayBee (081489)

  110. Carlitos wouldn’t feel that way if Palin invited Eminem to the white house where he rapped about blowing Barack Obama’s head off.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  111. Yes. That’s what is meant by “There are no rules on what makes a great poem”

    Except that he was invited by the White House to recite his poetry.
    You think they chose him randomly, or so that he could state his thoughts?

    What are you arguing here? You started out by saying you don’t care about his thoughts. The White House obviously does. I’m not saying they agree with them. I’m saying he was selected to speak his thoughts.

    MayBee (081489)

  112. “I live in the neighborhood in Chicago that probably has the second highest concentration of interracial (white/black) relationships in the city. I live here on purpose, in a small effort to combat things like the “natural revulsion.””

    carlitos – Gold star for your forehead is in the mail. imdw used to brag about its mixed neighborhood.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  113. Patterico,

    Yes, I mentioned his thoughts on fatherhood and respect for women on the comments here as well. He truly is one of the more positive rappers out there. I’m not sure what drove his silly anti-Bush / anti-cop stuff other than peer pressure or lack of thought.

    Thanks for mentioning the impact of anti-police violent sentiment that you deal with daily. That must be very tough, and it’s a fair point to mention it as you have. As I posted (a bit tongue in cheek) with the George Clinton video, there is a LOT of paranoid conspiracy theory amongst the black community, whether it’s Farrakhan/McKinney “they blew the levees” or the CIA dealing crack, or just “the man is out to get you.” Helplessness can do that to a person, I suppose. I don’t support it, but seeing so much of it, I can kind of empathize. Color-blind is the goal, but it’s not yet the reality.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  114. I live in an all liberal area in an attempt to combat the revulsion. So far it is not working.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  115. Jesus Christ, I can’t believe that adults need this type of censorship. So, without further ado, a censored version of my comment:

    daley, seriously f**k you. It’s the God’s honest truth that I live here, and not in Lincoln Park, specifically because I don’t like white enclaves. You can go f**k yourself, as far as I’m concerned.

    MayBee, art ≠ thoughts.

    Comment by carlitos — 5/11/2011 @ 8:41 pm

    carlitos (1596cc)

  116. To invite a hater like Common who despite the lic that is granted in some parts of society that accept this double standard – the presidency has a sharper more clear task of promoting what is good about our country rather than what is decisive.

    There is a huge list of people that could be honored at the Whitehouse that unabashedly our children could see them as examples of why we are the greatist country on the earth

    Angry Gangsta filthy rappers – doesnt fit the mold of the people to be presented to the country and taking the place – of the family of a fallen policemen, or a person who has hosted 100 foster kids

    EricPWJohnson (c0a978)

  117. Helplessness can do that to a person, I suppose.

    Why do you think Farrakhan, McKinney, and Spike Lee should feel helpless?
    Why should Common have felt helpless? His mother was a teacher. His father got him a job working for the Bulls when he was a teenager. He went to college on scholarship, but dropped out to rap.

    MayBee (081489)

  118. MayBee, art ≠ thoughts.

    I can’t believe you are even trying that.
    Poetry is thoughts. Art is thought.

    He was not asked there to watch. He was asked there to *express*.

    MayBee (081489)

  119. You know what carlitos why don’t you go f*ck yourself you hypocrite.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  120. This is also the m.o. of the likes of Van Jones and Rucker, not to mention Mark Lloyd, how is that remotely helpful a notion, for social advancement.
    We can also add Spike Lee, to the recipe of alienation.

    narciso lopez (79ddc3)

  121. Yes MayBee. Public Enemy had upper-middle-class upbringings near Philly, as did Will Smith. They made better music than Mr. Smith did. Whatever. I’m sure I can go back and find your musings on how it was evil for George Bush 43 to have Ozzy at the White House and how George Bush 41 had Kid Rock host his party at the Kennedy Center. Because it’s all about intellectual consistency and not “BS outrage of the day” on the Hannity show. Right?

    ***I trust that you don’t need me to waste time googling, and you stipulate that Kid Rock and Ozzy are every bit as … I don’t know … immoral? … as Common?

    carlitos (1596cc)

  122. Just a reminder, Carlitos. This is what you are saying I said that is wrong:
    Yet those “deep thoughts” were precisely what he was asked to the WH tonight to convey.

    You are saying what? That he was there to express his art, but not his thoughts?
    Anywhoo…..his thoughts turned out to be that Obama totally rocks.

    MayBee (081489)

  123. When did Kid Rock or Ozzy make songs about killing cops you gutless nobody?

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  124. Farrakhan’s merry troubadours, who indulged in violent imagery as well, in ‘By the time I get to Arizona’ so much for civility, but we know this
    was just a gambit.

    narciso lopez (79ddc3)

  125. We can also add Spike Lee, to the recipe of alienation.

    Comment by narciso lopez — 5/11/2011 @ 8:49 pm

    Yeah, but Do the Right Thing was still a great movie. I disagree with the message, the politics, the director, almost everything. But it was a great movie. Great art. That’s the point I’m (failing to make) trying to make.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  126. I didn’t say one word about Common being immoral.
    I didn’t say it was evil for Obama to have Common at the White House.

    I asked about your own belief about “hopelessness”, because you introduced that.
    I said you can dismiss Common’s thoughts, but Obama invited Common to the White House to express them.

    Really, I don’t think you read other people’s comments at all.

    MayBee (081489)

  127. So would carlitos let it slide if Palin invited Eminem to the White House and he let loose one big racial fart?

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  128. I thought he was there for poetry night. My mistake I guess.

    I’m pretty sure that any president would be reticent for any artist to express their true thoughts, as they might reflect badly on the president.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  129. Still refusing to ask my question eh?

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  130. Bad usage of reticent – try reluctant.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  131. I thought he was there for poetry night. My mistake I guess.

    He was there to recite his poetry.

    You said ” but I find artists like Common to be too vapid to consider their views. ”

    Tell me how that fits in with Obama inviting him to recite his poetry. How does that fit in with someone being vapid?
    You think Obama wanted someone vapid to recite his own poetry?

    MayBee (081489)

  132. DohBiden remains a joke. I am somewhat ashamed to comment at a blog that features such a commenter (provided that it’s a real person and not an automated conservative-discrediting machine)…

    carlitos (1596cc)

  133. “daley, seriously f**k you. It’s the God’s honest truth that I live here, and not in Lincoln Park, specifically because I don’t like white enclaves. You can go f**k yourself, as far as I’m concerned.”

    carlitos – It’s too late, I mailed the gold star.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  134. Ya know Aaron if I did something wrong you can ban me 🙁

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  135. MayBee,

    Frank Sinatra. Big star, yes?

    He banged cocktail waitresses two at a time. He was mobbed-up. He played at the White House.

    Whatever. Please feel free to be outraged. It is obviously important to you. When you’d like to apply the same standard to every president that you have applied to Obama, let me know.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  136. Frank Sinatra didn’t go around glorifying Cop killers.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  137. DohBiden is perhaps at its funniest when he doesn’t realize that THE GOD DAMN MOB KILLED COPS.

    Moron.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  138. carlitos is at it’s lowest when he doesn’t realize Frank Sinatra hasn’t ordered any cops to be killed.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  139. ____________________________________________

    George W Bush invited Ozzy Osbourne to the White House. Seriously, who the hell cares?

    But did Bush also sit in a church for 20 years listening to the rantings of a guy proclaiming that 9-11 was the US’s “chickens coming home to roost,” and “not God Bless, America. No, it’s goddamn, America!”? And then made the ranter a trusted adviser? IOW, rapper Common is merely one part of a trashy mosaic of a goddamned-America White House.

    Wonderful.

    If this society jumped the shark back in November 2008, and if ends up facing an extended period of stagnation and decline from here on out, then the guy currently in the Oval Office is altogether fitting and quite appropriate.

    Mark (411533)

  140. Whatever. Please feel free to be outraged. It is obviously important to you.

    I’m not outraged.
    I’m confused by your arguments.

    I don’t mind if performers play the WH. I mind that the current president is too invested in the celebrity culture, not invested enough in being a good president.

    I was never impressed when Frank Sinatra hung around the WH, and as I recall Nancy Reagan took a lot of crap for being “too friendly” with him. Kennedy, of course, had his own problems with him. From everything I’ve ever read about him, he was a real a**hole.

    If banging cocktail waitresses was outrageous, Ted Kennedy would never have stepped foot in the White House.

    MayBee (081489)

  141. I would say something but then I will get a warning.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  142. At least nobody tried to say Frank Sinatra mobbed up because he felt hopeless.

    MayBee (081489)

  143. MayBee, maybe you could let me know, but where do we disagree then? Happy to find common ground.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  144. Here’s the end of Common’s poem tonight, which Obama was in no way interested in hearing, because Common wasn’t there to express his thought:

    Even the unseen know that God watches. For one King’s dream he was able to Barack us. One King’s dream he was able to Barack us. One King’s dream he was able to Barack us.”

    MayBee (081489)

  145. MayBee, maybe you could let me know, but where do we disagree then? Happy to find common ground.

    Why don’t you go back through the thread and read what I’ve said, and then read what you said. Then maybe you’ll figure it out.

    MayBee (081489)

  146. One King’s dream he was able to Barack us.

    Our tax dollars at work, I see. Frankly, I do not think this is typical at all, not that I would think it’s OK if it were typical.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  147. MayBee, I did that before I wrote what I wrote. Whatever. Feel free to (not?) disagree with me.

    Common wrote a poem that was a tad hagiographic towards the president. i guess that makes him human despicable.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  148. There are days where your friends absolutely insist on fighting. And there is nothing you can do to stop them.

    JD (85b089)

  149. I guess that makes him an obama sycophant.

    FIFY

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  150. i guess that makes him human despicable.

    Yes, because I said he was despicable.

    MayBee (081489)

  151. None of this has anything to do with how stupid, how dishonest, and how f@cking fat Oliver Willis is. Just sayin’

    JD (b98cae)

  152. Jesus Christ, I can’t believe that adults need this type of censorship.

    “This kind of censorship” is in place because often when people use the f-word, the comment is not productive.

    If you think your comment absolutely needs to be seen, with the profanity, then there are always the asterisks . . . as you learned.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  153. Just so we are clear, O-Dub is the Douchenozzle Extraordinaire that introduced us to the concept that calling someone articulate is racist. That effin stupid. He is also a Redskins fan. So stupid you have to remind him to breathe. Too stupid to trust with anything sharper than a bowling ball. Epwj levels of stupid.

    JD (b98cae)

  154. I have difficulty sometimes fashioning my thoughts without resort to profanity, particularly when discussing American politics

    It’s the times.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  155. I find commenter JD to be quite articulate. This, despite his melanin count.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  156. It’s the helplessness, happyfeet.

    It does that to a person.

    MayBee (081489)

  157. Even the unseen know that God watches. For one King’s dream he was able to Barack us. One King’s dream he was able to Barack us. One King’s dream he was able to Barack us.”

    Comment by MayBee — 5/11/2011 @ 9:19 pm

    Just wanted to say I find this quite moderately creepy. And I find this version every bit as creepy:

    Even the unseen know that God watches. For one America’s [couldn’t come up with an exact Bush parallel of the MLK Jr. sentiment] dream he was able to Bush us. One America’s dream he was able to Bush us. One America’s dream he was able to Bush us.”

    A US President is a public official elected to serve us, not some king or an emperor or a demigod to worship.

    The quasi-worship this guy has gotten since his candidacy was announced is…pretty disturbing.

    no one you know (fd287d)

  158. You will have to ask HoHo Willis if that is racist or not, carlitos.

    JD (85b089)

  159. Common is not despicable per se M’chelle is despicable for turning our little white house into a carnival of low culture just for to reward one of their Chicago street trash cronies. Can’t she wait til she can have her own talk show on the stupid Oprah network? Then she can have any old crackhead on she wants and they can fistbump and grind until the cut-rate auto insurance commercial comes on. I like Aimee Mann though I think she’s neato mosquito. She was slumming it today.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  160. Spanish is very helpful in conveying the full rank of invective, required, say to Markey’s comment re
    the new drilling bill, ‘we won’t be eating shell fish, but shell oil’ keep in mind, this was likely
    rehearsed.

    narciso lopez (79ddc3)

  161. oh MayBee – I do feel helpless like my little country is a little raft heading for the falls and Holly is there and Will is there and I’m there and we can’t stop it we can’t stop it ohnoes we’re going over

    hey maybe we’ll get to see some dinosaurs? That would be something else.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  162. All you will see are the sleestaks, happyfeet.

    JD (306f5d)

  163. it’s a goddamn nightmare

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  164. Can’t she wait til she can have her own talk show on the stupid Oprah network?

    Michelle and Barack see the White House as a life style talk show.
    What to eat, how to exercise, how to parent, the music you should listen to, the poets you should hear, the clothes that are in style right now. It is the Oprah presidency, but without Jenny McCarthy’s anti-vaccination crusade.

    MayBee (081489)

  165. Ot, who decided it was a good idea to remake ‘Land of the Lost’ as a comedy, and cast Will Farrell.

    narciso lopez (79ddc3)

  166. that is a bang on analogy I think

    instead of leadership we get segments

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  167. The good news, Haps, is when you start feeling helpless you can believe things like the government blew up the levy or name your daughter after a cop killer and it’s ok because of the helplessness.

    MayBee (081489)

  168. that is a bang on analogy I think

    instead of leadership we get segments

    Genius.

    MayBee (081489)

  169. Sleestaks suck. So does Barcky.

    JD (306f5d)

  170. sometimes when I feel helpless I make tasty sammin! It’s easy you just marinade it overnight in a gloppy mixture of coconut cream and mojo criollo which is a very popular marinade from the cuba. Then bake it at 375 for 20 minutes. It’s really tasty! This is a simplified version of a recipe Mr. daley got me to try last Christmas what lets the marinade do the work of all these ingredients you had to chop up doing it the old way, and anything involving “fresh ginger root” is really asking a lot of a little pikachu I think.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  171. Ceviche, my friends. Keeps the sleestaks away.

    JD (d48c3b)

  172. I have to explore this ceviche-making

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  173. Ceviche making.
    Coming up on the next healthy eating episode of Obama.

    MayBee (081489)

  174. Aaron,

    If you want to check:
    The British Nationality Act of 1948 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/11-12/56/contents/enacted

    Section 32 Interpretation
    (2)Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions ” father “, ” ancestor ” and ” descended ” shall be construed accordingly.

    Section 23 Legitimate Children
    (1)A person born out of wedlock and legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents shall, as from the date of the marriage or of the commencement of this Act, whichever is later, be treated, for the purpose of determining whether he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or was a British subject immediately before the commencement of this Act, as if he had been born legitimate.
    (2)A person shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to have been legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents if by the law of the place in which his father was domiciled at the time of the marriage the marriage operated immediately or subsequently to legitimate him, and not otherwise.

    So if I am reading that correctly, if someone proves the marriage was illegal, they also prove Obama never had dual citizenship.
    Well, at least if bigamous or false citizenship marriages did not legitimate children in Hawaii or the U.S. in 1961. I never checked that part.

    Sam (8d527c)

  175. DohBiden remains a joke. I am somewhat ashamed to comment at a blog that features such a commenter (provided that it’s a real person and not an automated conservative-discrediting machine)…

    This blog “features” DohBiden? No, it “allows” him to comment — because he has done nothing bannable. Like try to publish my home address (imdw), or call DRJ a foul word and bring up Jeff Goldstein ad nauseam (Christoph) or call Stashiu a murderer (Hax Vobiscum/Big Median/etc.) or out someone (Yelverdouche) etc.

    Carlitos, you seem to have a serious case of being worried about what people might think about you, based on things that you really have no control over, like who comments at the same blogs you comment at. I like you, but come on. It’s the Internet. I could say I’m ashamed to be on the same Internet as, say, Eric Boehlert . . . but ultimately, it’s the Internet. As long as you don’t engage in the eminently bannable behavior like the above (or similar), I’m pretty damned open about who I allow to comment.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  176. We need a “Godwin’s Law” for racism. the instant you toss in the racism card, you’ve jumped the shark, and people can invoke “Sharpton’s Law” or whatever and you immediately lose any credibility.

    Steve B (42224f)

  177. We need a “Godwin’s Law” for racism. the instant you toss in the racism card, you’ve jumped the shark, and people can invoke “Sharpton’s Law” or whatever and you immediately lose any credibility.

    Except, I assume, when we’re discussing actual racists?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  178. patterico

    seriously.

    I mean tomorrow i will have a post where a guy jokes about eliminating people he doesn’t like from the gene pool. It is not a violation of godwin’s law to compare him to hitler.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  179. Comment by Kman — 5/11/2011 @ 12:53 pm
    3. Claims of racism, whether they come from the left or from the right, are instant dead-enders. It’s an argument that sheds only heat, no light.
    — Really . . . there are NO instances where intentional racism is the driving factor causing a conflict or problem? Please follow up this declaration with a call for the end of “hate crimes” legislation. Either that, or, call yourself a hypocrite.

    That said, if you look at the targets of the conservative blogosphere: from Van Jones to Shirley Sherrod to (more recently) Common and (now) Oliver Willis, the focus of conservative outrage does seem disproportionally skewed against people of color…. even when you don’t factor in Obama.
    Now why is that?

    — Because, A) more people of color tend to be liberal than conservative in their politics; B) liberals are liberals, and deserve to be criticized for their outrageous statements, regardless of color. Kman, your thoughts reflect the not-so-subtle truism of the liberal championing of the so-called “discriminated class”: calls for ‘equal opportunity’ are really cries for ‘special status’. People like Willis that play the race card in this manner are NOT calling for “inclusion”; he’s actually saying “hands off!”

    No, I don’t think it’s racism — certainly not in the sense that we think of that word historically. But something should account for it. Perhaps, as a commenter stated here once, some form of tribalism.
    — The left and right are distinct “tribes” now, are they?

    I don’t know. All I can say is, if “my side” seemed to go after minorities a lot — not as groups but as individuals — I would start to wonder if it is a coincidence, or if there is something else at work.
    — Yeah. It’s a good thing that your “side” never targets a specific group, like big business . . . or the military . . . or fundamentalist Christians . . . or southerners . . . or gun owners . . . or pro-lifers . . . or believers in traditional marriage . . . or . . .

    I don’t think enough conservatives are asking themselves those questions (and maybe that’s because they’re too busy defending themselves against conclusory and premature charges of racism).
    — Question and answer all-in-one! Good Kman! Very good.

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  180. Comment by Kman — 5/11/2011 @ 1:06 pm
    10. Interestingly, since the Obama election, I see more conservatives MAKING ACCUSATIONS of racism than I do being labelled racist.
    — You’ve been charting this, have you? And you still (STILL!!!) cannot discern between the terms “racism” and “race-BAITING”? Come on! Make an effort.

    AW’s post is prime example. And it’s not the first time he calls a black person with whom he disagrees a “racist”.
    — So many problems with this ONE statement! Again with the difficulty distinguishing between racism and race-baiting. Plus, the inference that either, A) a black person cannot be a racist; or, B) that (and this feeds DIRECTLY into the entire point of Aaron’s post) for a white person to disagree with a black person is in itself suspect of possible racism, or, that white people must never accuse a black person of racism, for that act is necessarily a racist act. And the liberal obsession of wishful thinking over realism continues.

    In fact, I’m struggling to think of a time where AW disagreed with a black person and he DIDN’T call that person a “racist”.
    — I’m struggling to think of a time where you went an entire thread without resorting to ad homs. Hmmm, can’t think of any.

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  181. I have no dog in this fight, but I must say — Carlitos is being kind of . . . douchey.

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  182. “EPWJ levels of stupidity”

    JD

    well, I did manage to not currently behind the scenes give money and time and effort to a blog that smears the host here, tried to ruin his career and who knows hinted at filing criminal charges

    for all my faults and they are many – I dont give time and money to that man

    EricPWJohnson (c0a978)

  183. How much money did you give to him this year JD?

    EricPWJohnson (c0a978)

  184. We need a “Godwin’s Law” for racism. the instant you toss in the racism card, you’ve jumped the shark, and people can invoke “Sharpton’s Law” or whatever and you immediately lose any credibility.

    That is not what Godwin’s Law says. Godwin’s law is an observation about the course of discussions on usenet, and now on blogs: they tend to continue until someone invokes the argumentum ad hitlerum, and they tend not to be very useful after that point. There is nothing in the law that says the argumentum ad hitlerum is wrong; often it’s perfectly right. And there’s certainly nothing about anyone losing credibility.

    I mean tomorrow i will have a post where a guy jokes about eliminating people he doesn’t like from the gene pool. It is not a violation of godwin’s law to compare him to hitler.

    Of course it’s not a violation of the Law; if anything, it’s a fulfillment of the Law. What would be a violation is if useful discussion ensues after you’ve done so. I suspect it would, and that would violate the law, but so what? The law is descriptive, not prescriptive; and it doesn’t claim to apply universally.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  185. No, the most common usage of the term ‘Godwin’s law’ is that if you mention Hitler, you lose the debate. This is because the internet has a mind of its own, and distorts things, as it did with Mike Godwin’s observation, though it also was meant to discourage inappropriate Nazi comparisons.

    I agree with Steve that once someone has invoked the racism card, they lose credibility (unless their claims are justified). Once that accusation is made, the accuser needs to be able to point to something that actually suggests racism, or they lose credibility as Kman has.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  186. Eric you smeared Aaron as an islamophobe.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  187. No, the most common usage of the term ‘Godwin’s law’ is that if you mention Hitler, you lose the debate.

    It may be common, but it is both wrong and stupid. You may as well claim that there’s some sort of rule that “the first person to use a word beginning with X loses”; to which I reply that this may be so in your private universe inside your head, but not in the real world.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  188. I agree with Steve that once someone has invoked the racism card, they lose credibility (unless their claims are justified).

    Of course; but the same applies to any argument anyone invokes. There is no additional burden of proof on a claim of racism.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  189. The real meaning of the word “racist” has been diluted to meaning little more than a taunt similar to “your mama”……

    vor2 (6c8528)

  190. Vor

    > a taunt similar to “your mama”

    OMG, that is soooo racist of you to say that.

    (joking)

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  191. The real meaning of the word “racist” has been diluted to meaning little more than a taunt similar to “your mama”……

    It has gotten to the point where it’s not racist to say what Sherrod did, but it’s racist to attend a TEA party rally while the President is black.

    I guess I’m just repeating Aaron’s point. Some people work pretty hard refusing to acknowledge obvious racism and then try even harder to imagine racism explains their political opponents. It’s worse than dilution or stupidity. It’s completely deliberate, and more along the lines of Alinsky’s rules for radicals. Willis knows he’s defending a racist from people who show no racism.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  192. Dustin,
    Are you saying that Sherod’s story she told defines her as a racist? I took it to mean that she acted in a biased if not racist manner in the past and did what she could to make amends for it.

    vor2 (6c8528)

  193. “DohBiden is perhaps at its funniest when he doesn’t realize that THE GOD DAMN MOB KILLED COPS.”

    Good point. Frank hung around with the Mob. Common picked a fight with the gangster rappers.

    Bruuuuce (8c9005)

  194. I took it to mean that she acted in a biased if not racist manner in the past and did what she could to make amends for it.

    She explained that she treated white people differently than black people.

    What do you mean by ‘biased if not racist’?

    It was racism, quite obviously. I have no idea how she made amends to me for it, but she was acting on my behalf as a grant taker, since I’m a taxpayer. How did she make amends? By suing? By moving on to class warfare?

    No, she was trying to explain to the NAACP that their racial grievance policies fit in well with a larger mission of class warfare. I do appreciate at least that she seemed to say it was wrong to discriminate against people based on their skin color, but yes, that comment described Sherrod’s record of racism, didn’t it?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  195. In other words, the most charitable description of Sherrod’s awful speech was that it included an apology for racism. How can it then be said that her description of being racist wasn’t a description of being racist?

    She just realized that there are also poor white people who are victims too. I might add that she got a favorable reaction from the NAACP before it was clear she was describing behavior she no longer thought was appropriate. Regardless, she confesses a sin, and then sues people who hold her accountable for her own confession that she was a total racist POS.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  196. Dustin,
    I mean at the very least biased.

    their racial grievance policies fit in well with a larger mission of class warfare

    Did she actually say that or is that your interpretation. The farmer (or his spouse – not sure) she mentioned in her story was interviewed after this and spoke well of her efforts to help him.
    So is she still a racist in your opinion?

    Did the people that made those assertions about the tea party say it directly to you?

    My point is that the word racist is used like a hammer on the media. The person saying it is an individual making a sweeping statement intended to inflame.

    vor2 (6c8528)

  197. You know it’s a shame because Charles Sherrod, in a hard time, was a brave man,

    narciso lopez (79ddc3)

  198. Dustin,
    for the record all the silliness about Bush, Lott and Strom Thurmond were wrong imo. Lott should never have stepped aside as majority leader.

    vor2 (6c8528)

  199. Yes, Lott has proven himself foolish, for reasons other than that comment, but it didn’t stop Josh
    Marshall from claiming his first scalp.

    narciso lopez (79ddc3)

  200. The farmer (or his spouse – not sure) she mentioned in her story was interviewed after this and spoke well of her efforts to help him.

    First of all, we don’t really know that this is the farmer she was talking about.

    So is she still a racist in your opinion?

    I have no idea if she is currently a racist, but I know that someone she victimized claiming she isn’t one is terrible evidence either way.

    She quite plainly discriminated against white people, and considered them their own “kind”. She talked about how she would have done more for a black farmer who risked losing his farm than she did for this white farmer. When she said that, people in the NAACP audience LAUGHED AND AGREED. That’s racism, buddy.

    Are you saying this is possibly not racism and just bias? Can you provide the definition of racism you’re relying on?

    Did she actually say that or is that your interpretation.

    Did she say racism is wrong because there are poor whites and the real aim of her career is now class warfare? Yeah, she did. Not in those exact terms, but this is an honest and straight description of her speech.

    Did the people that made those assertions about the tea party say it directly to you?

    Are you defending someone calling Tea Partiers racist? Make a proposition, one way or the other. If you’re saying such accusations are ok if they are not made to someone’s face, then I don’t think you’re reasonable. But I don’t think you’re saying this. I just don’t know what you’re trying to say, exactly. You don’t even know I’m white.

    My point is that the word racist is used like a hammer on the media. The person saying it is an individual making a sweeping statement intended to inflame.

    Do you realize that the NAACP was passing a resolution calling the TEA party racist, and that’s why Breitbart posted a video accurately proving the NAACP is racist when they laughed and agreed with Sherrod’s racism?

    They had racists in their own audience, but were busy pretending they knew the TEA partiers were racist.

    Sure, Sherrod goes on to make a banal point about how poor whites need help from community organizers too, but that’s not relevant to whether her comments describe racism, and nor is the fact she produced a couple of white people who like her (and did not act at all similarly to how Sherrod described the “superior” acting farmer in her NAACP speech, btw).

    Dustin (c16eca)

  201. Like try to publish my home address (imdw), or call DRJ a foul word and bring up Jeff Goldstein ad nauseam (Christoph) or call Stashiu a murderer (Hax Vobiscum/Big Median/etc.) or out someone (Yelverdouche) etc.

    Thanks for the update. That’s quite a list. Is blubonnet still OK? emperor07/lovie?

    carlitos (1596cc)

  202. BTW, I’m glad VOR2 would question me on this. The facts are overwhelming, thanks to Sherrod’s awful speech, but a lot of people have bought some radical spin that she’s somehow a victim of this video.

    Her employers were right to fire her, and I would have fired her too. It’s a shame they then asked her to return, because anyone who is willing to discriminate on the basis of race, especially when they are in any way funded by taxpayers, is not trustworthy. That she actually confessed to this, but the part where she explains she has moved to something different than racism in her decisions now, doesn’t change the fact she’s a very small and untrustworthy person.

    The full video has never been released by the NAACP, but if my first impression of her was from the longer video, it wouldn’t have changed a thing. It’s not even really about Sherrod so much as the NAACP.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  203. That’s quite a list. Is blubonnet still OK? emperor07/lovie?

    is blubonnet the truther one? I don’t recall that one crossing the line. And DCSCA comments here all the time (I thought that was lovie).

    I can’t keep track, carlitos.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  204. Dustin,
    for the record all the silliness about Bush, Lott and Strom Thurmond were wrong imo. Lott should never have stepped aside as majority leader.

    Comment by vor2

    Frankly, I can’t really even remember those, but I already know you’re not unreasonable if that’s what you’re trying to convey. You’re just asking me what the facts are, which I think we disagree about.

    I don’t think Trent Lott’s comments were specifically racist, but Sherrod’s specifically treated whites as a “kind”. The fact Lott was willing to step down over that crap shows he was unfit to lead.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  205. Dustin,
    I’m not defending anyone who hurls the racist label at a group. Don’t really care what race you are either.
    Whether she was racist or biased is not really the point – she was wrong.
    As for “proving the NAACP was racist when they laughed” I don’t buy that as proof that it is a racist organization. I am sure that at least a few of the people who claim alignment to the TP are racists but that doesn’t make the TP a racist org.

    vor2 (6c8528)

  206. Doesn’t seem like anyone addressed my point head on.

    I’m just wondering why, when the target of the conservative blogosphere is a black person, that person is almost always accused of racism? It’s a disconcerting pattern: Rev. Wright, Van Jones, The Sherrods, Common… not to mention the standard fallbacks (Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton).

    I’m just wondering if there is a black person out there who is disliked by the right, who isn’t a racist.

    Do people here dispute my premise, or do they accept it but justify it because those people ARE racist?

    Kman (5576bf)

  207. colonel have a dream
    one day ALL men swing thru trees
    as flea-bit monkeys

    ColonelHaiku (c08ee9)

  208. I first to admit
    i’m flea-bit peanut monkey
    all friends WERE junkies

    ColonelHaiku (c08ee9)

  209. Dustin,
    Last comment and I have to get to work. May explain my outlook a little better.
    My wife is Asian and I’m white. We have encountered some pretty dumb people along the way from Asian, black and white backgrounds. Inappropriate comments/slurs, wild stereotypes (didn’t your wife go to geisha school), and plain laughable ones (i heard that asian women’s *&*& are horizontal instead of vertical).
    I usually attribute it to rude, boorish behavior and not the action of an avowed racist. For me it is a checkpoint of sorts. To look attribute it to a “racist” is to invite myself to go around carrying a chip on my shoulder which means I’ve let other people define who I am.

    the optimist in me says that maybe 5% of any given demographic is racist and 20% of all people are insufferable jackwagons. More likely I will encounter a rude person than a racist one.

    vor2 (6c8528)

  210. Common makes it clear that he considers cops fair game, with his support of Assata, who was nothing more than a two bit bank robber, protected by the Cuban government, and Wesley Cook (aka Mumia abu Jamal). Sharpton, began his career, slandering a cop and a D.A., moved to inciting a violent riot
    at Freddie’s Fashion Mart, and kept moving on up,
    even given a degree of legitimacy in conservative
    circles, seeing how he has been given sanctuary by Huck, Beck et al.

    narciso lopez (79ddc3)

  211. Well Kman, just going by the list of folks you mentioned, they could all be accused of being racists because they are…

    And folks generally like to point that out in the cases of Jones, Sharpton, Wright and Jackson because they are so often playing the race card themselves.

    But more broadly speaking, many on the port side of the political spectrum adhere steadfastly to the dogma of identity politics and multi-culturalism, a divide and conquer strategy that uses traditional Marxist style class envy as a tool and very often plays the race card when engaging in apoligetics for the anti-social behavior of members of preferred victim-hood groups.

    These absurd justifications of what often is simply boorish or malevolent behavior, couched in the language of sociology-a subjective science at best-and punctuated by generous race card plays, by the professional race-baiters in our society motivate their rhetorical opponents to point out the hypocrisy of their use of the very same race-based distinctions they profess to abhor…

    Bob Reed (5f2db5)

  212. I’m just wondering if there is a black person out there who is disliked by the right, who isn’t a racist.

    This is really bizarre.

    We have to prove a negative now? How long did you sit there trying to come up with something that is not possible to prove?

    Why are you so completely ridiculous about your standards? Here you have Oliver Willis insisting we criticized Common merely because he has black skin, and you’re asking us if we’re ever not racers?

    You can’t actually identify a discussion of racism from this blog that doesn’t rely on a valid argument and evidence, can you?

    Doesn’t seem like anyone addressed my point head on.

    Oh, but they have, and you simply ignored those comments. That’s what you usually do.

    Aaron even bothered to specifically prove you wrong. And even this blog post criticizing Oliver Willis’s racer assertions notes it’s not shown that Willis is racist, so you clearly did not read the post, yet again.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  213. And sadly, it may just be the case that black pundits rely on race as a relevant factor quite often. Sure, there are a lot of blacks that treat whites differently than they treat blacks. Those who do not are quite often conservative.

    But I see no assumption that all blacks that conservatives disagree with are racist. I don’t know where Kman is coming up with that, other than projection. His list shows that he’s completely unreasonable, since he named racists and asked us why we called them racist.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  214. Your discrediting conservatism with your haikus

    /Carlitos

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  215. That said, if you look at the targets of the conservative blogosphere: from Van Jones to Shirley Sherrod to (more recently) Common and (now) Oliver Willis, the focus of conservative outrage does seem disproportionally skewed against people of color…. even when you don’t factor in Obama.
    Now why is that?

    Because it’s not true, is why. You picked a random set of names for their blackness. It’s a silly game and anyone can play:

    That said, if you look at the targets of the liberal blogosphere: from Clarence Thomas to Herman Cain to Thomas Sowell to Condi Rice to Allen West, the focus of liberal outrage does seem disproportionally skewed against people of color…

    Meanwhile, if you look at the targets of the conservative blogosphere: from Joe Biden to Harry Reid to Rahm Emanuel to Chuck Schumer in politics, or Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews to Paul Krugman to Frank Rich to Tim Rutten to James Rainey to Eric Boehlert to Brad Friedman to Michael Hiltzik in the media and blogosphere, the focus of conservative outrage at blogs like this one does seem disproportionally skewed against people not of color….

    I’m not saying liberals are all racist … but the cherry-picked numbers don’t lie!

    Patterico (c218bd)

  216. You know it’s been dissapointing that only a few like Stephen Carter, and McWhorter have not been,
    Stanley Crouch, has really let his resentment get
    the better of him, with his characterizations of the Tea Party, and the less said of Cornel West,
    the better, he apprenticed under Cone, at UTS,

    narciso lopez (79ddc3)

  217. carlitos is too sensitive, IMO, but he’s not really so bad, dohbiden. Let’s not overstate the low importance of comments to eachother on the internet.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  218. Shorter KMan: if you call black racists racist, you are racist. Racists …

    Patterico (c218bd)

  219. carlitos:

    Please tell me you’re not about to go full Professor Bainbridge on us and start listing reasons you’re “embarrassed to be a conservative.”

    I’m embarrassed to be a conservative when people who say they’re embarrassed to be a conservative claim to be conservatives.

    /BainbridgeLogic

    Patterico (c218bd)

  220. shorter kmart – my prior assertion got shot to hell, so, BUNNIES !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    JD (194dc5)

  221. Oh wait, I just realized that I don’t allow my core beliefs to be shaped by the behavior of fringey people who might share some of them.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  222. It’s all about framing a narrative, Patterico. This racist theme will be the center of the BHO 2012 campaign.

    Simon Jester (728f75)

  223. Patterico:

    You’re overlooking the factor of what the “targets” are criticized for.

    Yes, both liberals and conservatives attack whites and blacks. I don’t disagree. And probably in similar proportions, too.

    But I’m wondering why conservative attacks on blacks always — almost without exception — involve and include the charge of racism. (By contrast, when the liberal blogosphere went after, say, Condi Rice, I don’t recall that she was ever accused of racism.)

    It’s just a phenomenon I’ve noticed. And if others don’t see it, well, okay.

    Kman (5576bf)

  224. Have a good day at work Pat, put some bad guys away.

    EricPWJohnson (eaaa76)

  225. Thanks for the update. That’s quite a list. Is blubonnet still OK? emperor07/lovie?

    You know, I don’t know whether that is an innocent/idle question or a predicate to a gotcha, because you seem increasingly prone to quizzing people around here on their consistency regarding your pet issues. But I’ll just assume you’re making small chit-chatty talk and answer the question guilelessly.

    Blubonnet started — well, continued — posting walls of text that took up endless space and were blatant copyright violations. In this era of Righthaven lawsuits, I told her that she is welcome to argue and link, but that she must discontinue the wall-o-text copyright violations. I moderated her to enforce this rule as she continued to ignore it. Denied her preferred mode of argumentation, she retreated to Brad Blog, where she was last seen calling me dishonest in his comments section.

    as for lovie, I don’t remember taking any action against her. I’m tempted to ask you what your point is now.

    It is endlessly frustrating to me how difficult it is to find people willing to espouse liberal positions without making things so personal that they resort to the sort of cretinous behavior that I briefly outlined above.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  226. Yes, both liberals and conservatives attack whites and blacks. I don’t disagree. And probably in similar proportions, too.

    Um, did you not just say the exact opposite?

    BTW, could you link your blog please? Some of us would love to participate in discussing your posts. You said this blog was an echo chamber, despite always coming here with radically unfair and dishonest criticism, and yet you make your blog an echo chamber.

    That kind of thing, where you go out of your way to hold this blog to a standard you don’t actually believe in, shows bad faith. You do it all the time, too. You criticized Aaron’s weak understanding of the constitution before he pointed out you were talking about the US constitution, and he linked Iowa’s (amazing that you could confuse the two). You constantly project, and it’s so bad I don’t know if this is a malicious shtick of if you’re really this screwed up upstairs.

    But I’m wondering why conservative attacks on blacks always — almost without exception — involve and include the charge of racism.

    Again, you ignore the several direct responses to this debunked claim of yours.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  227. Conservative blacks get accused of being uncle toms, not racists. They are accused of being sell outs, race traitors. You are a clown, kmart.

    JD (194dc5)

  228. Kman

    > Doesn’t seem like anyone addressed my point head on.

    Yes i did, and pointed out that you were too stupid to read even the first line of the link i offered.

    this is all in your head, because you hate me, and thus your hate is transfered to patrick, too. its all prejudice.

    And my guess is you hate me because for going on 9 years i have almost continually proven you wrong. You are correct when we disagree around one half of one percent of the time. And that probably bothers you more than most people because much of your self-image is wrapped up in your belief that you are intellectually superior to most people. And you probably are. But it screws with your head, then, to have someone who disagrees with you and proves to be smarter, more informed, more accomlished, etc. IN YOUR OWN PROFESSION, time and time again.

    But seriously, get over it.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  229. Also, given that a large fraction, if not a majority, of criticism from conservatives these days is against a black president, and most of this criticism never even mentions race, Kman’s really looking odd right now.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  230. But I’m wondering why conservative attacks on blacks always — almost without exception — involve and include the charge of racism. (By contrast, when the liberal blogosphere went after, say, Condi Rice, I don’t recall that she was ever accused of racism.)

    Let’s talk about something you seem utterly blind to: the fact that liberal attacks on conservative blacks always — almost without exception — involve and include the charge that they are Uncle Toms.

    Look at the list I mentioned: Clarence Thomas to Herman Cain to Thomas Sowell to Condi Rice to Allen West. If there is one person on that list who has not suffered the ridiculous charge of being an Uncle Tom I’d like to know which one that is.

    As for your question, it has been noted that race-baiting is a common ploy of liberals, and black liberals (just like white liberals) tend to reach for the race card with amazing alacrity, because it is ingrained in leftist ideology. If it makes you feel any better, I think many WHITE hard-left ideological liberals are racists too!

    Patterico (c218bd)

  231. I’m just wondering if there is a black person out there who is disliked by the right, who isn’t a racist.

    I don’t know. Maybe not. What exactly do you think that means, though? It’s a fact that open racism is a lot more common among blacks than it is among whites; so is antisemitism. So it’s not surprising that so many blacks we criticise are racists. But if you think there are some blacks we criticise who aren’t racist, feel free to point them out. Off the top of my head, I’m not aware of O. J. Simpson being racist. And Obama’s probably not racist either, though he has no problem with racism on the part of his black friends and associates.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  232. But I’m wondering why conservative attacks on blacks always — almost without exception — involve and include the charge of racism.

    So which of them do you claim are not racist? Which claim of racism do you think unjustified? As far as I can see all the people you named are racist, so why shouldn’t they be charged with it?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  233. Dustin

    > Kman’s really looking odd right now.

    Right now?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  234. What’s sad is that I bet Kman would have shown us this black liberal who didn’t play the race card, but was called racist, if he could find that person.

    I fear that race card playing is too pervasive for easily locating such a person, but I am also sure that if Kman found such a person, they were not called racist by anyone respectable, and also that he would not apologize for his accusation of racism (though he sheepishly called it tribalism because he assumes much about people he disagrees with). No, we see how Kman responds to proof he’s wrong: he ignores it and reasserts that which he knows is untrue.

    Anyway, Milhouse brings up a great point that even in Kman’s invented world, where black liberals are called out for racism, that this could be because black liberals normally employ racism. I can’t assert it either way, since Kman’s list of examples was hopelessly cherry picked, and I usually don’t know the race of the people we’re talking about (I didn’t know Willis was black).

    Dustin (c16eca)

  235. Yes i did, and pointed out that you were too stupid to read even the first line of the link i offered.

    Again, I’m talking about targets of conservative criticism — black politicians, pundits, etc. Not random nameless people.

    this is all in your head, because you hate me, and thus your hate is transfered to patrick, too. its all prejudice.

    If this is in my head, then why is nobody slamming me with a list of blacks that the conservative blogosphere has gone after… and the attacks on them have nothing to do with race? Where are the counterpoints to Van Jones, Rev. Wright, etc.

    And I don’t hate Patrick. I don’t even hate you. I have more important things in my life to get vexed about, and I hope (for your sake) that you do too.

    P.S. Thanks for the free psychoanalysis about “what I think” and my motivations, etc. It was a “fail” in every imaginable way. But listen — if you makes you feel better to claim you are both intellectually superior and more accomplished in the legal profession, please feel free. It’s your blog. Tellingly, I don’t feel the need to publicly bolster myself in that way.

    Kman (5576bf)

  236. Dustin:

    What’s sad is that I bet Kman would have shown us this black liberal who didn’t play the race card, but was called racist, if he could find that person

    Well, that goes directly to my point, Dustin.

    Is it your position that every black liberal plays the race card — yes or no?

    And along those lines — does “playing the race card” automatically make one racist?

    Because that would make lots of figures — from Frederick Douglas to MLK — racist.

    Kman (5576bf)

  237. Let’s talk about something you seem utterly blind to: the fact that liberal attacks on conservative blacks always — almost without exception — involve and include the charge that they are Uncle Toms.

    Look at the list I mentioned: Clarence Thomas to Herman Cain to Thomas Sowell to Condi Rice to Allen West. If there is one person on that list who has not suffered the ridiculous charge of being an Uncle Tom I’d like to know which one that is.

    Okay. Fair enough. I’ll take that, but I’ll add that I don’t think it is as pronounced.

    I’ve never heard Condi Rice referred to as an “Uncle Tom”. Michael Steele has been the target of a lot of liberals — I’ve never heard him referred to as an “Uncle Tom” either.

    Kman (5576bf)

  238. “I’m just wondering if there is a black person out there who is disliked by the right, who isn’t a racist.”

    Kman – I have never heard Colin Powell called a racist.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  239. Nor Harold Ford

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  240. Kman, why don’t you name us a few black people who’ve been accused of racism by those of us on the right, and who aren’t in fact racist? If you can’t, then what exactly is your point? Should we not be calling racists racist? Are there non-racist blacks that we should be criticising, but are inexplicably giving a free pass to? And if so, why do you object to that?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  241. Colin Powell is a douche – a whiny whiny douche and a rabid Obamawhore besides.

    And he’s racist as the sky is blue. The only reason he supports bumble, who hates America, is cause bumble is kinda sorta black like him.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  242. I’ve never heard Condi Rice referred to as an “Uncle Tom”.

    No, she’s called an “Aunt Jemima”. Same difference.

    Michael Steele has been the target of a lot of liberals — I’ve never heard him referred to as an “Uncle Tom” either.

    Now I just don’t believe you. Did you think all those people who threw cookies at him were trying to keep him from starvation?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  243. Carlitos is a nice guy most of the times but he has it out for me.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  244. “Did you think all those people who threw cookies at him were trying to keep him from starvation?”

    Milhouse – I’m not sure why they redid his picture in blackface either.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  245. Well done happyfeet you exposed Colin Powell for the fraud he is.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  246. It’s been a busy morning.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  247. I’ve never heard Condi Rice referred to as an “Uncle Tom”. Michael Steele has been the target of a lot of liberals — I’ve never heard him referred to as an “Uncle Tom” either.

    Damn. Really? They threw oreos at him when he was merely running for the Senate. The DSSC singled him out, too, invading his privacy by obtaining his credit report. They didn’t try to do this to any other Senate candidates.

    Condi was relentlessly and famously called a house negro or and the obvious worse alternative.

    Kman has never heard of either of these?

    How convenient that he also never heard the direct refutation of his factual claim, or the on point and direct refutation of his logic, in this thread.

    He doesn’t seem to hear anything that doesn’t complement his preconceptions, and I think that’s the mark of a small mind.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  248. Milhouse beat me to the same point.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  249. Patrick

    Do you see what we are dealing with, in Kman?

    Kman wrote this above.

    > In fact, I’m struggling to think of a time where AW disagreed with a black person and he DIDN’T call that person a “racist”.

    So I answered him at comment 12 with this link:

    https://patterico.com/2011/05/09/good-news-two-thirds-of-pakistanis-don%e2%80%99t-believe-bin-laden-is-dead/

    Now if you go to that post you will see on the very first line I am criticizing BARACK OBAMA for his decision to dispose of the body, and to refuse to release the photos of bin Laden’s dead body. Indeed, the whole point of the post is to lay the fact that 2/3 of Pakistanis don’t believe that bin Laden is dead at Obama’s feet. But clearly he only read the link itself, and didn’t bother to click on it and read more than the headline, let alone remember what the post was about.

    His responses make it exceedingly clear he literally didn’t read a line of that post, responding at 15 that this wasn’t good enough because:

    > I’m talking about a black PERSON. Someone in particular that you have an issue with.

    And I responded at 25:

    > You didn’t notice the black person i was disagreeing with in that post?… I’ll give you a hint. I told him he did a heckuva job. And i have disagreed with him alot but in fact specifically defended him from charges of racism.

    And now today he has the nerve to write:

    > Again, I’m talking about targets of conservative criticism — black politicians, pundits, etc. Not random nameless people.

    He literally has no idea that this link is to a criticism of Barack Obama.

    So even after all this, he either 1) has still refused to even read the first line of the post I linked to, even after I mocked him for the failure to do so, writing at 233:

    > Yes i did, and pointed out that you were too stupid to read even the first line of the link i offered.

    Or 2) he knows what is said at the link and is simply lying.

    But either way his aggressive ignorance (word of the day, folks!) contributes absolutely nothing to our discussion. You literally show him evidence that he is wrong, and he doesn’t even bother to look at it or honestly acknowledge what it says and compensates for it.

    So why is he here?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  250. Kman writes: “I’ve never heard Condi Rice referred to as an “Uncle Tom”. Michael Steele has been the target of a lot of liberals — I’ve never heard him referred to as an “Uncle Tom” either.”

    You know, Kman, your ignorance is not an argument.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  251. Kman

    > I’ve never heard Condi Rice referred to as an “Uncle Tom”.

    No, condi ain’t likely to be called an uncle anything. But she has been called a race traitor.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=621&q=condi+rice+race+traitor&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

    And as for steele:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&biw=1280&bih=621&q=michael+steele+uncle+tom&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=

    But then again you are so aggressively ignorant that I can offer you absolute proof you are wrong on a point, and you clearly don’t even read more than the headline of a post. So what’s the point in talking to you? You are literally so prejudiced against me that you are immune to evidence.

    Either that or you are just a craven liar.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  252. You know, Kman, your ignorance is not an argument.

    Comment by SPQR

    Oh, but to Kman, this is exactly all that matters. This is a great observation, spqr.

    He often announces victory by noting he personally is not convinced, or that he has never accepted or been exposed to any evidence counter to his assumption. That’s all that matters to him, which I think sheds a lot of light on why he’s here. He used to co blog with Aaron, and Aaron worked harder at respecting dissent and making his argument in a way that convinced people other than Aaron. Kman can’t accept that, so it’s Kman’s mission to ‘get’ Aaron somehow.

    But really, all that matters to Kman is that he continually documents Kman’s dissent to Aaron, especially in dismissive and lazy ways (such as showing he didn’t even have to read Aaron’s post to ‘know’ it’s always wrong).

    He’s creepier than a hairless cat.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  253. AW:

    Having been in the blogging trenches for so long, you ought to know by now that setting up Google searches and getting hits doesn’t mean much of anything. For example, just because the Google search “Aaron Worthing is an idiot” produces over 1,000,000 results, doesn’t mean it’s generally accepted knowledge that Aaron Worthing IS an idiot. 🙂

    In fact, the links from your searches don’t point to any post from anyone prominent in the left blogosphere.

    Kman (5576bf)

  254. Also, given that a large fraction, if not a majority, of criticism from conservatives these days is against a black president, and most of this criticism never even mentions race, Kman’s really looking odd right now.

    Comment by Dustin — 5/12/2011 @ 7:34 am

    Very nicely and succinctly put. I truly think the far left truly thinks as Kman does, because someone’s race is the first thing they seem to think about.

    Once in a while you’ll see someone on the left actually admit it, like Big Median this week, or Chris Matthews, in an example I’m still shaking my head at.

    So they truly don’t notice criticism as much if it doesn’t involve race, I think. (Or, could be just that they want any stick at hand to beat conservatives with, even if it’s the wrong one. Every problem looking like a nail and all that.) But we conservatives don’t need their rare honest admissions to see that far-left liberals see everything through the prism of race, 24/7/365.

    They are the LAST ones through whom the lets-get-to-it goal of a color blind society, that conservatives share with more sensible liberals, will come.

    no one you know (325a59)

  255. You know, Kman, your ignorance is not an argument.

    The whole thing about “Uncle Toms” wasn’t MY argument to being with.

    Kman (5576bf)

  256. You know, Kman, your ignorance is not an argument.

    ha ha ha ha…HA!
    but could it conveniently
    be called an excuse?

    ColonelHaiku (188e32)

  257. Kman, you don’t really get this “logic” thing, do you? You asserted that you hadn’t heard Rice or Steele called Uncle Tom’s.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  258. Kman

    Notice you skip over everything i wrote at 254.

    and notice you move the goalposts:

    > anyone prominent in the left blogosphere.

    And it also proves you are too lazy to follow the many links there. For instance, right off the bat, you get Ted Rall calling Condi a “House N——r.” is he famous enough to count for you?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  259. Dustin (or somebody), please address #241.

    Kman (5576bf)

  260. But I’ll just assume you’re making small chit-chatty talk and answer the question guilelessly.

    Patrick – Thanks. No ‘gotcha’ – I was just curious since they weren’t commenting lately. I don’t miss the wall-o-texts either.

    And you right – I am being way too sensitive; it’s just comments on the interwebs. I’ll try to do better in terms of heat / light ratio.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  261. Kmart seems to wear it’s ignorance proudly.

    JD (194dc5)

  262. Dustin (or somebody), please address #241.

    Comment by Kman — 5/12/2011 @ 8:31 am

    Sure. You misspelled Frederick Douglass.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  263. and notice you move the goalposts:

    > anyone prominent in the left blogosphere.

    I would assume that you would take that as a given. Obviously, when I make a criticism of the right blogosphere, I’m not going to include the radical fringes of the right blogosphere and attribute to the “heavy hitters”. I would expect you to do the same.

    And it also proves you are too lazy to follow the many links there. For instance, right off the bat, you get Ted Rall….

    Not in my result list. (Some of them, however, are blocked from my work sentry, but I don’t see any references to Rall).

    Kman (5576bf)

  264. Kman

    > Obviously, when I make a criticism of the right blogosphere, I’m not going to include the radical fringes of the right blogosphere and attribute to the “heavy hitters”. I would expect you to do the same.

    No, “never heard of” means not by anyone. i would assume you meant by the left, but that’s as far as my assumptions would go.

    And if you never heard of it, you weren’t paying attention.

    > Not in my result list. (Some of them, however, are blocked from my work sentry, but I don’t see any references to Rall).

    Lol, so you can’t even look into it, but nonetheless concluded i was wrong?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  265. Filtering out Ted Rall is not necessarily stupid.

    JD (194dc5)

  266. Btw, Wonkette, defending the indefensible, sticks up for Common,

    narciso lopez (79ddc3)

  267. Lol, so you can’t even look into it, but nonetheless concluded i was wrong?

    I can see the sources (those aren’t blocked), and there weren’t major liberal blogs or news outlets among them.

    Kman (5576bf)

  268. Kman

    > I can see the sources

    the correct answer, then, is NO. so once again your prejudice towards me takes the place of argument.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  269. Is kmart really disputing the act ins of the Left towards Dr Rice and Michael Steele? Really?!

    JD (194dc5)

  270. Aunt Jemima House negro. And there’s this And that’s just for starters.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  271. Kman

    So I take it, at least, you have abandoned your “disproportionate percentage of conservative targets are persons of color”, claim, correct?

    And your side DOES go after minorities a lot… when they’re conservative. Or does Harry Reid’s remark that Marco Rubio “has to understand who he is” seem ok to you?

    cnh (3b3713)

  272. there weren’t major liberal blogs

    ?

    So what?

    What is Kman’s standard here? Katie Couric has to call Michael Steele and uncle tom?

    Anyhow, Milhouse has shown plenty of evidence. I’m guessing Kman already knew about these accusations. I mean, who could possibly not have known that Condi was called a House Negro all the time?

    Is it your position that every black liberal plays the race card — yes or no?

    Sorry, I didn’t see this. I personally know black liberals who never play the race card. Why should I have to prove a negative, though? It’s utterly irrational. Kman is asserting that we are unfairly accusing blacks of racism, so the burden is on him to show an accusation of racism that was not backed up with evidence.

    His argument has taken a weird alternative route, where instead of showing us this false accusation, he asserts we think every black liberal is a racist, and demands we come up with one who isn’t.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  273. so once again your prejudice towards me takes the place of argument.

    First of all, this was an argument put forth by Patrick, not you (try to keep your ego in line) about whether or not black conservatives are subject to the “Uncle Tom” epithet. I responded that it doesn’t seem to happen as much as the converse (black liberal/racist) and added that I hadn’t heard “Uncle Tom” with respect to Condi Rice — and nothing you’ve said refutes that.

    Again, I’m not disputing that liberal blogs attack black conservatives. It’s just that they are not so unified as to what they are attacking them FOR, and race rarely seems to be the central factor.

    Are there exceptions? OF COURSE there are (it’s a big Internet, folks). But my main point still stands that when liberals attack black conservatives, race and racism is rarely an issue…. whereas when conservatives attack black liberals, race and racism is almost always the issue.

    Kman (5576bf)

  274. I hadn’t heard “Uncle Tom” with respect to Condi Rice — and nothing you’ve said refutes that.

    Because she’s a woman, maybe?

    carlitos (1596cc)

  275. I am not accusing you of being racists, racists.

    JD (194dc5)

  276. If by “my main point still stands” you mean “I continue to ignore all evidence submitted to me for the opposing side, while offering no support for my own position other than broad assertions”, then I agree with you.

    cnh (3b3713)

  277. Kman

    Mmmm, still not addressing anything I said at 254… are you ready to admit you were demonstrably wrong, even after I told you why you were wrong?

    > First of all, this was an argument put forth by Patrick, not you

    But we are talking about the sufficiency of the proof I have put before you.

    > about whether or not black conservatives are subject to the “Uncle Tom” epithet.

    And I have proven that they are.

    > I responded that it doesn’t seem to happen as much as the convers

    Well, given that you still can’t remember when I criticized a black person without calling them a racist, even after I showed you where I did that and explained to you how that link shows me doing exactly that…

    > added that I hadn’t heard “Uncle Tom” with respect to Condi Rice

    Can’t prove what you heard, Kman, just that its common and most people would have heard it if they could actually listen.

    Like maybe you had no idea that ted rall made that cartoon. but he did.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  278. Dustin, let me come at it another way.

    Let’s say I’m a black person. And I have a sincere belief that there is a race problem in society today, and that in many ways the power structure, which is predominately white, still shows favoritism towards whites.

    Can state my views in a way that won’t end up with the conservative blogosphere calling me a “racist”? Or are my views themselves “racist” no matter how I state them?

    Kman (5576bf)

  279. whereas when conservatives attack black liberals, race and racism is almost always the issue.

    Comment by Kman — 5/12/2011 @ 8:51 am

    Are you saying that if we made a list of all the things conservatives object to about, say, Barack Obama (the most famous black liberal in the country at the moment), that accusing him of racism will be in most of the criticisms (“race and racism is almost always the issue”)..?

    Please argue that with examples, because I just don’t see how that’s true. My list of various conservatives’ gripes against Obama (not every conservative has exactly the same gripes as you know) would be very long. The vast majority of them would not include anything touching on race at all.

    no one you know (325a59)

  280. Your wrong because Kmart says so.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  281. Actually, anyone bothering to look into themselves can see that Condi was called “uncle tom” too, but that Kman’s denial of this doesn’t really warrant a dignified response.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  282. Let’s say I’m a black person.

    It doesn’t matter what race you are, to me. Why would it matter to you?

    You are so confused about some basic stuff.

    Can state my views in a way that won’t end up with the conservative blogosphere calling me a “racist”?

    If you are looking at treating people based on their skin color, then of course it’s hard to convey that racism in a way that prevents anyone in the world from calling that racism.

    What a stupid point.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  283. AW:

    Fine. At best, your defeating my point by finding exceptions to overly literal semantic interpretation of my argument. It’s like if I wrote “The South lost the Civil War” and you typed, “That’s not true. Thaddeus G. Mudskipper of Birmingham, Alabama actually fought for the Union”.

    My point (see #279) still stands.

    Kman (5576bf)

  284. Kman’s practice of pretending that his ignorance is evidence is probably among his least annoying characteristics.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  285. no one you know at #285 +1

    cnh (3b3713)

  286. Kman’s practice of pretending that his ignorance is evidence is probably among his least annoying characteristics.

    But it’s probably near the root of some of his problems.

    Obviously, the fact he’s a shameless liar is more annoying. Just look at how he reacts when his blanket assertions are repeatedly disproven. He doesn’t modify his views at all. He just lies again.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  287. My point … still stands.

    If you really are a lawyer, you must deliver the worst closing arguments in the history of the bar.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  288. And Kman, I think a white person who believes in racial politics suffers from the same criticism as a black person, in case that wasn’t clear enough (it really should be crystal clear).

    In fact, it’s probably that you are not black, but are racist. Your paranoia about the beliefs of others, and your need to worry about what color someone’s skin is, shows you’ve got a real problem. Plenty of white liberals, especially the more douchey and hostile ones, are racist against whites. Honestly, your skin color itself has nothing to do with the flaws in your worldview. Skin color’s relevance IS a flaw in your worldview.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  289. Please argue that with examples, because I just don’t see how that’s true.

    You seem to be late to the party. I wasn’t talking about Obama. I was talking in lieu of Obama. I’m talking about — among others — Rev. Wright, Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, Common, and Oliver Willis.

    Obama excepted, it seems that whenever the mainstream conservative blogosphere levels a criticism against a liberal black person — be they politician or pundit or whatever — there’s always a racial component to that criticism, i.e., usually the criticism is that that liberal black person is racist.

    Kman (5576bf)

  290. __________________________________________

    Aunt Jemima House negro.

    That reminds me of an incident a few years ago when a Christian conservative was holding a protest sign on a street corner in West LA—ie, land of the limousine liberal. I don’t recall what issue he was demonstrating against, but it was the type that would make liberals indignant towards him. A news report said one person drove by in a car and yelled out “hey, faggot!”

    In a similar vein, when America’s “first black president” (aka Bill Clinton) was Arkansas Attorney General, he was described by a former girlfriend as recognizing a local activist (who was black) walking down the street in Little Rock. She said Clinton scoffed something like “that’s a troublemaking n–ger!”

    Closer to home, I always both laugh and become irked by a liberal in my workplace. He’s the one who derided Clarence Thomas for being a “Tom” and also for mistreating women. The kicker is this liberal expresses great admiration for America’s “first black president” (aka Bill “meaning of is is” Clinton).

    Ya can’t make this stuff up.

    A radio talk show host drew criticism Thursday after calling Condoleezza Rice an “Aunt Jemima” and saying she isn’t competent to be secretary of state.

    John Sylvester, the program director and morning personality on WTDY-AM in Madison, said in a phone interview Thursday that he used the term on Wednesday’s show to describe Rice and other blacks as having only a subservient role in the Bush administration.

    Sylvester, who is white, also referred to Powell as an “Uncle Tom” — a contemptuous term for a black whose behavior toward whites is regarded as fawning or servile.

    [Sylvester] added that he has a long history of commitment to civil rights and has supported Madison’s black community.

    ^ I wouldn’t be as disgusted by people like Sylvester if they at least didn’t fall for the notion that liberal sentiments somehow make a person so very humane, wonderful and sophisticated, and that lack of same does just the opposite.
    __________________________________________

    Mark (411533)

  291. kman, carlitos raises a good point. Are you a trial lawyer? Are you capable of convincing people to change their minds about anything? You seem particularly too dense to do so.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  292. it seems that whenever the mainstream conservative blogosphere levels a criticism against a liberal black person — be they politician or pundit or whatever — there’s always a racial component to that criticism, i.e., usually the criticism is that that liberal black person is racist.

    Comment by Kman — 5/12/2011 @ 9:08 am

    Lie.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  293. Are you saying that Sherod’s story she told defines her as a racist? I took it to mean that she acted in a biased if not racist manner in the past and did what she could to make amends for it.
    Comment by vor2 — 5/12/2011 @ 5:24 am

    — Discrimination on the basis of race and racism are now two different things? Who knew?

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  294. Kman

    and my point at 254 stands. you are either too lazy or too dishonest to contribute anything of value to this discussion.

    To this day you don’t admit that i showed you a time when i criticized a black man without calling him a racist. are you STILL too stupid to realize i am right? or did you FINALLY figure it out and you are too small to admit how IDIOTIC AND LAZY your responses have been? are you too small to admit that your prejudice runs literally so deep that you didn’t bother to read even the first line of a post i cited to you?

    you hold me to this incredibly exacting level of accuracy and honesty, and i pass your test on a regular basis. but you can’t even clear a low bar of admitting you are wrong when proven to be wrong.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  295. Let’s say I’m a black person. And I have a sincere belief that there is a race problem in society today, and that in many ways the power structure, which is predominately white, still shows favoritism towards whites.

    Can state my views in a way that won’t end up with the conservative blogosphere calling me a “racist”? Or are my views themselves “racist” no matter how I state them?

    Comment by Kman — 5/12/2011 @ 8:56 am

    No matter how I state them?” Well…how about if I say,

    “I have a sincere belief that there is a race problem in society today, and that in many ways the power structure, which is predominately white, still shows favoritism towards whites.”

    (and it also helps a rational argument if a person gives specific examples in support of a belief instead of just asserting it)

    vs. racial bombthrowing like this:

    “I think he’d like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he’d like to see all black people end up again.”
    –Shirley Sherrod, 7/23/10

    Hmm, wonder if she’d have said that if Breitbart were black?

    Do you see why blacks who make incendiary statements like that get criticized, and sometimes called racist?

    no one you know (325a59)

  296. Lie.

    Comment by carlitos —

    yep. I’d say the last 500 criticisms of Barack or Michelle Obama did not discuss whether or not they are racist. The issue of whether or not a black liberal is racist usually only comes up if race itself is being discussed. In fact, kman tries really hard to change his argument by asking if it’s possible to discuss the basic race hustle grievances without anyone calling that racist. This is extremely unfair, since the main criticism of racial politics is that all racial politics rely on race and some prefer a colorblind set of policies.

    Kman wants to assert that this entire argument is racist, even though it is the direct opposite of racism.

    Or maybe he is just flailing from one crazy thought to another in a desperate effort to cover up his initial nasty comments. He thinks we are all tribal racists in an echo chamber, but he’s the one who excludes dissent on his blog and cares what skin color someone has.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  297. 213. I first to admit
    i’m flea-bit peanut monkey
    all friends WERE junkies

    Comment by ColonelHaiku — 5/12/2011 @ 6:44 am

    — Colonel make Icy’s
    heart feel good; he use Jagger
    lyrics to make point

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  298. Actually, it seems to me by far the most common criticism of black liberals is not that they are racist, but that they are race-baiters, or race-hustlers. After all, the main pillar of Democrat electoral strategy is to paint all conservatives as racist, and who better to deliver that message than the members of the allegedly aggrieved race?

    Most of the accusations of actual racism originate from the left, and are directed against the right.

    cnh (3b3713)

  299. Does anyone else remember the episode of “21 Jump Street” where the high school band covered Monkey Man, while the bad people were on the heroin? Good stuff.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  300. Also, why would a liberal’s race be mentioned? How am I to know that a liberal is white or black? Kman assumes we do, and operate on this fact instantly and without deviation, but mostly I don’t know or care what someone’s race is when discussing their political arguments.

    I greatly suspect that race comes up almost entirely when race is being discussed already, but if Kman is only talking about those cases, he’s already lost the argument. It is perfectly legitimate to bring up racism during a discussion of race.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  301. You seem to be late to the party. I wasn’t talking about Obama. I was talking in lieu of Obama. I’m talking about — among others — Rev. Wright, Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, Common, and Oliver Willis.
    Comment by Kman — 5/12/2011 @ 9:08 am

    Had to leave my computer for a bit so we cross posted with my comment at 9:14 (so I was even later to the party, as you see 😉 ) yet I still addressed, before I read this comment, Shirley Sherrod. All of the others have made blanket antiwhite statement(s), and/or (mostly and) incendiary racial comments as well.

    So my answer to you still stands. And when whites make irresponsible comments like that, they get criticized too:

    His July 5, 2004, cartoon[11] mocked Condoleezza Rice, depicting her character being sent to a “racial re-education camp” where she refers to herself as a “house nigga” and George W. Bush’s “beard”. Rall, a white man, was accused of racism by Project 21, a conservative organization with black membership.[12]

    no one you know (325a59)

  302. Kman

    > Can [I] state my views in a way that won’t end up with the conservative blogosphere calling me a “racist”?

    Um, yeah, in fact i do it all the time. The way you do it is you BACK IT UP WITH FACTS.

    For instance, i have accused you of prejudice toward me for my handicap.

    In order to prove it i can cite… actually bigoted remarks.

    or i accused Southern Fried Scientist of being prejudiced toward the Fl legislature. how did i do that? by proving their criticism was not just wrong but selective–ignoring three other states that did the same thing they complained about. And pointing at their own words.

    thus… proof!

    i have specifically also said that frank wu proves that asian americans are subject to racial discrimination in his book Yellow. go and actually, you know, read it and you will see how it is done.

    seriously, how do you think racial discrimination is proven in a court of law? how is anything proven? with evidence.

    But take sherrod. okay i will pretend for the sake of argument that breitbart defamed her. okay. but how the hell do you leap from that to breitbart wanting to reinstitute slavery?

    Btw, another example of my proving prejudice is comment 254 which you have continued to duck.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  303. ___________________________________________

    Chris Matthews, in an example I’m still shaking my head at.

    That guy was born in 1945, meaning he’s now 65 years old.

    It’s one thing to be of the left when a person is in his or her teenage or college years. It’s another thing when a person is as old as Matthews is.

    For anyone to have observed decades of trial and error, and human nature (both good and bad) — to have witnessed decades of socio-political liberalism throughout modern society — and to still remain wedded to the left is a sign something is amiss in his or her mind. That person is suffering from a chronic, severe lack of common sense.

    How old is Kman?

    Mark (411533)

  304. Um, yeah, in fact i do it all the time. The way you do it is you BACK IT UP WITH FACTS.

    No, that’s not how it’s supposed to work.

    Kman just makes blanket accusations that are wildly unfair and certainly not proven, even relying on ‘facts’ that everyone quickly disproves.

    And you rely on facts to criticize racism as you find it (or not criticize it if you don’t, whatever) and this means nothing to Kman because he didn’t read much of what you wrote anyway.

    And why does this work? Because the goal is for Kman to get attention from the person he’s stalking.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  305. No one at #301:

    Well, it sounds to me like a black liberal, who holds a sincere belief that racism still exists, cannot state that belief without he himself being labelled “racist” by conservatives.

    Kman (5576bf)

  306. Comment by Kman — 5/12/2011 @ 6:39 am
    211. Doesn’t seem like anyone addressed my point head on.
    — I did. Care to answer the challenge?

    I’m just wondering why, when the target of the conservative blogosphere is a black person, that person is almost always accused of racism? It’s a disconcerting pattern: Rev. Wright, Van Jones, The Sherrods, Common… not to mention the standard fallbacks (Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton).
    — Riiiiight. Every single time that one of us ‘attacks’ a black person we are accusing them of engaging in “racism”. Why don’t you start with the premise that this is a falsehood, move along to the distinction between racism and race-baiting, stir in a healthy dose of it-actually-IS-possible-to-criticize-a-black-person-for-the-content-of-their-character-and-not-the-color-of-their-skin, and drink deeply of the truth!

    I’m just wondering if there is a black person out there who is disliked by the right, who isn’t a racist.
    — Isn’t being a racist a very good reason to dislike someone? You should be REJOICING over this revelation! We don’t hate all black people, just the racist ones!

    Do people here dispute my premise, or do they accept it but justify it because those people ARE racist?
    — Reeeeeeeejected. We sometimes ‘hate’ certain black people merely because they are stupid, or on the wrong side of a political issue which does not involve race. And what possible ‘justification’ would we have to make when the person we’re criticizing IS a racist?

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  307. thus… proof!

    Hahaha! Your “proof” consists of taking what other people say and then spitting it out with “In other words….” followed by something they specifically DIDN’T say.

    Btw, another example of my proving prejudice is comment 254 which you have continued to duck

    Again with that? I’m not talking about OBAMA, for like the 100th time. I recognize that conservatives pick on Obama for many reasons — even silly ones. AGAIN, I’m talking about black liberals that get pulled into the conservative spotlight and then get piled on: Rev. WRight, Van Jones, etc. etc.

    Kman (5576bf)

  308. Kman

    so no admission of your adject laziness and stupidity, demonstrated at comment 254?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  309. No one at #301:

    Well, it sounds to me like a black liberal, who holds a sincere belief that racism still exists, cannot state that belief without he himself being labelled “racist” by conservatives.

    Comment by Kman — 5/12/2011 @ 9:29 am

    Did you not read my whole comment?

    It’s embarrassing to have to be so specific for you but I was drawing a distinction by which a person (black or white; am with Dustin in that am not sure why it matters) could have a respectful discussion on racial issues with facts and examples instead of just (for lack of a better term ) race baiting for political purposes (to shut up one’s opposition is a very common example).

    And to give you, –an example– (you see how this reasonable-discussion-thing works, I’m guessing) of the latter, take Shirley Sherrod’s statement about Breitbart and slavery.

    If she really thinks Breitbart wants to, literally, put black people back into slavery again, she’s too stupid to dress herself.

    So reasonable people conclude that she’s throwing charges of extreme racism at Breitbart to shut him up, and/or deflect from her own lack of argument. And using (as Breitbart is fond of pointing out) one of the worst and most incendiary charges one can fling at someone here in the US: racism.

    no one you know (325a59)

  310. Icy Texan:

    Do people here dispute my premise, or do they accept it but justify it because those people ARE racist?

    Reeeeeeeejected. We sometimes ‘hate’ certain black people merely because they are stupid, or on the wrong side of a political issue which does not involve race.

    Okay, thank you, Icy Texan.

    Now, other than Obama, name the last person who fits that description. Name that black person who came under widespread conservative criticism merely because s/he was on the wrong side of a political issue, where there WASN’T widespread allegations that s/he was racist.

    Because in all seriousness, I haven’t been able to think of one.

    Kman (5576bf)

  311. Why do you not-racist racists call race-baiters race-baiters?

    JD (194dc5)

  312. The list of things that kmart cannot think of is practically endless.

    JD (194dc5)

  313. And to give you, –an example– (you see how this reasonable-discussion-thing works, I’m guessing) of the latter, take Shirley Sherrod’s statement about Breitbart and slavery.

    Sherrod was widely accused of racism. In fact, she BECAME a national figure because she was accused of being a racist.

    Kman (5576bf)

  314. Kman is a little bit like that Bagdad Bob guy, I think.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  315. Now, other than Obama, name the last person who fits that description. Name that black person who came under widespread conservative criticism merely because s/he was on the wrong side of a political issue, where there WASN’T widespread allegations that s/he was racist.

    Because in all seriousness, I haven’t been able to think of one.

    Why don’t you name one who wasn’t, in fact, a racist?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  316. Because in all seriousness, I haven’t been able to think of one.

    Comment by Kman — 5/12/2011 @ 9:38 am

    Who is Eric Holder…

    vor2 (6c8528)

  317. Noyk – it will not be deterred from Teh Narrative.

    JD (194dc5)

  318. Name that black person who came under widespread conservative criticism merely because s/he was on the wrong side of a political issue, where there WASN’T widespread allegations that s/he was racist.

    Because in all seriousness, I haven’t been able to think of one.

    Comment by Kman — 5/12/2011 @ 9:38 am

    Am sure I could come up with lots more (we conservatives aren’t apparently as quick to notice race as I guess you are), but here’s one off the top of my head:

    Helen Jones-Kelly

    no one you know (325a59)

  319. Why do you not-racist racists call race-baiters race-baiters?

    Comment by JD — 5/12/2011 @ 9:39 am

    because if you called them master-baiters somoeone might be offended by the plantation implication /sarc

    vor2 (6c8528)

  320. Kman

    > Your “proof” consists of

    Right, let’s not talk about how to prove things. Let’s talk about the lies you told about me. Let’s change the subject from your complete dumbassery about how to actually prove things to how much you hate me.

    > Again with that? I’m not talking about OBAMA, for like the 100th time.

    The 100th time. I have cited my cricitism of Obama about five times and you haven’t said it in response even once.

    For instance, the FIRST TIME I cited my criticism of Obama, you wrote in response:

    > No, I’m talking about a black PERSON. Someone in particular that you have an issue with.

    So obama is not black? Or a person?

    If you meant “besides Obama” why didn’t you say it literally over 250 comments ago?

    No, the truth is you didn’t bother to read the link and only after i hit you over the head with it, REPEATEDLY, do you suddenly make up an excuse for pretending i didn’t meet your challenge on your terms.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  321. Kman: But I’m wondering why conservative attacks on blacks always — almost without exception — involve and include the charge of racism. (By contrast, when the liberal blogosphere went after, say, Condi Rice, I don’t recall that she was ever accused of racism.)

    — And the fact that you “don’t recall” means that it never happened? Sheesh! Luckily for you, some of us have better memories:

    Bellevue Community College President Jean Floten apologized Wednesday at an emotional open-campus meeting called after students complained about what they said was a racially offensive math question used on a practice test.
    The question read, “Condoleezza holds a watermelon just over the edge of the roof of the 300-foot Federal Building, and tosses it up with a velocity of 20 feet per second.” The question went on to ask when the watermelon will hit the ground, based on a formula provided.

    Do you remember now?

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  322. Related food for thought.

    Kman (5576bf)

  323. Who is Eric Holder…

    Nah. If Holder’s not a racist, he gives a good impression of one.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  324. Sherrod was widely accused of racism. In fact, she BECAME a national figure because she was accused of being a racist.

    Comment by Kman — 5/12/2011 @ 9:40 am

    Correction: she was a self-admitted former racist who took a leeetle too much pleasure in recounting, repeatedly, in her now-famous talk, how “superior” (IIRC her word) the white farmer was acting, and who was surrounded by people who were clearly enjoying the recounting of denial of help, until later in the talk when she described her renunciation of her racism.

    And then later when summarily and unfairly fired by (who, Fox News? Breitbart? no, the Obama admin)without so much as an investigation, and given talk show time (as she should have been given) to explain the situation, proceeds to throw racial rhetorical bombs on national television.

    You can see, I’m sure, how including the context here makes the situation not quiiite as clear cut as some are trying to make it.

    no one you know (325a59)

  325. Am sure I could come up with lots more (we conservatives aren’t apparently as quick to notice race as I guess you are), but here’s one off the top of my head:

    Helen Jones-Kelly

    Indeed, a good example. And you know what? I don’t think I had any idea she was black. Because it wasn’t an issue at the time.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  326. um, hell, i called holder a racist. you know, because he said something racist. you know, because there was EVIDENCE OF IT.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  327. No one at #301:

    Well, it sounds to me like a black liberal, who holds a sincere belief that racism still exists, cannot state that belief without he himself being labelled “racist” by conservatives.

    Comment by Kman — 5/12/2011 @ 9:29 am

    Wow. The post explicitly details how a black liberal could state a belief in the existence of racism, even going so far as to give the precise wording the claim could use, as well as advising that the liberal making the claim provide specific evidentiary support… and after reading that, you make the reply quoted above?

    It seems to me that whatever “seems to you” has no relation to what actually is.

    cnh (3b3713)

  328. Did you not read my whole comment?

    noyk, my bet is that no, he did not read much of your comment. He has preconceptions about what you, I, or Aaron say that lead him in weird directions, such as his request that I admit it’s possible for a black liberal to not be racist (which is obvious and from anyone but Kman would be insulting to be asked).

    Because in all seriousness, I haven’t been able to think of one.

    And you explained this is because we are ‘tribal’.

    And you never heard of Condi being called a house negro or Michael Steele an Uncle Tom.

    LOL.

    Now, I realize Kman wants to change the topic to see all of us jump like crazy trying to prove to Kman we aren’t bigots, when it’s HE who accused US.

    But still:

    Aaron criticizes Eric Holder, but doesn’t call him racist.

    There, Kman. It’s not even the first example in this thread of criticism of a black liberal that doesn’t call them racist.

    The other problem with Kman’s unfair demand is that I just don’t know who is and isn’t black, and it’s very likely that Aaron did not mention ‘by the way, this guy is black’ in a post that had nothing to do with race.

    Hell, even if I specifically look for racism allegations on this blog, I find something a lot more civil (DRJ simply noting a lack of evidence for a race baiting claim).

    I think Kman wants to transform an accusation of race baiting into something unprovable, and then note it’s unproven. LOL.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  329. Icy Texan:

    And the fact that you “don’t recall” means that it never happened? Sheesh! Luckily for you, some of us have better memories

    I wrote that I don’t recall the liberal blogosphere collectively going after Condi Rice and calling her a racist.

    Your example (of a teacher BEING racist against Condi Rice) is waaaaaaaay off point.

    Kman (5576bf)

  330. Kman – what do you think about the Helen Jones-Kelly controversy?

    no one you know (325a59)

  331. Indeed, a good example. And you know what? I don’t think I had any idea she was black. Because it wasn’t an issue at the time.

    Comment by Milhouse

    Exactly.

    We’re not going to see a lot of conservatives noting someone’s race as an issue of its own. If they aren’t bringing up race at all, I guess Kman assumes the are white.

    This entire exchange says a lot about how Kman sees black people. Apparently all those comments and discussions of lawyers or LAT reporters or whatever were never criticizing black people. I had assumed the liberals criticized were of all races, but I’m not Kman.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  332. Kman If this is in my head, then why is nobody slamming me with a list of blacks that the conservative blogosphere has gone after… and the attacks on them have nothing to do with race? Where are the counterpoints to Van Jones, Rev. Wright, etc.

    — First of all, there’s nothing in your head; but, how about Vernon “got Slick Willy’s hoochie a job” Jordan, Congressman William J. “100 grand in the freezer” Jefferson . . . shall I go on? OR, are you maybe getting it that for the most part we actually leave black political figures alone EXCEPT for when they engage in racism or playing the race card?

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  333. What about that batty c*nt calling Condoleeza rice a war criminal.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  334. Dustin:

    Aaron criticizes Eric Holder, but doesn’t call him racist.

    Well done. That’s a good example. And it only took over 300 comments.

    Kman (5576bf)

  335. _____________________________________________

    I’m talking about black liberals that get pulled into the conservative spotlight and then get piled on: Rev. WRight

    A person has to be an ultra-liberal (or ultra-ultra-liberal) to observe the history of Jeremiah Wright (not to mention his friends) and immediately believe criticism of him is due to his race.

    Foxnews.com:

    It is likely Obama met [Lonnie Rashid Lynn, Jr, who goes by the name “Common”] at the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ were both men were members…

    [Common says:] “….[Wright has] been a preacher that’s helped raise one of the greatest political figures in the world, and hopefully, the next President. He’s also raised one of the greatest rappers in the world [meaning Common himself].”

    In 2008, Common weighed in on the firestorm surrounding Rev. Wright. …“Obviously, the media has an agenda,” Common said. “I don’t follow what the media says. I’m a thinker for myself….”

    Some of Common’s poetry could also raise some eyebrows among those who might find cop-killing and racially-tinged or misogynist language beneath the Office of the Presidency. “Tell the law my Uzi weighs a ton … I hold up a peace sign but I carry a gun,” raps Common in one appearance that was posted onto YouTube.

    Common has also been a vocal opponent of mixed race relationships and believes black men and white women should not date. In one rap he says, “I don’t know what it is / but white girls gettin’ ass / I know what it is / It’s cash.”

    abcnews.go.com, March 2008:

    In a campaign appearance earlier this month, Sen. Obama said, “I don’t think my church is actually particularly controversial.”

    Rev. Wright married Obama and his wife Michelle, baptized their two daughters and is credited by Obama for the title of his book, “The Audacity of Hope.”

    An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright’s sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S….

    “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

    In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda’s attacks because of its own terrorism.

    “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he told his congregation.

    ^ And what’s sickening is such people undoubtedly believe their liberalism (if not ultra-liberalism) infuses them with great humanity, generosity, compassion and intelligence. That’s the big joke in all this.

    Mark (411533)

  336. Now, other than Obama, name the last person who fits that description. Name that black person who came under widespread conservative criticism merely because s/he was on the wrong side of a political issue, where there WASN’T widespread allegations that s/he was racist.

    Because in all seriousness, I haven’t been able to think of one.

    Comment by Kman — 5/12/2011 @ 9:38 am

    You do realize that daleyrocks at #244 has already mentioned Harold Ford, right?

    cnh (3b3713)

  337. Dustin:

    um, no i called Holder a racist. Because um, he is one.

    Oh. Never mind.

    I’m not talking about AW anyway. I’m talking about the mainstream conservative blogosphere, of which AW (and Patterico Ponts) is only one part.

    Kman (5576bf)

  338. What about that batty c*nt calling Condoleeza rice a war criminal.

    Comment by DohBiden — 5/12/2011 @ 9:54 am

    DohBiden, I’ll ask nicely, please watch your language. Some of us are women and don’t appreciate it (and to be fair am sure many of the men don’t much like it either).

    no one you know (325a59)

  339. You do realize that daleyrocks at #244 has already mentioned Harold Ford, right?

    I wasn’t aware that Ford was ever targeted by the conservative blogosphere a la Sherrod, Rev. Wright, etc. If so, then touche to daleyrocks.

    Kman (5576bf)

  340. I wrote that I don’t recall the liberal blogosphere collectively going after Condi Rice and calling her a racist.
    Your example (of a teacher BEING racist against Condi Rice) is waaaaaaaay off point

    — Do you remember the liberal blogosphere ‘collectively’ condemning the instigator of that incident? OR, were there rampant cries for “free speech” rights?

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  341. Icy Texan:

    OR, are you maybe getting it that for the most part we actually leave black political figures alone EXCEPT for when they engage in racism or playing the race card?

    Okay. I guess I’m getting that.

    Can I ask why you do that?

    Kman (5576bf)

  342. What does any of this have to do with the topic of the post, Oliver Willis being so dum that he has to write inhale on one hand and exhale on the other, so he can remember to breathe.

    JD (194dc5)

  343. No, you cannot ask, kmart. You are a douche. The premise you are advancing is fundamentally dishonest. We reject your sophistry.

    JD (194dc5)

  344. I wrote that I don’t recall the liberal blogosphere collectively going after Condi Rice and calling her a racist.

    Do you think that Powell and Rice are Uncle Toms?

    Black Republicans = Uncle Toms

    Some of my best friends are Uncle Toms

    carlitos (1596cc)

  345. um, no i called Holder a racist. Because um, he is one.

    Oh. Never mind.

    Hey, check out my link anyway. Aaron criticizes Holder without calling him racist in my link.

    His criticism of Holder has nothing to do with his race or his racism (whether it’s there or not).

    Your standard is really unfair. You expect me to prove that no one in the entire ‘conservative blogosphere’ made an accusation? That’s pathetic.

    YOU made the accusation that I’m racist (you called it a tribal basis for racial bias), Kman. You’re trying to slither away from it by forcing us to take on this impossible burden of proof, but that’s because you have no evidence to back up your claims.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  346. crap. one of those was supposed to go to tpmmuckraker and i lost it.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  347. kman

    > I’m not talking about AW anyway.

    bwahahahahahahahhaha, which is your confession that you have lost the debate in regard to me or this site.

    goalpost met and moved.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  348. BTW, apparently Kman’s standard for the left is that they all have to collectively go after Condi or whoever. If you can show ten-twenty examples, that’s not good enough. He means the WHOLE left blogosphere and some major MSM pundits, making the exactly verbatim claim that Condi is a “uncle tom” Aunt Jemima and oreo and house negro from lots of the left aren’t good enough.

    But his standard for the right is that if there are many criticisms of a black liberal that do not mention their racism one way or the other, that’s not good enough if there is any possibility anyone on the right ever mentioned racism.

    Kman is seriously bigoted against conservatives.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  349. Dustin:

    You’re trying to slither away from it by forcing us to take on this impossible burden of proof

    It’s not impossible. People, including you, are coming up with stuff.

    Kman (5576bf)

  350. bwahahahahahahahhaha, which is your confession that you have lost the debate in regard to me or this site

    AW, it’s only your ego that make you think my point pertains to you or this site. I’ve been repeatedly referring to the “conservative blogosphere”, collectively.

    Kman (5576bf)

  351. It’s not impossible. People, including you, are coming up with stuff.

    But you retort with this ‘entire conservative blogosphere’ standard. If anyone out there ever called that person racist, or even if it’s just possible that someone did, you refuse to admit you failed. That’s why you refuse to accept I proved that people have criticized black liberals all the time here without mentioning racism, providing multiple links to multiple contributors.

    Honestly, it’s not going to be easy. I have to go off memory of who is black, and this is not important information and I only know this about a handful of people being discussed.

    And again, your standard changed radically. You have forgiven the left blogosophere for its comments about Condi Rice, as though examples of this are somehow insufficient to implicate the left, but your evidence against the right for your broader claim is so much weaker.

    Show me Aaron doing to Eric Holder what you forgave the left for doing to Condi Rice. You can’t, but somehow, it doesn’t compute that you are inconsistent. Or rather, it doesn’t matter to you that you’re inconsistent.

    Why should anyone care what you think about us, anyway? You’re not honest, and you’re not rational. You rely on your own ignorance as though it proves your assumptions. You are truly lost.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  352. Kman

    > AW, it’s only your ego that make you think my point pertains to you or this site. I’ve been repeatedly referring to the “conservative blogosphere”, collectively.

    Liar.

    > AW’s post is prime example. And it’s not the first time he calls a black person with whom he disagrees a “racist”. In fact, I’m struggling to think of a time where AW disagreed with a black person and he DIDN’T call that person a “racist”.

    You set out right at the beginning to make this about me.

    that is the part that continually amazes me about you, kman, is that you lie when the truth can be cut and pasted, easily.

    Go away, you stupid liar.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  353. does “playing the race card” automatically make one racist?

    — Just like a hundred MONKEYS in a room full of typewriters, Kman occasionally hits upon a cogent question. Answer: No, but it does tend to make one a race-baiter. It’s all too easy to say that Tea Partiers carrying guns and being so virulent in their opposition to the administration’s policies (really, it’s extremely easy; just look at Jimmy “off the cuff” Carter) are doing so because the president is black, and those that make such accusations will find one or two nuts in the crowd — oh yes, remember the Obama-as-Hitler signs? still trying to figure out how those were “racist” depictions, BTW — to use as scapegoats for the whole; BUT, where are the intellectual arguments to refute the positions of the Tea Party? If you have a better message then bring it!

    Hiding behind false charges of racism is easy. Debating why it’s somehow good for us to spend the country into bankruptcy is hard.

    As to my initial answer of “No”, there sometimes really is a fire, or a wolf among the lambs. Let’s just make sure that it’s really there BEFORE we push the panic button, m’kay?

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  354. Dustin:

    Aaron criticizes Eric Holder, but doesn’t call him racist.

    Well done. That’s a good example. And it only took over 300 comments.

    Comment by Kman — 5/12/2011 @ 9:54 am

    Actually, Kman, your initial claim was that conservatives disproportionately target liberals of color. You’ve probably forgotten about that post, as it was all the way back at #3, so I’ll wait for you to re-read it.



    Back? Great! Your next appearance on the thread wasn’t until #211 is actually the first time you assert your “point” that when conservatives criticize a black person, (not black LIBERAL, just black PERSON) they seem to you to always accuse the black person of racism. That’s right, at #10 you make some vague assertion that conservatives make more claims of racist liberals than liberals make claims of racist conservatives, but that’s not the same point. Go back and re-read yourself again.

    So when you finally do make your point at #211, there are several names given to disprove your theory: Milhouse at #236: OJ Simpson. daleyrocks at #244: Harold Ford.

    So by my calculations, from 211 to 236 or 244 is about 25-33 comments. Did you miss these, or just ignore them?

    cnh (3b3713)

  355. I’ve never heard Condi Rice referred to as an “Uncle Tom”. Michael Steele has been the target of a lot of liberals — I’ve never heard him referred to as an “Uncle Tom” either.

    — If a race card was played in a forest, would Kman hear it?

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  356. actually correction, Kman appeared on the thread well prior to #211, but the first appearance of his new claim wasn’t until #211.

    cnh (3b3713)

  357. Just to refresh our memory, #3:

    if you look at the targets of the conservative blogosphere: from Van Jones to Shirley Sherrod to (more recently) Common and (now) Oliver Willis, the focus of conservative outrage does seem disproportionally skewed against people of color…. even when you don’t factor in Obama.

    Kman has no evidence. He has no methodology by which he as arrived at this conclusion. He merely continues to baselessly assert it. Meanwhile, in the real world today, conservatives are ‘going after’ well…nobody. I just went through the front pages of Instapundit, Powerline and Hugh Hewitt, and I don’t see them “going after” anyone. A little bit of GM CEO Jeffery Immelt, and some talk about Mitt Romney’s speech. A lot of talk about policy. Must be a slow news day.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  358. cnh, I’m not even sure Kman reads his own comments, let alone the comments of others.

    At any rate, I think we should all be able to agree on some ground ethical rules. 1) Casting unjustified aspersions of racism is wrong. Do you see why I don’t think Kman will agree to that? 2) You can’t demand people disprove your claims while refusing to prove your claims, and then win the argument.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  359. _______________________________________

    You’re not honest, and you’re not rational.

    When I assume such people are young teenagers or around, say, 25-years-old, I have to chuckle and shrug off their youthful naivete and foolishness.

    However, if they’re older than that, or certainly much older than that, then they’d remind me of an old, wrinkled woman trying to dress like a hot chick or a Hugh Hefner tossing down tons of Viagra. IOW, a lack of basic wisdom after a certain age ends up looking really pathetic, if not a bit touched in the head.

    Mark (411533)

  360. You set out right at the beginning to make this about me.

    No, AW. My point was about the larger conservosphere, and I referenced your post as an example, specifically saying it was an example.

    Kman (5576bf)

  361. just because the Google search “Aaron Worthing is an idiot” produces over 1,000,000 results, doesn’t mean it’s generally accepted knowledge that Aaron Worthing IS an idiot.

    — If you do a TARGETED SEARCH for “Aaron Worthing is an idiot”, WITH the quotes (which eliminates all hits where the words “Aaron” “Worthing” “is” “an” and “idiot” appear on the same page, even if each one of them appear in different sections of the page, wholly unconnected to each other) then you ‘produce’ exactly ONE hit: comment #258 on this page.

    Ed Schultz tried this same b.s. in slamming Sarah Palin one night. Just like him, parading your ignorance of how the Internet works is . . . well, ignorant.

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  362. What was the title of this post, again? Pretty funny.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  363. You do realize that daleyrocks at #244 has already mentioned Harold Ford, right?

    I wasn’t aware that Ford was ever targeted by the conservative blogosphere a la Sherrod, Rev. Wright, etc. If so, then touche to daleyrocks.

    Comment by Kman — 5/12/2011 @ 9:58 am

    Ford was criticized and opposed by the dextrosphere, if not “targeted” like Van Jones.

    I’ll give you an example of a black person “targeted” by the conservative blogosphere for reasons other than racism or claims of racism: Michael Steele. He came under withering criticism from all quarters for general incompetence, having nothing whatsoever to do with the color of his skin.

    Of course, when Steele later insinuated that part of the criticism he was experiencing was rooted in racism, he set off a fresh firestorm. And it is precisely because we conservatives are CONSTANTLY innundated with this spurious claim. It’s not that racism doesn’t exist in this country, it’s that the practice of reflexively asserting racism is used not to actually combat it where it truly exists, but as an easy way to shut down your political opponent.

    cnh (3b3713)

  364. Kman

    > My point was about the larger conservosphere

    by targeting me, you liar.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  365. whereas when conservatives attack black liberals, race and racism is almost always the issue.

    — Because the ones that we are attacking are the ones that are ALWAYS bringing it up . . . always playing the race card as a defense against criticism . . . always willing to dismiss the opposition’s argument as not-worthy-of-intellectually-based-refutation-because-their-argument-was-made-by-a-racist, end-of-story.

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  366. I believe that Kman does believe that conservatives are racist, but it isn’t logic or reason that brings him to this conclusion. It’s because certain people are simply heroes by dint of their political affiliation alone and every hero needs a villain.

    Actually arguing with him reminds me of the analogy of wrestling with a pig.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  367. To be fair, it’s entirely possible that the only reason Kman posts such obviously imbecilic claims is to get you all talking about what he wants to talk about instead of what you were talking about.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  368. To be fair, it’s entirely possible that the only reason Kman posts such obviously imbecilic claims is to get you all talking about what he wants to talk about instead of what you were talking about.

    Comment by Makewi —

    It’s a combinations of things, but you don’t really understand Kman until you understand that he has been following Aaron Worthing around obsessively for a decade, criticizing him or making ugly comments about his disability or informing him of Kman’s private life drama. When not able to do so in a comment section, he just emails Aaron instead.

    Yeah, his behavior also diverts the topic. We are no longer talking about how extremely unreasonable Oliver Willis is in ignoring real racism while inventing racism about his political opponents. And yes, Kman is doing this for attention. But beneath that is something creepier.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  369. Let’s say I’m a black person. And I have a sincere belief that there is a race problem in society today, and that in many ways the power structure, which is predominately white, still shows favoritism towards whites.
    — Short interruption to remind everyone that the racial makeup of the U.S. is 75% white, 13% black. And continue . . .

    Can [I] state my views in a way that won’t end up with the conservative blogosphere calling me a “racist”? Or are my views themselves “racist” no matter how I state them?
    — Moving past the admittedly cheap shot of “I’m not sure that YOU are capable of such a thing,” the most important factor is whether or not you actually state some rational, researched, substantive views as opposed to merely lobbing the epithet of “racist” followed by declaring “case closed”. The ones that engage in the latter are the ones that we object to so strongly.

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  370. Well, it sounds to me like a black liberal, who holds a sincere belief that racism still exists, cannot state that belief without he himself being labelled “racist” by conservatives

    — Nobody denies that it still exists. The question (in fact, the point of this entire thread; how did you miss it?) is about applying that label too loosely, too easily.

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  371. Well, let’s not forget something else. Kman is a proven racist:

    http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/07/another-liberal-accuses-others-of.html

    He is naturally the guy i refer to as stalker-boy in that post.

    (language warning at the link)

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  372. Actually, the latter aspect of Sherrod’s speech, after she confessed to practicing such nasty bigotry, where she explained that poor people should get help regardless of race, seems like a minimally adequate example of what Kman is demanding in Bizarre Demand #135.

    No, it’s probably not possible for someone to say one race needs to get this other race for the good of the race without someone describing this as racism, but that’s why Kman set it up that way in the first place.

    Anyway, one cut side effect of Kman’s bizarre standard is that sometimes it is trivially easy to beat them.

    I have never commented on Ronald Burris before, though I’m aware of the guy. His failure to disclose his business ties to Gov Blagojevich, prior to the governor appointing Burris to the US Senate, were unethical in my opinion. The recording of Burris negotiating a price for his Senate Seat is a stain on democracy.

    I have seen no indication that Sen Burris is racist.

    There, Kman, I have criticized a black liberal without accusing him of racism. You lose.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  373. Well, let’s not forget something else. Kman is a proven racist:

    http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/07/another-liberal-accuses-others-of.html

    Yeah, I was wondering how long it would take before you called me a racist. Thanks for reminding me that you ALREADY DID!

    You know, you kind of water down the meaning of the word “racist” when you misuse it at every turn.

    Same with “proven”, too.

    So what am I now? A gay, racist, stalking, Taliban-loving, communist-sympathizing liberal? I’m sure name-calling accounts for something in your world — I wouldn’t know; I left the playground decades ago. 🙂

    Carry on.

    Kman (5576bf)

  374. Okay. I guess I’m getting that.
    Can I ask why you do that?

    — Why do we so vociferously attack those black figures that play the race card, or that engage in racism themselves? Well, Kman, it’s because nobody enjoys being falsely accused of something they did not do, let alone such an ugly charge as engaging in racism. Also (for the umpteenth time) it is personally insulting, and should be insulting for every voter in the nation, for one side to dismiss the positions of the other as being the product of racist attitudes.

    The left cannot help itself when it comes to this type of political dirty-trick. Witness the recent response to recent “attacks on ‘abortion rights'” and health care. A female legislator recently stood up on Capitol Hill and ANNOUNCED that the right “hates” women. That’s a much faster way of slamming your opponent than actually trying to find the money to pay for all of these entitlement programs, dontcha think?

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  375. Roland Burris, rather than Ronald. Sorry.

    but looking around, I don’t see many accusations that this man is racist. And like Eric Holder, this was just me randomly coming up with the name of a black liberal and see if I could find criticisms that didn’t accuse racism.

    Did Kman really attempt to do this? he should have before leveling his accusations.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  376. kman

    you 1) believe islam is a racial trait and 2) that black people are not your kind (he’s white). yeah, no reason to call you a racist.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  377. Everybody wait a minute. I still don’t get what it is we’re trying to do here. Let’s suppose for a moment that Kman’s “accusation” is right. Let’s suppose every black person who’s been the target of a mass savaging by the right side of the blogosphere has been a racist; so what? What point would Kman have made, had he established this? What would be wrong with it? And what correction would he like us to make? Would he like us to pick on a few non-racist black people just because?! Or what?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  378. So what am I now? A gay, racist, stalking, Taliban-loving, communist-sympathizing liberal?

    — No. You’re not flamboyant enough to be gay.

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  379. “Dude, it’s indisputable that – in reality — the majority of followers of Islam are dark/olive-skinned and come predominately from third-world countries” -Kman explains why it is racist to denigrate Islam.

    Sorry, Kman, but this is pretty weird. Why, again does it matter so much to what someone’s skin color is? I admit that my skin is more than a bit olive, not that I think this gives me special moral authority about your racism.

    Why does this kind of thing even enter your head?

    Also, I think you have alluded to being gay a few times. You did tell me that you wore women’s clothing. Which I think it perfectly your own business, whether you are gay or just experimenting or just a straight guy having fun. Anyway, it’s not like your gayness (whether it is real or not) was conveyed with intolerance, and you react to the claim you are gay as though it’s some horrible slur, so perhaps you should work on your own tolerance. I think if there was a misunderstanding it’s partly because of your behavior that at some points appeared to be hitting on Aaron, too.

    Whether you can see this or not, you do come across as obsessed with Aaron in a way that gets beyond disagreement about politics. If this is a real source of irritation for you, maybe you should reconsider how you are acting.

    Anyway, I do think you show some screwed up thinking with regard to race.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  380. Let’s suppose every black person who’s been the target of a mass savaging by the right side of the blogosphere has been a racist; so what?

    Milhouse is right. This doesn’t prove anything bad about the critics. What Kman wants to prove is racism by the right, but he needs to show these racism accusations were unjustified. His facts could be explained merely by there being a huge problem with racism among black liberals.

    However, just because his logic fails doesn’t mean I can’t point out that his facts fail too. Indeed, I criticized Senator Roland Burris without accusing him of racism, and all of the similar criticisms I made did the same. And that’s just a random black liberal. It appears that when I look for criticisms of prominent black liberals, most of them do not accuse the guy of racism unless that is actually called for.

    But the tail is really wagging this dog.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  381. No Kman your too sexy to be gay……………….Never mind.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  382. Re: Milhouse #384
    I mentioned the same thing, briefly, in one of my posts, but you’re exactly right. Kman accuses our side of doing what we accuse his side of doing: making false accusations of racism in order to score political points. But notice how he hasn’t necessarily refuted ANY of the specific accusations. He makes a half-hearted attempt to label Breitbart the racist in the Sherrod case, but mostly his argument boils down to “you guys do it more often, and worse, than we do.”

    Very weak, indeed.

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  383. his argument boils down to “you guys do it more often, and worse, than we do.”

    If I recall correctly he said both this and the very opposite of this.

    But then, he does that a lot.

    If you read Aaron’s link to his exchange with his stalker, when Aaron notes that Sherrod failed to see people of other races are her kind, Kman said “and you do?”.

    Two ways to interpret that: Kman is a racist or Kman was just saying the opposite of whatever Aaron said, and Aaron happens to have a colorblind policy to who is his ‘kind’.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  384. Kman is like Levi Johnston.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  385. So you’re all in agreement with Millhouse #384? Nothing inherently wrong with disproportionately calling black liberals racists if, statistically speaking, they ARE disproportionately racist?

    Kman (5576bf)

  386. Kman

    you have no credibility on race.

    let me rephrase that.

    you have no credibility, period.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  387. Aargh!!! It’s not ‘disproportional’. YOU are the one making that accusation; NO ONE here is agreeing with you. We are saying that we limit our accusations to those that are plainly guilty of engaging in it, while you use it as a tool to end the discussion.

    Try it another way: the right says “this person is a racist, listen to what they say for proof”; the left says “this person is a racist, stop listening to them altogether”. Which approach is more honest and (yes, really!) open-minded?

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  388. Kman will be right back with us, after he finishes trying to literally apply Superglue to stupid.

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  389. Nothing inherently wrong with disproportionately calling black liberals racists if, statistically speaking, they ARE disproportionately racist?

    Comment by Kman — 5/12/2011 @ 11:40 am

    I’m not sure how you’re trying to screw this up, but if you’re asking if the truth is OK to tell, then the answer is yes.

    I still await some evidence that blacks are called racist more often than whites would be for the same behavior.

    You haven’t even shown us a single case where a person was accused of racism for no good reason. All the examples of that offered have come from the left. You need to prove this element first. It sounds like you’re admitting you cannot prove this element, and now assert it’s just some reporting bias. We are calling out real racists more than we should be, and that shows our racism.

    It’s sad that you’re serious about this.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  390. Dude, it’s indisputable that – in reality — the majority of followers of Islam are dark/olive-skinned and come predominately from third-world countries”

    Um, isn’t that true of Christianity as well? I mean, I don’t see any significance to it, especially the bit about them coming from countries arbitrarily assigned to one of three “worlds”, but Kman seems to think it important, so I guess this means he must regard anything bad said of Xianity as “racist”.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  391. So you’re all in agreement with Millhouse #384? Nothing inherently wrong with disproportionately calling black liberals racists if, statistically speaking, they ARE disproportionately racist?

    Comment by Kman — 5/12/2011 @ 11:40 am

    That’s not at all what Milhouse said in #384. He posited a HYPOTHETICAL in which your claim is correct that every black liberal targeted by the conservative blogosphere is accused of racism, but added as part of the hypothetical the provision that each black liberal so accused was GUILTY of racism.

    His point, if I may put words into his computer, was to ask if there is anything inherently wrong with leveling an accurate charge of racism. In which case, yes, I agree with his implied position, that there is nothing wrong with making accurate charges of racism.

    But note, this is just a hypothetical, offered for the sake of argument. We’ve already supplied several examples of blacks criticized, even “targeted” by the dextrosphere, without reference to any racism.

    cnh (3b3713)

  392. Well, Dustin posits that my premise “could be explained merely by there being a huge problem with racism among black liberals”, suggesting that it this is NOT a hypothetical.

    So I guess the only way to get to the bottom of it is to ask: IS there a huge problem with racism among black liberals?

    Kman (5576bf)

  393. So I guess the only way to get to the bottom of it is to ask: IS there a huge problem with racism among black liberals?

    That is an interesting question, but I think what you’re trying to do is just set people up to generalize black people. You’re unable to show us the evidence for your prior claims, so now you’re attempting to create evidence.

    As I said, and you repeatedly ignored, I usually do not know the race of people on the internet. It doesn’t come up a lot. If someone is white and talking about how racist white people are, they are less likely to note their race than a black person would be (thanks to the idea of moral authority).

    Also, you should have read my comment more carefully.

    Well, Dustin posits that my premise “could be explained merely by there being a huge problem with racism among black liberals”, suggesting that it this is NOT a hypothetical.

    I (well, really Milhouse, but I agree) am pointing out that if your premise is true, your conclusion is not necessarily true, and therefore, your reasoning is invalid. I realize this is freshman level logic, but let me just lay it out: you are not being rational.

    I then note your facts are wrong anyway.

    You can’t make your case, so you’re flailing. You haven’t shown any aspect of your claim is true, and in fact, every factual assertion you’ve made has been destroyed.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  394. Kman

    > IS there a huge problem with racism among black liberals?

    beats me. i take it as it comes. but i do find most of the clear racism coming from the left these days.

    for instance, imagine if I was nominated for the S.C. and i said that a white male judge was more likely to come to the right decision than a minority or female.

    I would be run out as a bigot (and rightly so).

    But on the other hand, Sonya Sotomayor was sworn in.

    And that is almost certainly part of the problem. when minorities are racists, there are too many on the left willing to excuse it.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  395. And for the record, why is Kman ignoring all the examples of criticizing black liberals without calling them racist?

    Why did he dismiss the evidence that many liberals call every major black conservative a race traitor?

    Why did Kman assert a standard to Aaron where you view your race as your kind, and other races as the other kind?

    The fact is, Kman is a liar who refuses to have an adult conversation about race (I have no idea if he is black, though!)

    Dustin (c16eca)

  396. for instance, imagine if I was nominated for the S.C. and i said that a white male judge was more likely to come to the right decision than a minority or female.

    I would be run out as a bigot (and rightly so).

    But on the other hand, Sonya Sotomayor was sworn in.

    Yeah, well that speaks a lot to your assessment of what is and isn’t racism, since Sonya Sotomayor never said what you attribute to her. (Nice out-of-contextness there — did you really think nobody would notice?)

    Kman (5576bf)

  397. I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  398. Nice out-of-contextness there — did you really think nobody would notice?

    I’m sorry, but you merely asserting he is wrong doesn’t make it so.

    We get it: nothing anyone says every convinces you. But 100% of the time you make an assertion without backing it up, you never can do so.

    I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life

    What context doesn’t make this racist?

    Aaron is right to flip the races and note that it would clearly be unacceptable if John Roberts said it.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  399. I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a hispanic woman who hasn’t lived that life

    Just imagine if John Roberts said that. Would be be on the Supreme Court? Would Aaron defend such a person?

    Kman can pretend there is a magical context that solves everything, but that’s clearly the leftist tactic lately when they lose the argument. It’s just a blind assertion from a proven liar.

    Let’s see your magic context. Remember, Aaron predicted you would forgive this racism, and you have, so thus far it looks like he’s figured out what makes his stalker tick.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  400. IS there a huge problem with racism among black liberals?

    Yes, I think there is. Open racism and antisemitism are far more prevalent among blacks than they are among whites. Not that that has much to do with anything, but it does seem to be a fact.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  401. What context doesn’t make this racist?

    Well, first of all Dustin — she wasn’t making an factual statement that X group is better than Y group. She was stating a HOPE — her personal wish — that a wise Latina woman would outshine others on the bench. That’s no more racist than blacks in 1948 hoping that Jackie Robinson would hit more home runs than his opponents.

    Secondly, she was espousing her opinion that one’s life experiences makes one a better law clerk, depending on what kind of case. That context was missing. Reasonable people can debate whether or not her opinion is based in fact, but it’s not a racist opinion, since it applies to people of ALL backgrounds and life experiences.

    Kman (5576bf)

  402. Milhouse @ 407:

    Thanks for a straightforward, non-snarky answer.

    Kman (5576bf)

  403. Well, first of all Dustin — she wasn’t making an factual statement that X group is better than Y group. She was stating a HOPE — her personal wish — that a wise Latina woman would outshine others on the bench. That’s no more racist than blacks in 1948 hoping that Jackie Robinson would hit more home runs than his opponents.

    Secondly, she was espousing her opinion that one’s life experiences makes one a better law clerk, depending on what kind of case. That context was missing. Reasonable people can debate whether or not her opinion is based in fact, but it’s not a racist opinion, since it applies to people of ALL backgrounds and life experiences.

    Yeah, it’s still racist, then.

    And the same is true if John Roberts is ‘hoping’ that white men are better than hispanic women.

    That you don’t get it is just another example of how you cannot have an adult conversation about this.

    And no, it doesn’t apply to all people with all experiences, liar. Sonya said hispanic women have rich experience that white men do not have, and that white male experience and therefore judgment is ‘hopefully’ inferior.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  404. Kman

    Out of context?

    The context only makes it worse. She was alluding to when Justice O’Connor said this:

    Just when the Court and Congress have adopted a less sanguine view of gender-based classifications, however, the new presence of women in the law has prompted many feminist commentators to ask whether women have made a difference to the profession, whether women have different styles, aptitudes, or liabilities.

    Ironically, the move to ask again the question whether women are different merely by virtue of being women recalls the old myths we have struggled to put behind us. Undaunted by the historical resonances, however, more and more writers have suggested that women practice law differently than men. One author has even concluded that my opinions differ in a peculiarly feminine way from those of my colleagues….

    This “New Feminism” is interesting, but troubling, precisely because it so nearly echoes the Victorian myth of the “True Woman” that kept women out of law for so long. It is a little chilling to compare these suggestions to Clarence Darrow’s assertion that women are too kind and warm-hearted to be shining lights at the bar….

    If we are to continue to find ways to repair the existing difference between professional women and men with regard to family responsibilities, however, we must not allow the “New Feminism” complete sway….

    Do women judges decide cases differently by virtue of being women? I would echo the answer of my colleague, Justice Jeanne Coyne of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, who responded that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion.”

    This should be our aspiration: that, whatever our gender or background, we all may become wise[.]

    So Sotomayor’s “wise latina” comment was specifically designed to dispute O’Connor’s statement of equality. It was racist and sexist. And no white male could have gotten away with saying it. But merely the fact that she is female and a minority means that you hold her to a lower standard than you would a similarly situated white male.

    And if you are still looking for pointers on how to prove discrimination, THAT’S HOW YOU DO IT. And your racial and/or gender bias is therefore proven.

    If minorities are disproportionally bigoted, and you are looking for a reason why, there you have it. look in the mirror, jackass, its people like you, with your soft bigotry of lowered expectations. at least that is a part of the problem…

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  405. And remember, comment #3 has Kman assert the right is racist (while also pretending he wasn’t saying the right is racist because he doesn’t actually value being straightforward or non-snarky very much).

    The burden of proof is on Kman, not the right. So far, he’s not convincing anyone.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  406. I’m a wise Latina short and stout
    here’s my dirty socialist handle
    here’s my dirty socialist spout!

    Oh and also thank you thank you thank you Princess Lindsey for voting for me I think you make a pretty fabulous honorary wise latina yourself!

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  407. That’s right, Aaron. Kman’s claim that Sonya’s comment was equal across sexes is frankly appalling in its dishonesty, except that it came from Kman.

    Frankly, it’s a shame we can’t recuse Sonya from any cases involving men, women, whites, hispanics, or civil rights.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  408. Kman,

    In response to your main assertion, do you recognize that Roland Burris, OJ Simpson, and Michael Steele were all criticized by the dextrosphere, but for their actions, not their race?

    If so, do you deem this amount proof sufficient to acquit the right of your charges? If not, how many more names must we come up with?

    cnh (3b3713)

  409. Dustin:

    And no, it doesn’t apply to all people with all experiences, liar. Sonya said hispanic women have rich experience that white men do not have….

    If you listened to the whole thing in context, she was saying that hispanic women have the richness of their experiences. That does not preclude white men, or Asian men, or other groups from having the richness of THEIR experiences as well.

    AW:

    So Sotomayor’s “wise latina” comment was specifically designed to dispute O’Connor’s statement of equality.

    How so? Again, you purposefully avoid Sotomayor’s use of the word “hope”. All she was doing was having high aspirations for Latina judges, essentially saying, “I hope they outperform their colleagues” or perhaps more accurately, “I hope their background and experience causes Latina women judges to outperform their colleagues”. Setting high aspirations for female minority judges is not a disparagement of white male judges. It’s not a zero sum game.

    As for John Roberts saying that, I wouldn’t call it racial bias. It would be ODD because (for good reason) you don’t often hear white men rooting on the white man majority, but not racist.

    Kman (5576bf)

  410. So I guess the only way to get to the bottom of it is to ask: IS there a huge problem with racism among black liberals?

    — It depends on your definition of the word “huge”. Certainly there is a significant problem with it, if for no other reason than the fact that it gets displayed all-too-often in public soundbite forums. So-and-so wants YOU, the general public to know that white GOPer X criticized the POTUS solely on the basis of the president’s race, and that the substance of what GOPer X said is immaterial, and therefore should be dismissed out of hand, because whether factually accurate or not it was generated by a heart filled with hate.

    It’s very easy to SAY that your political opponent is evil and mean-spirited. It’s harder to convince a skeptical and fair-minded individual that your opponent has bad opinions on the issues. “Worst Person in the World” indeed.

    Icy Texan (c84ca9)

  411. Dustin

    bluntly, a straightforward application of the code of judicial conduct would have a similar effect.

    i mean if i was in a law firm getting ready to go up to the S.C. and i felt we needed to win her over, i would say, “we need to find a woman of a hispanic, preferably both in the same person, to argue this case.”

    and let me confess biases here myself. years ago when i was in federal court fighting discrimination against myself, one of the best precedents i could cite was the Barnette case against the NY bar (if memory serves). And who wrote that opinion?

    Sotomayor.

    So i have a biased reason to like her because she did people like me a solid with that opinion (and call me biased, but i thought she was right in that case).

    but i can’t escape that the context makes it very clear that she was being racist and sexist.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  412. Kman reminds me of Q from Star Trek: TNG.

    He shows up and accuses the Right of horrible crimes and demands that they defend themselves.

    When they successfully do so, he mutters some snark and then comes back in a later episode.

    Pious Agnostic (6048a8)

  413. In response to your main assertion, do you recognize that Roland Burris, OJ Simpson, and Michael Steele were all criticized by the dextrosphere, but for their actions, not their race?

    Well, I’m not sure the dextrosphere was around for OJ Simpson. And for the others, they weren’t pulled from relative obscurity and made a national public figure AS a racist, like the ones I’ve mentioned.

    That’s why I mean by the right wing targeting people. Shirley Sherrod, Van Jones, Rev Wright — they get pulled up from obscurity and there’s a publicity storm for a few news cycles in which they are branded as racists.

    Kman (5576bf)

  414. It’s just plain sad.

    Why even respond to someone this hardcore about shilling for democrats? He’s concluded the entire right has a problem with racism, with no evidence. He’s dismissed someone actually saying one race is better than another as not racism.

    It’s sad and pathetic to see someone that caught up in racism and politics.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  415. Kman

    > How so? Again, you purposefully avoid Sotomayor’s use of the word “hope”. All she was doing was having high aspirations for Latina judges

    Funny you use that word, “aspiration.”

    > This should be our aspiration: that, whatever our gender or background, we all may become wise[.]

    O’Connor didn’t hope that women as a group would be better. she hoped they would be equal.

    > As for John Roberts saying that, I wouldn’t call it racial bias. It would be ODD because (for good reason) you don’t often hear white men rooting on the white man majority, but not racist.

    And thus you are reduced to the absurdity of claiming that a desire for white supremacy is not racist.

    But that is where your brand of racism leads, ultimately. if you believe in racial “teams” then how long can you root against your team, really? how can you expect other white people to do the same? So you may today think of sonia having “benign racism” or “harmless racism” but there is in reality no such thing.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  416. So i have a biased reason to like her because she did people like me a solid with that opinion (and call me biased, but i thought she was right in that case).

    but i can’t escape that the context makes it very clear that she was being racist and sexist.

    That’s what cracks me up about AW. When it comes to handicapped discrimination, he’s as liberal as they come. And why? Because he has a handicap.

    But other forms of discrimination — sexism, racism, etc. — he doesn’t get those so much. He’s post-racial. He’s post-sexual.

    That’s a little sad, actually.

    Kman (5576bf)

  417. pious

    ugh, i HATED the Q episodes. my favorite one was on Ds9 when sisco finally clocked him one.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  418. kman

    no, i am not liberal. i am consistent. its an alien concept, i know.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  419. Aaron, you know the drill here (whoops, wrong image).

    Anyway, Kman thinks he is a nice person, who is interested in doing “the correct and fair thing.” So it is all about emotional impact here.

    To call someone a racist is eeevvvviiillll (except when he does it, naturally, since he is a nice and fair person in his mind’s eye). So anyone (other than him) who does that must be awful.

    It’s the narcissistic self-regard that fuels his posts. He doesn’t need to read the post, he knows how he feels about it.

    So he will never get anything from these arguments, and he will continue to believe what he believes in the first place: (i) that he is a good person, and (ii) anyone who disagrees with him must not be good.

    So it’s a tiresome game.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  420. Yeah, Q was a douche.

    That’s the point. 🙂

    Pious Agnostic (6048a8)

  421. No, what is sad is how Kman decides, once again, to write something creepy about Aaron.

    Not such a nice guy, is he?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  422. And thus you are reduced to the absurdity of claiming that a desire for white supremacy is not racist.

    It’s particularly absurd because Kman is pretending to have identified a huge problem with racism on the right. He is unbelievably forgiving of racism if a democrat shows some, but he needs no evidence at all if it’s a republican. In fact, his own ignorance is cited as evidence several times.

    No, Kman would not forgive John Roberts for saying he sure would hope some white guy’s experience makes him a better judge than some Hispanic woman. And Kman’s summary is a lie, too. Sonya wasn’t hoping, she was asserting with a weasel word. It’s like when you say “I would hope so!” about something you deem self evident. This is the real context of Sonya’s remarks, offered specifically to contradict a race neutral claim.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  423. It is unbelievably time consuming to attempt to keep up with Kman. I actually got a lot less done today just for attempting.

    I have no idea how he does it, and I’m one of the most prolific of the commenters here.

    The guy must eat breath and sleep thinking about Aaron, and still makes no points. I actually notice Aaron saying something obvious as a trap to get Kman to say the opposite, and expose himself as a jackass. How can Kman not see that yet?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  424. O’Connor didn’t hope that women as a group would be better. she hoped they would be equal.

    O’Connor didn’t say equal or “equally wise”. You are doing what you typically do: read in things that aren’t there.

    And thus you are reduced to the absurdity of claiming that a desire for white supremacy is not racist.

    A desire for white supremacy IS racist. But pride in my Anglo-Saxon culture isn’t. By the same token. I have no problem with a minority (or a double minority, like Latina woman) person seeking more social progress (which isn’t the same as “supremacy”) for her and her kind.

    if you believe in racial “teams” then how long can you root against your team, really?

    I don’t believe in racial “teams” in the sense that we are all in competition.

    So you may today think of sonia having “benign racism” or “harmless racism” but there is in reality no such thing.

    Are you saying that her desire for Latina woman judges to do well poses a THREAT? If so, a threat to whom?

    Kman (5576bf)

  425. HAHAHAHAHAHA!

    “…You are doing what you typically do: read in things that aren’t there….”

    At least he reads, Kman. You have been shown, multiple times, to not have read the articles about which you gassily pontificate.

    Seriously, dude. Go take a break.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  426. ugh, i HATED the Q episodes.

    Great guy though. I did some shows with him in the early 1980’s.

    Kman (5576bf)

  427. Kman can you go stroke your ego on your own site.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  428. Well, I’m not sure the dextrosphere was around for OJ Simpson.

    Maybe not all that much during the actual criminal trial itself, but there has been vast amounts of criticism following that, ridiculing his “search for the real killer”, and condemning his attempt to profit from his murders with his “If I Did It” book.

    And for the others, they weren’t pulled from relative obscurity and made a national public figure AS a racist, like the ones I’ve mentioned.

    So… you realize you’re admitting they constitute evidence that goes to disprove your thesis, right? Blacks criticized for reasons having nothing to do w/ allegations of racism?

    That’s why I mean by the right wing targeting people. Shirley Sherrod, Van Jones, Rev Wright — they get pulled up from obscurity and there’s a publicity storm for a few news cycles in which they are branded as racists.

    The dextrosphere had nothing to do with pulling Van Jones and Rev Wright from obscurity, Obama did that when he decided to run for president (Wright) and create a Green Jobs czar (Jones). Wright came under the microscope for precisely the same reason Bill Ayers came under the microscope: because anyone who has a relationship w/ a candidate becomes the subject of scrutiny, and IF THERE IS EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING SHADY/UNSAVORY/BAD/WRONG, then there will be further investigation.

    Wright was vetted as a proxy for vetting Obama. Jones was vetted for his own sake, since he was going to be accepting a federal post. If that vetting turns up evidence of racism, that’s not the fault of the investigators.

    cnh (3b3713)

  429. Kman can you go stroke your ego on your own site.

    Comment by DohBiden

    But he will prevent any of us from dissenting from his claims on his own site.

    I’m still waiting after many requests that Kman link his blog (which he does actually have). We aren’t welcome there, but Kman calls this place an echo chamber.

    Kman is unhinged and afraid people will associate him with his own words.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  430. When did the racisms become a collective charhe, hurled at a blanket group of people? I wonder if the irony of that is lost on kmart?

    JD (85b089)

  431. Kman

    > O’Connor didn’t say equal or “equally wise”

    Actually she did, when she said that she hoped the male and female judge would reach the same conclusion. That is EQUAL WISDOM.

    Its amazing that I have the reading disability, but my reading comprehension is so much better than yours.

    > But pride in my Anglo-Saxon culture isn’t.

    But that isn’t pride in culture. It is the hope that one group is superior to the other.

    > I don’t believe in racial “teams” in the sense that we are all in competition.

    Everyone is always in competition. Even in communism, but the competitive instinct is extended in warped directions.

    The key is for it to be individual competition and not one based on group identity.

    And yes, you do believe in teams. But oddly you want your team to be the losing one for a while.

    > Are you saying that her desire for Latina woman judges to do well poses a THREAT?

    False premise. She didn’t merely say she wanted them to do well, but to do better.

    And racism is always a problem, especially when the racist is in high government office.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  432. Kmarts little pet thesis is really rather silly. Even if you accept the underlying theory, neither Sherrod or Van Jones or Rev Hatey were pulled from obscurity because of racism, their own, or others. They got their well deserved moments of glory because of their words, their actions, and their positions.

    JD (194dc5)

  433. Dustin,you must realize Kman has a tiny penis.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  434. And for the others, they weren’t pulled from relative obscurity and made a national public figure AS a racist, like the ones I’ve mentioned.

    Your moving the goalposts and special pleading isn’t going to convince this jury, counselor. Better try another venue.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  435. doh biden

    keep it relatively clean. i mean i am laughing, but i am sure patrick wouldn’t appreciate it if i left that up on his site.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  436. But that isn’t pride in culture. It is the hope that one group is superior to the other.

    Even this strikes me as way too charitable.

    She was setting up reasons why hispanic women are superior to white men, then she says she ‘hopes’ they make better judges. This seems like someone saying ‘I would hope a Ferrari is faster than a horse’.

    It’s more than an aspiration. Even the aspiration is racist. Why would you want one race to be superior to another?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  437. Actually she did, when she said that she hoped the male and female judge would reach the same conclusion. That is EQUAL WISDOM.

    “That is” is your interpretation. In any event, if O’Connor wants all judges to reach the same conclusion, and Sotomayer aspires for Latina woman judges to do better than that, how is that a bad thing?

    Again, it’s like criticizing the black baseball fan in 1948 who wants Jackie Robinson to outplay the white players.

    And yes, you do believe in teams. But oddly you want your team to be the losing one for a while.

    Well, looked through that prism, I’m on MANY teams. The white “team”. The male “team”. The American “team”. The middle class “team”. And so on.

    But the losing team?

    Lose at WHAT? No, I don’t mind being on the “losing” team. Unlike you, I don’t see it as a zero sum game. Why not? Because I’m on so many teams. I’m not threatened by the rise of the political power of women or minorities.

    But you know who is threatened??? White racists. And I’m talking old school racists. They’re the ones who believe that the rise in black power necessarily means the fall of what power.

    THAT is a team I’m NOT on.

    She didn’t merely say she wanted them to do well, but to do better.

    Yeah, well, she should be strung up for setting high goals for Latina women.

    Kman (5576bf)

  438. the fall of what power = the fall of white power

    Kman (5576bf)

  439. Kmart is very invested in calling people racists.

    JD (194dc5)

  440. Kman

    > In any event, if O’Connor wants all judges to reach the same conclusion, and Sotomayer aspires for Latina woman judges to do better than that, how is that a bad thing?

    Sure, she is hoping her group is categorically superior. What is wrong with that?

    > Again, it’s like criticizing the black baseball fan in 1948 who wants Jackie Robinson to outplay the white players.

    No, it is not like that. Jackie was let in as a test case. by the time she said that, there was no test case kind of situation for latina judges. While every decent person wanted him to do well, I don’t think even Jackie robinson would say he hoped that all black players would do better. Wanting one guy who is trying to break a barrier to break the barrier is different than hoping for general supremacy.

    > But the losing team?

    Crazy I know, but that is the import of your words.

    > Lose at WHAT?

    You obviously believe that the races, etc. are in competition. I believe individuals are. But then again, you are a racist after all.

    > Why not? Because I’m on so many teams. I’m not threatened by the rise of the political power of women or minorities.

    You keep running from what she was actually talking about, which wasn’t rising, but surpassing.

    > They’re the ones who believe that the rise in black power necessarily means the fall of wh[i]t[e] power.

    Well thank God I don’t think that way, I just think that ALL RACISM IS BAD, EVEN WHEN THE RACIST IS OF COLOR.

    But its cute to watch you try to project your racist attitudes on me.

    Hey, you know who also opposed black power? Martin Luther King.

    Or more precisely he said more or less what I said. If black people want a fair share of power, good. If that is what they mean by black power, more power to them. but if they mean they should be superior to the white, he can’t support that.

    By the way, if there is nothing wrong with black power, then necessarily there is nothing wrong with white power, right? So I will issue this challenge to you. Start signing all your emails with the phrase “white power.” We’ll all take bets on how quickly you will be fired.

    > Yeah, well, she should be strung up for setting high goals for Latina women.

    No, she should recuse herself from most of the S.C.’s business for bias. Let her be a wise latina lawyer, but she cannot site impartially before a judge.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  441. The oil companies are getting vilified for their tax brakes again.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  442. Anyways back on topic Common is a vile thug and btw Chuckles if you don’t like it go f*ck yourself sideways.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  443. La Raza is a radical organization that at once believes in transnationalism as well as the “reconquista”; by any means necessary. They don’t believe in American exceptionalism, the American way, or respect American sovereignty.

    Sotomayor was a member of La Raza, which, by the way, mean “The Race”.

    She’s a SCOTUS justice merely because folks like Graham and his ilk didn’t choose to do to Obama what the Democrats happily did to Bush; deny the President his right to choose members of the federal bench, barring any outright disqualification.

    We could have done a lot worse, to be sure, but she believes in affirmative action, quotas, set asides, and that the Constitution should guarantee equality of outcome, as opposed to equality of opportunity; and may harbors an opinion that US sovereignty takes a back seat to pressing “global” concerns. And, she belives in the almost unlimited application of the commerce clause to interfere in every aspect of Americans lives.

    A disgrace who’ll be on the bench for many years.

    Bob Reed (5f2db5)

  444. Who said this, Kman?

    Let us be dissatisfied until from every city hall, justice will roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. Let us be dissatisfied until that day when the lion and the lamb shall lie down together, and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid. Let us be dissatisfied. And men will recognize that out of one blood God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. Let us be dissatisfied until that day when nobody will shout “White Power!” — when nobody will shout “Black Power!” — but everybody will talk about God’s power and human power.

    Must be some neocon, right?

    And more neoconism:

    In the final analysis the weakness of Black Power is its failure to see that the black man needs the white man and the white man needs the black man. However much we may try to romanticize the slogan, there is no separate black path to power and fulfillment that does not intersect white paths, and there is no separate white path to power and fulfillment, short of social disaster, that does not share that power with black aspirations for freedom and human dignity We are bound together in a single garment of destiny.

    “Black power” as an aspiration for anything other than equality is a problem and its not just us supposedly racist conservatives who think that. Every single one of those words were Martin Luther King Jr.’s.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  445. All Americans are “threatened” by those who believe the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; or that “penumbras” can be seen “emanating” such that the justice/judge can essentially legislate from the bench.

    They are also threatened by those that would scrap the founder’s ideal of equality of opportunity and replace it with equality of outcome; because the only result will be that we’ll all be equally miserable…

    Bob Reed (5f2db5)

  446. Yeah, well, she should be strung up for setting high goals for Latina women.

    No, but it it is a startlingly stupid thing for a supreme court justice to say. It rubs right up next to racism. The only thing that it lacks would be for the claim that the latina hereditary is the thing that grants the experience which makes the decision making superior. It is easy to see how some would read this statement as containing that element.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  447. I still have a couple full bottles of “Black Power” beer in my parents’ garage. A cool souvenir of times gone by.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  448. pulled from relative obscurity = ranking government officials or associates of those who seek higher public office.

    Kman is funny in a arguing with middle school debate clubbers sort of way.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  449. And of course, there is the fact that a lot of liberal positions are in fact founded in racism … example here.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  450. What’s silly is the idea that all types of racism bear the same political, social and economic costs and relevance.

    There is a complex continuum of racism that stretches from the utterly benign to the outright evil.

    Eddie Murphy made a career as a standup comedian by making fun of black people. Is it really that hard to understand why his undeniable racism is benign, while the racism of a white comedian making a career out of making fun of black people would be undeniably vicious?

    Another example: It is surely racist to say that blacks dominate the NBA. But that’s utterly benign. It’s also racist to say that blacks have too much political power in the U.S. because the media “goes easy” on them. That’s vicious

    The irony is that while many conservatives defend against accusations of racism by denying the distinctions between benign and vicious racism, that denial also prevents them from making a credible case that their motives are good. Breitbart is, above all, an unwitting political masochist on the issue of race.

    This blog is, above all, masochistic in its insistence of playing white conservatives as the ultimate victims of racism.

    Plenty of liberals deny the distinctions among types of racism, but they do so at much less political cost, and they know it, which is why complaining about accusations of racism isn’t much of a theme for them.

    [Note: Big Median is banned for what he said about Stashiu. But this comment is so funny I thought I would approve it. Hahahahaha. — P]

    Big Median (066d74)

  451. I hate to go on about the race thing, because it shouldn’t matter–but I was a bit baffled as to why Obama checked “Black/African-American” on the census, since he was raised by his White Kansan grandparents, and is technically “mixed”. Just another example of how racial identity is central to Obama’s presidency.

    John S (740030)

  452. To label Big Con-Median as “stupid” would be an insult to stupid people.

    Icy Texan (6baa4d)

  453. “If black people want a fair share of power, good. If that is what they mean by black power, more power to them. but if they mean they should be superior to the white, he [MLK] can’t support that.”

    You have any evidence of this? MLK was in a position where he had to appear ‘race blind’, but as soon as the 1964 ‘Civil Rights’ act passed he went on to demand affirmative action.

    http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/affirm25.htm

    “I was a bit baffled as to why Obama checked “Black/African-American” on the census, since he was raised by his White Kansan grandparents, and is technically “mixed”. Just another example of how racial identity is central to Obama’s presidency.”

    Because blacks are privileged in today’s America, and because blacks vote for their racial group. See Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  454. But, since he might be reading this . . . and awaaaaay we go!

    457. What’s silly is the idea that all types of racism bear the same political, social and economic costs and relevance.
    — Sure. And, if you could just really quickly remind us, WHO was it that voiced this idea? I’m asking because a quick scan of the preceding 456 comments failed to reveal it. But I’m certain that YOU found it!

    There is a complex continuum of racism that stretches from the utterly benign to the outright evil.
    — Two words that NEVER go together are “benign” and “racism”.

    Eddie Murphy made a career as a standup comedian by making fun of black people. Is it really that hard to understand why his undeniable racism is benign, while the racism of a white comedian making a career out of making fun of black people would be undeniably vicious?
    — In Big Median’s head the concepts of “stereotyping”, “observational humor” and “racism” are synonymous. Sim-ple.

    Another example: It is surely racist to say that blacks dominate the NBA.
    — Seriously now, exactly how f^cking stupid are you? The NBA is 75% black. That isn’t a racist statement; it’s a statistical fact!

    It’s also racist to say that blacks have too much political power in the U.S. because the media “goes easy” on them. That’s vicious
    — Who says this? The little hamster running that wheel inside your brain pan?

    The irony is that while many conservatives defend against accusations of racism by denying the distinctions between benign and vicious racism, that denial also prevents them from making a credible case that their motives are good.
    — That’s correct, libby. It’s all about the INTENT of the accuser, and NOT about the demonstrable actions of the accused. Right?

    Breitbart is, above all, an unwitting political masochist on the issue of race.
    — How pithy. Wait. Not “pithy”; something that sounds like “pithy”, though . . .

    This blog is, above all, masochistic in its insistence of playing white conservatives as the ultimate victims of racism.
    — Which of course is our INTENT when we engage in the heinous crime of calling out liberals, whatever their color, for their provable instances of racist behavior.

    Plenty of liberals deny the distinctions among types of racism, but they do so at much less political cost, and they know it, which is why complaining about accusations of racism isn’t much of a theme for them.
    — Maybe they just suffer from guilty consciences.

    Icy Texan (6baa4d)

  455. stari

    yes, of course Dr. King liked affirmative action.

    but he didn’t like black power, as an expression of superiority. his words, bub.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  456. Comment by Icy Texan — 5/13/2011 @ 1:28 am

    Great fisking. Has been very educational getting a better look into the worldview of what I can only assume is a typical Journolister. Glad someone mentioned that about Big Median.

    At the risk of sounding mean to someone who can’t reply, I really did think until now that the influence that that group tried to coordinate in the media had a worldview behind it that, how should I put it, wasn’t quite so lacking in logic and reasoning skills, even though I suspected it was racist (as Big Median himself admitted).

    no one you know (fd287d)

  457. Here’s something for Hax’ desk. Should be a conversation starter.

    carlitos (1596cc)

  458. Carlitos you migt not like me but that is awful.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  459. icy on “benign racism”

    i remember watching a movie by chris rock called “down to earth.” in it, he plays a black comedian who dies and by some method comes back to earth in the body of a rich, fat white guy.

    I didn’t see the whole thing but one scene really struck me. He decides to try to revive his comedy career on the theory that its what’s inside that counts. So he goes to a black-dominated comedy club and he starts doing his character’s usual routine of “black people do this, white people do that.”

    So he tells a joke, “when white people die they leave a will. When black people die, they leave a bill.” And you know if he was in a black body saying it, it would have gotten laughs. But he was in a white body, and suddenly the members of the club turn against him, calling him racist.

    And i think the point of that scene was Chris Rock, the real guy and not the character he was playing, was saying: “if its racist if a white guy says that kind of joke, then that kind of joke is just plain racist, even if a black dude is saying it.” And i could be wrong, but i don’t think in his real life, Chis Rock has ever told that kind of joke.

    The closest Rock comes to that kind of joke that i am aware of is his bit about black people and n—–rs. He goes on about how he is fine with black people but he hates n——-rs and goes into many specific examples. And i read that as attacking black people who act out based on negative stereotypes about them. Which is a good thing in my book.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  460. By the way, if there is nothing wrong with black power, then necessarily there is nothing wrong with white power, right? So I will issue this challenge to you. Start signing all your emails with the phrase “white power.” We’ll all take bets on how quickly you will be fired.

    Except, typical of you, you ignore both history and reality. White power historically HAS come at the expense of other races — often in vile and violent ways. “White power” has been made synonymous with “black oppression”, which is WHY I would be fired for evoking the phrase “white power”.

    And while you correctly quote MLK, you forget that in those speeches, he is talking about the ideal world. You also forget that “black power” at the time was meant (as used by Carmichael and others) to be the same as white power, albeit with a different color, so it was easily condemnable by King.

    But if you take those quotes to mean that King was opposed to blacks actually gaining social, political and economic power even if it came at the expense of the white power structure, you’re wrong. He firmly believed in his race acquiring more social, political and economic power — in fact, he thought it was absolutely necessary to achieving his dream. Unfortunately, if he said those things today, you would be calling him a racist.

    Kman (5576bf)

  461. Kman

    > White power historically HAS come at the expense of other races

    Ah, so let me get this straight. Because other white people have said white power and meant it in a bad way, you, a white person, can’t say the same word. So how is that NOT judging a person by their color and rather than the content of their character?

    > he is talking about the ideal world

    He was condemning it in the real world because he wanted us to reach that ideal.

    > You also forget that “black power” at the time was meant (as used by Carmichael and others) to be the same as white power,

    Actually as I said before he did say it was okay to say it if all you meant was equality.

    > But if you take those quotes to mean that King was opposed

    Which I didn’t say. f–k you.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  462. See Kman you think that black power has to come at the expense of white power and thus YOU assume i think the same way.

    my problem with black power, as an expression of black supremacy, is that its RACIST. and racism is inherently a problem.

    But you plainly don’t think that is the case. you think that there can be such a thing as good racism and bad racism.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  463. Aaron, you must remember that only white people are racists. At least in Teh Narrative.

    Simon Jester (1129c6)

  464. Aaron, on the question of “benign racism” I reject Big Median’s thesis that a comedian drawing humor from observations of — and life experience in — black culture, stereotypical though some of those observations might be, is engaged in a form of racism. “Racism” is a term of exclusion based on negative, derisive feelings.

    Comedians highlight the silliness of the human condition; and if they do so by focusing on the peculiarities of a particular demographic? Probably better that it be done from within that culture . . . write what you know!

    Icy Texan (6baa4d)

  465. Thanks, NOYK!

    Icy Texan (6baa4d)

  466. This guy says that Sarah Palin’s criticism of Mr. Common was just smarmy and pandering opportunism on her part. Could this be true?

    Has Common mentioned guns in his lyrics? Yes, sparingly. But the criticism leveled at him is as opportunistic as it is hypocritical. Let’s not forget that Sarah Palin is the same person who famously uttered the slogan “Don’t retreat, reload!” and supported a map of the U.S. that placed gun sights over various congressional districts, including that of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was nearly killed by a crazed gunman earlier this year.

    I can see what he’s saying here – he’s saying that Sarah Palin is an opportunistic hypocrite. But it seems to me he’s mixing apples and oranges.

    I don’t see why Michelle and Sarah both can’t be considered a bit trashy and unserious. Why choose?

    happyfeet (3c92a1)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2669 secs.