The Left’s War On Blacks And Women

The Rutgers Faculty Clique has, er, blackballed Condoleeza Rice from speaking at the Rutgers commencement.

Juan Williams, at least, sees the hypocrisy:

I, too, disagreed with many of the policies Rice faithfully supported as a member of the Bush administration. But only partisan hatred can blind the faculty to her extraordinary level of accomplishment for herself and her country.

Rice is smart, disciplined, hard-working and the model of an inspiring modern American. She personifies the American Dream. She is living inspiration for a young person trying to accomplish great work no matter what the barriers. And in Rice’s generation there were some serious barriers starting with her race and gender.

And Williams – who, let us recall, is an unapologetic liberal – notes that this frothing intolerance isn’t aimed just at black, female and black female politicians:

There is an added element at play here. There is a disgraceful double standard amongst liberals, particularly those in academia, in the hatred they direct at black conservatives.

We saw this last April when the conservative neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson was forced to step down as a Commencement Speaker for Johns Hopkins University (where he ably served as the head of pediatric neurosurgery).

Liberals on the Hopkins campus mobilized against Carson because he criticized President Obama’s health care reform law and said that he opposed gay marriage.

Hate eventually backfires.

The media and the academic establishment are going to do what they can to forestall this, obviously – but hate does eventually consume its owner.

And when people – especially blacks, women, and black women – see that one of our parties has been trying to program them for a couple of generations now, hopefully it’ll backfire with a vengeance.

Cutting The Cookies

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

I found “Robin Hood” on Netflix, the updated version released by the BBC in 2006. The casting was more interesting than the show.

The BBC modernized the story but only up to the 2006 Code of Stereotypes: the Bad Guy Sheriff of Nottingham must be a White male, Maid Marian must be a butt-kicking, wise-cracking feminist, the hero’s side-kick must be a dumb White guy to serve as the butt of all jokes, all war veterans must have PTSD and be ticking time-bombs for violence, at least one racial minority must play a supporting role as Member Of The Merry Band (Hispanic preferred) and most important of all, no Black may be cast in an unsympathetic light.

In 2014, that Code has been updated to require at least one gay character and, if at all possible, a disabled person, e.g. “Glee.”

In this “Robin Hood,” there is no Friar Tuck in the Merry Band (religious characters are forbidden under the new Code), but there is a Saracen woman named D’jaq and of course, she’s smarter than all of the White males put together. But get this – D’jaq is supposed to be slave captured by King Richard’s armies fighting Saladin in the Middle East. She ought to be an Arab Muslim. But she’s played by an English actress of Indian descent using a Pakistani accent to sound foreign. Why? Probably because there is a giant immigrant population in England from former Crown colonies like India and Pakistan and the BBC Code must acknowledge them by substituting a Paki for a Hispanic in the Member Of The Band slot.

The most amazing thing of all? The Master-at-Arms, who kills innocent women and children so the Sheriff can blame Robin Hood for it, is a Black man. The fake Abbess who’s really a con artist, is a Black women. Black people are criminals! That would never happen in an American series.

Rearranging the priority of victims to cater to local sympathies makes business sense for the film maker. But it also reflects a certain callousness. Casting a show to fit the Stereotype Code means you don’t actually care about the people being stereotyped, only that the correct boxes are checked to meet your quotas.

Joe Doakes

I think I wrote about that a few years back, when my kids were still watching the Disney Channel (back when I’d still let kids watch the Disney Channel); all of the cookie cutter “Disney Movies” had the same basic characters:

  1. The spunky, low-income white kid.
  2. The Latina tomboy who kicked everyone’s butts athletically (except, perhaps, #4 below
  3. The black, Chloe-O’Brien-level tech nerd.  Always, always, always the black kid was the nerd. 
  4. The lead character – almost always a blonde white boy…

…and a painstakingly-mixed bunch of supporting characters.

Free People With “Assault Weapons”: 1. Scum, 0

Detroit mom repels three armed daytime home invasion robbers.

Her weapon of choice?  A “Hi-Point” carbine – a pistol-caliber semi-automatic rifle.  It’s lighter, handier, and doesn’t have the overpenetration of a full rifle-caliber rifle (or intermediate-caliber “assault rifle”), but has better accuracy and, perhaps most importantly, that “I’ve got a F***ING MILITARY GRADE RIFLE, AS***LE!” vibe about it.

Open note to the Detroit cop at the end; yes, you’re gonna get ‘em – but how about a shout-out to the woman who actually took three scumbags off the street?

In related news, Nicholas Johnson, author of Negroes and the Gun, willl be joining me tomorrow on the NARN.

The Real Problem

Clarence Thomas notes that it’s the white liberals that, in modern times, are the racists, stupid:

The worst things that have been done to me, the worst things that have been said about me, [were] by northern liberal elites, not by the people of Savannah, Georgia,” [said Justice Thomas].  “My sadness is that we are probably today more race and difference-conscious that I was in the 1960s when I went to school,” he said, the Daily Mail reported. “To my knowledge, I was the first black kid in Savannah, Georgia, to go to a white school. Rarely did the issue of race come up.”“Differences in race, differences in sex. Somebody doesn’t look at you right, somebody says something. Everybody is sensitive. If I had been as sensitive as that in the 1960s, I’d still be in Savannah. Every person in this room has endured a slight. Every person. Somebody has said something that has hurt their feelings or did something to them — left them out. That’s a part of the deal.”

You’ll note that Thomas hasn’t filed a hate crimes lawsuit against Representative Ryan “Uncle Tom” Winkler – or indeed, mentioned the snarkly little fella at all.

The Speech

Today, on the official observance of Martin Luther King’s birthday, here’s a reminder of what the fuss is all about:

A few years ago, I heard a report on NPR that noted that among African-Americans, people are actually desensitized to the “I Have A Dream” speech.  It’s actually overplayed; people hear it so much, so often, and in so many contexts, that people are more or less numb to it.

And that’s a shame bordering on cultural crime; in an era when public oratory seems a dying art, when the likes of Barack Obama are considered “great public speakers”, listening to one of the greats – Reagan, Thatcher, JFK, Churchill and of course King – is both a thrill and, in a way, almost retro. The idea of being able to move people, not just with words but with rhythm alliteration, repetition for effect, assonance, structure and tone – seems almost a lost art.

It’s a crying shame.

The Policy That Dare Not Say Its Name

I’ll urge you to read this letter to the editor from last Wednesday’s Pioneer Press

I’m going to point to an exerpt or two:

Your recent story on St. Paul Public Schools and race (“Facing the race issue,” Oct. 28) failed to mention the elephant in the room. That elephant is that St. Paul Public Schools currently has a black agenda, thanks to the Pacific Educational Group consulting firm.

The agenda is to place blame on white teachers for low test scores and a high suspension rate among black boys. We never want to address parental involvement, lack of fathers in the homes or education not valued (because this is common sense and may actually help students and families that are struggling).

I shouldn’t quote more under the terms of “fair use”.  You need to read the whole thing.

I’ll await the cries of “the writer is no doubt a white bankster from the Wayzata”. 

Go ahead.  Cry.

OK.  The writer 0 Aaron Benner – is from St. Paul, teaches elementary school in the Saint Paul system, and notes that he is black. 

The SPPS isn’t seeking a solution to the achievement gap.  They are seeking political cover that furthers a political and social agenda.

Zero-Based Society

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Liberals claim conservatives are racists.  They might be right,  There is mathematical proof of it, viewed from the Liberal perspective.

For example, what’s 3 minus 3?  Zero?  That’s a racist concept, an Oreo Integer, an Uncle Tom Placeholder.  Black on the outside, White on the inside, valued less than any other number in society, invented long ago by a slave-holding society that ruthlessly oppressed women and gays.  Zero is racist.

But every fiscal year, what do Conservatives want the budget deficit to be?  Zero.  And how do Conservatives plan to implement their hateful agenda?  Zero-based budgeting.

I’ve got to admit, Liberals may have a point here.  No wonder they’re so careful to completely avoid any contact with mathematical reasoning when they make their budget proposals.  Can’t be too careful to avoid the taint of racism.

Joe Doakes

 Better that all math ends in 1.

Race To The Bottom

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Only a person obsessed with racial issues would worry about why there aren’t more people of color brewing craft beer.

I’m guessing the reason there are few Black beer crafters is the same reason there are so few Black start-up business owners: they don’t know anyone who ever did it so why would they consider it possible?  Instead, they look at the other choices they see patterned for them by the adults around them and that’s what they take up.  Entrepreneurship is a learned behavior but our First Black President’s administration is working vigorously to kill it.

Only a dog can hear a dog whistle.  Only a racist sees racism everywhere.

Joe Doakes

Technically speaking, there are two ways to be a “post-racial” president; when there is no more racism, and when racism is the norm.

Carnival Of Doakes

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Complaints about how the Obamacare Outreach contracts were awarded.

The complainers’ logic escapes me: only Blacks can reach out to to other Blacks to give them free stuff, they won’t accept it from Whites? Or do you fear White Minnesota Democrats are 1963 racists who will intentionally exclude Blacks from the free stuff, Jim-Crow style? Is this about race at all, or is it about who gets the taxpayer-funded make-work job?

———-

Obama says bombing Syria will prevent Assad from using chemical weapons again, which will deter everybody else from acquiring and using them, which makes our own children safer in the long run.

Condensed version: bomb Syria, for the children.

———-

New “study” proves federally funded early childhood education programs will save Minnesota 4.8 billion in prison costs.

Look for details on this – Dakota County Attorney Jim Backstrom is involved so we know it’s anti-gun.

———-

A guy with a sawed-off shotgun arrested in Burnsville.

You see, this is why we need universal background checks, to prevent guys like this from carrying sawed-off shotguns into banks and convenience stores. Because although he’s already a career criminal who ignored half-a-dozen laws to commit this crime, he’ll surely obey the next law. Or the one after that. Or the one . . . .

———-

Windmills kill eagles.

So is that too many dead eagles, or not enough? How many dead eagles is too many dead eagles, if the goal is to achieve energy independence? You want green energy or not?

———-

Car bomb explodes on 9/11 outside building formerly used as US Consulate in Benghazi.

 

It’s empty (except for FBI investigators still trying to figure out what happened there a year ago when a bunch of film critics chased us away) so no important American officials killed this time. But bombs are used to send a message (see: Johnson in Vietnam, Obama in Syria). The message Al Qaeda sent with this bomb: “And don’t come back!”

Joe Doakes

“Hit the road, Barack”.

Narrowly Focused Diversity

The US Senate has one black member – Republican Tim Scott of South Carolina.

Naturally, he wasn’t invited to yesterday’s 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech:

“Senator Scott was not invited to speak at the event,” Greg Blair, a spokesman for the South Carolina lawmaker, said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. “The senator believes today is a day to remember the extraordinary accomplishments and sacrifices of Dr. King, Congressman John Lewis, and an entire generation of black leaders. Today’s anniversary should simply serve as an opportunity to reflect upon how their actions moved our country forward in a remarkable way.”

The event organizers didn’t completely exclude Republicans from the event — former President George W. Bush, for instance, received an invitation, but he couldn’t attend as he is recovering from surgery — but the slate of speakers was filled with names such as former President Clinton, Gov. Martin O’Malley, D-Md., Oprah Winfrey, Jamie Foxx and others.

Showing the lefties a white Republican doesn’t violate the narrative.

A SCOTUS justice?  A Senator like Scott elected the hard way (wonder if Ryan WInkler thinks he’s an “Uncle Tom?)?  A black conservative woman like Condi Rice?

That violates the narrative.

Monologue

President Obama went on the air to say that if he had a father who was in his late eighties and fought on Okinawa, he’d look a lot like Delbert Belton.

Well, no.  He didn’t. 

The beating death of Belton last week was a huge story in the media all last week.

Well, no. It wasn’t.    Outside the conservative alt-media, the story – like the previous weeks’ death of Christopher Lane – was all but embargoed. 

Described as “the kind of nice old man who’d become your friend in minutes,” World War II veteran Delbert “Shorty” Belton was assaulted by two teens in the parking lot of the Eagles Lodge in Spokane, Washington, at around 8 p.m. on Wednesday. He died in the hospital Thursday morning.

Belton’s death has already gone viral, and is uncovering deep racial divides, simmering anger and disgust with the media. Most pointedly, many are asking: Why has the death of Belton — and similarly the death of Australian college student Christopher Lane in Oklahoma — largely been ignored by a media which was, only a couple of weeks ago, absolutely obsessed with the Trayvon Martin/ George Zimmerman case. Both the Belton and Lane case feature victims who died in race-related attacks. The only difference between the Belton and Lane cases compared to the Martin case is that they feature white victims and black assaulters. 

Not to mention serious allegations of explicit racial motivation that were never part of the Martin/Zimmerman case – at least the one that went to the jury, as opposed to the media narrative. 

The problem, of course, is that this nation’s “conversation about race” is a monologue.

Frequently Asked Questions, Part X

“What do you think about the beating of Ray Widstrand?”:  I don’t. 

“What are you talking about?  It was a horrible episode!  And it’s getting international attention” – Of course it was.  And not only did it happen in my city, but it was like four blocks from where I used to live, out on the East Side.  It was a crappy neighborhood 24 years ago, and if anything I think it’s gotten worse.  An episode at a gas station out on East Minnehaha three years ago – not far from my old house, in a neighborhood which has decayed immensely since I lived and worked there over 20 years ago – may have been one of the scarier nights of my life (and I’ve had some scary ones). 

“Is that a commentary on Saint Paul?” – Yep.  When I first moved to Saint Paul in 1987 – the end of George Latimer’s reign, the beginning of Jim Scheibel’s single term – the city felt depressed, in a malaise.  Tired. 

Afterwards came 12 years of relative “can do!” under Norm Coleman and Randy Kelly – years, when the city grew (some), prospered (by our standards), spent too much but had somethingto show for it. 

But since Kelly left?  Taxes have boomed.  Housing values have plummeted.  Crime has risen (not to Minneapolis levels, and it’s fairly concentrated, but it’s worse than it was).  The city feels tired, bored, and in a rut – the standard stuff you get from cities with one-party government.  The government’s stakeholders get the gold mine, and the rest of us get the shaft. 

“Back to the Widstrand case.  50 youths from at least two east-side gangs brawling in the street.  At least four people accosting a passerby and stomping him into a coma, with a swelling brain and a minimal chance of survival.  Certainly you have an opinion” - Of course I do.  I pray he recovers, and experiences a miracle among people with these sorts of awful brain injuries. 

“But isn’t this a racial incident?” - Apparently not.  No media outlet has mentioned race, so apparently nobody involved in the assault was in any way ethnic. 

“You’re wimping out, Merg!  It’s time for a Dialog about Race!” - Cut the crap.  Race, along with gender and gender orientation, is a subject where “dialog” is nonexistent; where Minnesota’s dominant culture – the radical left – has imposed a structure where the “Dialog” is always between Good (their side) and Evil.  Academia, the media, government and government’s influential stakeholders all uphold that framework at every turn. 

In other words, the “dialog” about race is the rhetorical equivalent of the “dialog” between Mr. Widstrand and his attackers.   It’s a monologue; hell, it’s really more of a rant.  And it destroys reason and civil discourse just as surely as mob beat-downs destroy peoples’ lives. 

So I’ll leave the “dialog about race” to the ranters and the masochists.  I’ll continue as I always have – treating people as individuals rather than labels, and defending myself and mine from those who don’t. 

“Speaking of defense – did you say on the radio that you’d take your gun and charge at those 50 people?” – Good God, no.  The only people who could possibly take that away from what I said on the air Saturday must have spirochaetal paresis, or have had a massive stroke. 

Nope – I said pretty much the opposite.  The way Minnesota law is set up, even though the law says you can use lethal force to defend yourself or others from death or great bodily harm, it’s a bad idea.  Partly because it’s incredibly dangerous; it’s incumbent on the “good samaritan” to only engage with the people providing the immediate threat of death or great bodily harm, and the danger of shooting someone who may well be involved, but isn’t providing an immediate threat – to say nothing of having a shot pass by and hit a completely innocent person – is just too great.  And the county attorney will pick over your response in the most pointillistic detail imaginable.  And that’s just the legal danger; there’s also the literal physical danger; while one is dealing with an immediate threat, there’s no telling how many other people will turn into immediate threats to your life and health. 

And that doesn’t even get into “Stand your Ground” issues.  In Minnesota, outside your house, you have a duty to retreat if reasonably possible to avoid using lethal force.  Even if someone’s getting kicked to death?  Well, that’s a question that the county attorney will be happy to argue over, and over, and over with your attorney, at $250 an hour, with your freedom and entire future on the line.  Will you win?  No.  Even if you win in court, you’re still going to be $50,000 or more poorer, and that’s even before the civil suits get started, and don’t get us started on the psychological impact. 

So no.  Assuming adrenaline doesn’t trigger a flight response, I’d hope for the presence of mind to call the police, and to videotape things on my phone if possible. 

Now – if Mr. Widstrand had had a gun…

…but he didn’t. 

And cases like this are among the reasons people do get their permits and carry firearms with them. 

Hypothetically.

“How about them Twins?”- Shut up.

They Warned Us…

…that if we voted for Mitt Romney, media demigogues would so poison race relations that violence would break out in the street.

And they were right:

According the victim, one of the attackers yelled, “This is for Trayvon,” during the assault. The victim suffered lacerations to the face from the attack.

Police said the suspects took the man’s wallet and iPhone. The police report lists the incident as robbery force violence, hate bias incident.

And if the victim had shot in self-defense, we could go through it all over again.

It’s All In The Perspective

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Even Black people agree that Blacks are more racist than Whites or Hispanics.

Plainly, the poll itself, is racissssssss.

Joe doakes

Well, clearly.  Because if you say you’re not racist, it means you are.

And if you say, do or thing something racist, you’re a racist – unless, apparently, you’re a liberal blogger.

GREETINGS, MN “PROGRESSIVE” PROJECT READERS:  Great to have you here.  Quick point of order, though; I don’t say racism is ”a liberal problem”.  Merely that “Dog Gone’s” rationalization of her use of the term “Uncle Tom” is itself self-indulgent, illogical and corrosively specious. 

As she says it, racism is when “You do or say something racist when you make an unfounded claim about someone on the basis of a race or an attribute to race”.  That’s just wrong.  It’s when you attribute any trait, positive or negative, to someone based on their race.  And Dog Gone’s judgment of whether something is or is not “unfounded” is the same precise logic redneck peckerwoods use when they say “N***er ain’t racist, cuz there’s black n***ers and there’s white n***ers”; in other words, the idea that using a a racist term to describe someone is ever “founded”.

And is someone going to seriously claim that the term “Uncle Tom” isn’t racist, whether you believe it’s “founded” or not?   Say what you will about Justice Thomas’ legal and personal history (liberals seem drawn to the fiction that he’s unqualified to be a SCOTUS justice, but Sonya Sotomayor is), but who out there can build a case that calling him “a slave who brown-noses his masters to curry favor” isn’t racist? Unless your name is Tom and your siblings have kids, “Uncle Tom” has no other meaning

As to her constant claim that conservatism is racist?  Leaving aside the fact that the claim is bigoted in and of itself, it’s also ideologically nonsense.  While there are no doubt conservatives who, individually, are racist (just as there are racist liberals as well – indeed, the most gleefully racist person I’ve ever personally met was a mutual acquaintance of Dog Gone’s and mine who happened to be an east-side Saint Paul DFL ward heeler), one of the bedrock tenets real conservatives observe is judging people as individuals, not by their class, gender or, yep, race. 

Martin Luther King was no conservative Republican, but he dreamed that his children would be judged by the contents of their hearts, not their color – and that (hold the stereotypes most of you no doubt romp and frolic in) is a conservative ideal. 

I’ve known Dog Gone for 20-odd years, more or less, and sincerely hope she’ll pull her mind out of the fever swamp sooner or later.  She could be better than that.

Your comments are welcome; I moderate everyone’s first comment (to cut down on spam), but unless something is slander or pointlessly inflammatory, I approve everything, because unlike certain blogs I enjoy a vigorous discussion.

Strib: Aiding And Abetting Racism?

Two weeks ago, when Representative Ryan Winkler shocked the parts of the world that can still be shocked by referring to SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas as an “Uncle Tom” – something even junior-high kids in North Dakota thirty-something years ago knew was a racist slap – the Twin Cities media did what it always does.

Cover for the Democrat. 

(And the Twin Cities leftyblogosphere?  To them, Clarence Thomas, a phenomenally accomplished man, is no different than Michelle Malkin or Star Parker or Alan West; a target for endemic bigotry first, human last, maybe.  When will Eric Pusey condem the racism on his “blog?”). 

Speaking of accomplished people, Chris Fields – a very talented politician who gave Keith Ellison as good a run as any Democrat’s had in the 5th CD lately, and is now the Secretary of the Republican Party of Minnesota and who is a businessman, a retired US Marine and, as it happens, black – wrote an editorial about how very, very objectionable the Winkler flap was.

Now, it’s the mushy institutional left, people like the Star/Tribune editorial board, that constantly remind us we need a “dialogue about race”.  Of course, when they say “dialogue”, they really mean “monologue, with our side doing all the talking and your icky conservatives doing the listening

But in re the Winkler incident, it’s seem the Strib wants no monologue, much less “dialogue”.  Chris FIelds wrote an excellent op-ed about the subject of Winkler and his ignorant racist jape.  It was picked up by other papers – the Pioneer Press and the Mankato Times both ran it (it’s below the fold here). 

But the Strib?  Not so much as an impolite “F Off”. 

Winkler, who represents the lily-white, mushy-left heard of the Strib’s prime demographic, has gotten an unqualified pass from the entire Twin Cities media, which focused on his instant contrition in a way that’d would have seemed less jarring if it were something the Strib, the City Pages or MPR ever did for, say, Todd Akin’s verbal japes or Tom Hackbarth’s post-divorce wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time awkwardness or anything Ann Coulter has ever said, in or out of context. 

But it wasn’t. 

So why didn’t the Strib run Fields’ op-ed?  Is Fields not a compelling commentator on the issue?  Is his perspective not important?  Was his op-ed not well-written and excellent food for thought?  Yes, yes and yes.

Does it afflict someone the Strib’s editorial board and their friends very much want to see remain politically comfortable?  A thousand times yes. 

And so down the memory hole it, and the entire incident, will be shoved. They have their priorities.

Fields op-ed is below the jump.

Continue reading

Our Racist Alternative Media

A comment I got off-line from a neighbor got me thinking a little more about (I puke a little in my mouth to say it) last week’s bizarre little Nick Coleman blog post.

I focused on his fabrication of facts in re the cancellation of an open carry event scheduled in conjunction with the “Open Streets” event in Minneapolis this past weekend.  Coleman – the current “Executive Editor” of lefty videoblog “The Uptake” – essentially created a story from pure vapor; in the original latin, I believe the term was “de anus“. 

But there was another aspect to the story that should draw even more brickbats – including from “Uptake” readers and putative “progressives” that actually think about what their “movement” says and how they say it.

Here’s Coleman from his piece last week – starting with his ofay classist jape:

Imagine how reassured you would feel when hundreds of bearded guys from Andover and Elko show up in North Minneapolis or the Summit-University area of St Paul (“Open Streets” events will take place in both of those communities later this summer) with Bushmasters and Brownings slung over their shoulders or Glocks and Rugers hanging from their paunches.

That Minneapolis and Saint Paul are full of vapid Prius-driving government-employed Saint Olaf grads with infinite senses of social entitlement and who’ve never had to confront the notion that there are people out there who disagree with and live life differently than you, in ways other than skin color and sexual orientation isn’t up for debate. 

But here’s the interesting bit:

Here’s a neat mental exercise: Try to imagine hundreds of inner-city residents carrying weapons at the Andover Family Fun Fest, July 13. Just because they can.

Now, as I noted last week, to Coleman – as dork-fingered and inarticulate a Studs Terkel-wannabe as has ever occupied space in a newsroom – “inner city” means “black, Latino and Asian”.  And maybe not Asian. 

And so I’d love to know what Coleman had in mind when he imagined “hundreds of inner city residents” with guns out in the suburbs. 

Is he envisioning an apples-to-apples comparison – hundreds of black, latino and asian citizens over the age of 21 with carry permits and clean criminal records and passed training classes on their resumes?  People among the 140,000 Minnesotans with valid carry permits (the application doesn’t collect ethnic data) who are several orders of magnitude less likely to commit any crime than the general public? 

People like the ones I ran into at Gander Mountain at their Carry event over the winter?   Responsible, adult citizens exercising their legal right to own and carry firearms (once deemed suitably responsible under this state’s legal code) who happened to be black, Latino or Asian?  People that I – who have lived in the Midway for 25 years, but am apparently too Anglo-Scandinavian to qualify as “inner city” – would have no qualms mingling with, armed or not, because they’re just like me – a rigorously law-abiding citizen?

Or is Coleman – grandée and resident-for-life of leafy, lily-whiter-than-Lakeville neighborhoods like Tangletown and Crocus Hill – picturing do-rag-clad teenage thug wannabees, Los Reyes with face tattoos and Hmong tough guys in “rice rocket” Honda Civics – the cliche du jour “inner city” caricature among our media’s pallid chanting classes?

If it’s the former, then I have to ask Coleman; do you think a carry permittee who happens to be black or latino is a better, more reliable citizen than your “paunchy, bearded” honky walking cliches?  Do you have any statistics to bear that out?  (Because the real stats show they’re exactly identical).

If it’s the latter, I have to ask The Uptake; do you accept this form of racism from your staff?  Especially when you layer it atop the giggly homophobia that’s been Coleman’s stock in trade for his entire career?

Because if Bradlee Dean or Jason Lewis or Michelle Fishbach had made a jape about “inner city” residents, or about how living on a submarine can turn people gay because “You have the hot cot thing going on there”, you’d be baying at the moon. 

I know, I know.  If moral consistency were a “progressive” value, “MoveOn” and Sandra Fluke would never exist as media figures, and the “Alliance for a Better Minnesota” would be utterly silent.  Asking is a purely academic exercise.

War Pigfords

The New York Times – the apogee of American journalism, yessirreebob – has reported that a government program started under the Clinton Administration to settle discrimination claims by black farmers in dealings with the Agriculture Department was rife with fraud.

It started out as a small, measured payout.   The Justice Department thought it might wind up costing less than they’d feared.

They were wrong.

On the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling, interviews and records show, the Obama administration’s political appointees at the Justice and Agriculture Departments engineered a stunning turnabout: they committed $1.33 billion to compensate not just the 91 plaintiffs but thousands of Hispanic and female farmers who had never claimed bias in court.

The deal, several current and former government officials said, was fashioned in White House meetings despite the vehement objections — until now undisclosed — of career lawyers and agency officials who had argued that there was no credible evidence of widespread discrimination. What is more, some protested, the template for the deal — the $50,000 payouts to black farmers — had proved a magnet for fraud.

“I think a lot of people were disappointed,” said J. Michael Kelly, who retired last year as the Agriculture Department’s associate general counsel. “You can’t spend a lot of years trying to defend those cases honestly, then have the tables turned on you and not question the wisdom of settling them in a broad sweep.”

You haven’t seen me say this often on this blog, but read the whole NYTimes piece.

And then ask yourself – where have you seen it before?

Oh, yeah – Andrew Breitbart covered it.

Two years ago.

And the paid leftymedia – led by Soros’ pet reporterettes at Media Matters – has spent the entire time since claming it was a symbol of conservative racism.

A Crisis Not To Be Wasted

It’s best to try to engage your opponents’ best arguments; that makes your own arguments stronger.

David Sirota’s Salon piece, “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American“,  is not one of our opponents’ better arguments:

As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing — the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity — the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks. That’s because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are — and are not — collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.

According to Sirota, “white privilege” has prevented white males from coming under the sort of scrutiny that, say, Arabs have for ghastly crimes.

This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes. 

Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats — the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.

Yeah, it could be the “white privilege”.

Or it could be the fact that nearly all of the Arab mass murderers – from Major Hassan up to the 9/11 hijackers - have actually been members of, or allegedly explicit sympathizers with, major extranational military/terror movements, while the white males have represented tiny fringes of tiny fringes of our society:

By contrast, even though America has seen a consistent barrage of attacks from domestic non-Islamic terrorists, the privilege and double standards baked into our national security ideologies means those attacks have resulted in no systemic action of the scope marshaled against foreign terrorists.

“Consistent barrage?”

The examples Sirota gives (drawn from the lefty idiotblog Crooks and Liars - the only blog in the world that can’t shake its head at what dolts the Daily Kos diary writers are) are largely lone crazies, many of them implicated in “white supremacy” by the thinnest of threads; some of them (John Patrick Bedell) are actually lefties; the article itself considered the Gabby Giffords shooting a “terror attack”.

And beyond that?

In fact, it has been quite the opposite — according to Darryl Johnson, the senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security, the conservative movement backlash to merely reporting the rising threat of such domestic terrorism resulted in DHS seriously curtailing its initiatives against that particular threat.

Sirota is apparently writing to an audience of the addled; DHS Secretary Napolitano’s “reporting” (along with her camp followers at the Southern Poverty Law Center) was less “reporting” than “releasing a list of groups that opposed the Democrats”.  The right was correct to mock both “efforts”.

Is there an element of “racism” in the way our society treats crime?  Sure – although the term might better be called “we-ism”.  Everyone in the world is a “we-ist”; they’re more tolerant of people who look, speak and act more like them, and less tolerant of those who don’t.  It’s true of everyone; middle-class black professionals are twitchy around urban Latinos; alpaca-clad Volvo-driving fashionably-gray NPR-listening upper-middle-class white liberals get nervous around leather-wearing Bud-drinking bikers.  Our society is still largely white, and the male half of that majority is, well, male; to the extent that the idea of a “white male majority” includes both David Sirota and, well, me, I guess you could say “we” are more forgiving of people like “us”, whoever they are.

So you could chalk this up to “white privilege”.

Or maybe to the fact that so many Arabs who’ve attacked us have expressed sympathy with the goals of the groups that attacked us in 9/11 (notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of American Arabs are no less American than anyone in Bemidji), while the vast majority of “white terror” suspects have indeed been lone wolves (I mean, if you’re going by evidence rather than Sirota’s fervent, nearly evidence-free wish that it were otherwise) might have something to do with it.

Chanting Points Memo: Only The Master Gets To Write Gun Control Laws

Over the years on this blog, I’ve made certain observations about human behavior as manifested through online media, like blogs and Twitter.

I’ve captured and codifed some of these observations as “Berg’s Law“, a series of common observations that I’m pretty sure are universal.

One of the most commonly-invoked Laws is “Berg’s Seventh Law”, which states “When a Liberal issues a group defamation or assault on conservatives’ ethics, character or respect for liberty or the truth, they are at best projecting, and at worst drawing attention away from their own misdeeds”.

I’ve rung up quite a number of occurrences of Berg’s 7th over the years. And I’ve found another.

Big-time.

Continue reading

Even Kanye West Couldn’t Say This

Yesterday we published the now-infamous (albeit still ignored-by-the-MSM) video of Barack Obama’s Kanye-West-like speech to a group of African-American activists about the racism tied to the aid to Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina.

As Paul Mirengoff notes, not only was it racist, it was completely false:

Obama’s claim was false. A few weeks before Obama gave his Hampton speech, Congress had waived the Stafford Act in connection with $6.9 billion in federal aid for New Orleans.

But it gets worse for Obama. Neo-neocon points out that Obama was one of 14 Senators who voted against the waiver of the Stafford Act. So not only was Obama’s complaint false, it was one he would have lacked standing to raise, given his vote on the issue.

Now, Obama voted against the Stafford Act waiver because it was part of a bill providing funds for the war effort in Iraq. Apparently, Obama’s desire to make sure the surge failed and we lost to al Qaeda in Iraq trumped his concern for the good people of New Orleans. Or maybe it was all posturing, Obama’s specialty, since he knew the money would go to Iraq and the Stafford Act would be waived regardless of how he voted.

Perhaps Obama should have voted “present.”

I suggest all of the above, plus the fact that being a Democrat in Chicago means never being accountable to anyone.

Of course, the mainstream media does their best to keep that going nationally.  It’s just gotten a lot harder to do that.

The Most Insulting Delusion…

… not to mention dumbest conceit that the left has is that so many of them think that if I were given a choice in a race between two candidates – namely:

  • A black Taoist lesbian who was a fierce Austrian-school trench-fighter with a solid private-sector background and a record as a spending hawk and tax reformer, and…
  • A white Ivy League dweeb with impeccable liberal credentials…

…that I’d try to find some excuse to vote for the white guy.

Just isn’t so

Cracker Like Me

The folks at the U of M-Duluth might be glad the whole “flood” thing happened.  It’ll draw attention away from their latest squandering of taxpayer money – to draw attention to white privilege:

The University of Minnesota – Duluth (UMD) is now sponsoring an ad-campaign designed to achieve “racial justice” by raising awareness of “white privilege.”

The project disseminates its message, that “society was setup for us [whites]” and as such is “unfair,” through an aggressive campaign of online videos, billboards, and lectures. The ads feature a number of Caucasians confessing their guilt for the supposed “privilege” that comes along with their fair features.

That’s right, UMD.  I’m “sorry” my anscestors were born in an ethnic group native to nations that subscribed to a worldview that exalted the individual and found no moral conundrum with the creation of individual wealth (outside of royalty).  I’m sorry – no scare quotes – that other societies on this planet didn’t have such a philosophy, and thus failed to thrive, and either exploited their own people or were unable to protect their people from being shanghaied and sold into slavery by their neighbors.

Beyond that?  Sorry that my culture fought the bloodiest war in its history to resolve – partially and imperfectly – the issue.

Sorry that, notwithstanding that racism is one of the maze of “We-isms” that every single human being on earth, from David Duke to Nina Totenberg, has, and that my culture has done more than any other significant cutlure on earth to try to overcome that natural human trait.

Please forgive me, asshole.

Campus Reform asks you…:

Call the school and voice your opinion at (218) 726-7106 or send an e-mail to chan@d.umn.edu. Tell them Campus Reform sent you.

The self-titled Un-Fair Campaign, is sponsored and supported by the University of Minnesota – Duluth, along with several liberal organizations including the NAACP, YWCA, and The League of Woman Voters.

And this is your tax dollar at work.

And it’s part of an ongoing pattern at UMD:

Documents obtained exclusively by Campus Reform this week, through a public records request, however, show that students on campus have expressed outrage over the administration’s support of the racially-charged campaign.

One student, whose identity was redacted in the documents released by UMD, e-mailed Chancellor Black expressing his discontent, writing that the Un-fair campaign “is in fact UNFAIR.”

The student proceeded to write: “It may be drawing awareness to factors that we might otherwise not pay attention to, but it’s creating a gap between people. It’s only making people more racist on both sides.”

Campus Reform contacted the school seeking further comment, but was unable to reach a spokesperson for comment by the time of publication.

Perhaps one white Duluthian had the right idea:

Berlin, the Lake Superior Zoo's polar bear, freed by the flood, but not for long enough to escape the madhouse that is Duluth.