Today’s IOKIYAR: Asian Parody Edition

Hey I know we’re all accustomed to hearing Rush Limbaugh spew intolerant, racist, bigoted nonsense. It’s like, “Really? In other news, water is still wet.”

So I really didn’t give two thoughts to Rush’s mockery of Chinese President Hu Jintao or the Chinese language, which he did not once but twice and which went on and on and on and on for what felt like a painful eternity.

But something seemed awfully familiar about the whole thing, and then I remembered when Rosie O’Donnell was raked over the coals by conservatives for essentially the same thing. Michelle Malkin, I recall, took special umbrage at O’Donnell’s insensitivity, even calling her an “obnoxious hypocrite” in this video:



So I’m sure Malkin will be all over Rush Limbaugh, right? Ha ha, don’t be silly. That stuff is just for liberals! IOKIYAR.

Okay, big deal. Conservatives are always reaching for their Faux Umbrage Concern Kits when a liberal does something, then looking the other way when a conservative like Limbaugh does the exact same thing. But I'm really sick of this stuff. And it's not just the conservative media, either.

When Rosie O’Donnell does something like this, it’s front page news everywhere! It sparked a huge outcry from all quarters: the Asian American Journalists Assn., New York City Councilman John Liu, even hitting tabloids like People magazine. Liu even sent Barbara Walters this letter demanding that she hold O’Donnell accountable. It was a huge freaking deal and we didn’t hear the end of it for a week until O’Donnell had apologized three times.

Why is there no outrage about Limbaugh’s comments, save from the usual lefty quarters -- Media Matters and the like? Why no articles in People magazine or demands for accountability from the Asian American community? Are we just so accustomed to Limbaugh saying racially charged, offensive things that he gets a pass? Why? Why does he get a pass? Why the double standard?

Mind you, I’m not saying Rosie O’Donnell shouldn’t have faced criticism for her parody in the national media, but if that's the case then Limbaugh should too. It's always this way and it's pissing me off. Why is the Left always held to a higher standard than the guy who makes $40 million a year and has one of the highest rated radio and TV shows in the country and who is basically the de facto leader of the Republican Party because every time he says "jump" they say "how high?" Why is accountability always, always a one-way street in the national discourse? Why is the media always so quick to make an icon of the Left look bad, and so quick to ignore it when someone on the right does the same thing?

And here's another thing: if the right wingers are going to call for the fainting couches every time a liberal does something, but completely ignore it when one of their folks does the exact same thing, doesn't that signal an utter lack of credibility? Shouldn't we just ignore them the next time they call for the the Faux Umbrage Concern Kits? Why are right wing pundits never called to account for that?

I know, you may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one! I'm just tired of seeing this same play over and over again.

Courage & Anger

Frank Rich’s column yesterday, “Gay Bashing At The Smithsonian,” brings to mind an issue which has troubled me for some time. And that’s the issue of courage.

Rich discusses the removal of the late artist David Wojnarowicz’s work from an exhibit at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery. He writes:

When his mentor and former lover, the photographer Peter Hujar, fell ill with AIDS in 1987, Wojnarowicz created a video titled “A Fire in My Belly” to express both his grief and his fury. As in Haring’s altarpiece, Christ figures in Wojnarowicz’s response to the plague — albeit in a cryptic, 11-second cameo. A crucifix is besieged by ants that evoke frantic souls scurrying in panic as a seemingly impassive God looked on.

This is the piece that was originally included in the Smithsonian’s exhibition, "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture," which is advertised as “a serious examination of the role sexual identity has played in the creation of modern American portraiture.” The National Portrait Gallery yanked “Fire in My Belly” from its exhibit in early December after the Smithsonian caved to a manufactured piece of outrage which I daresay few Americans even heard about.

Back to Rich:

Like many of its antecedents, the war over Wojnarowicz is a completely manufactured piece of theater. What triggered the abrupt uproar was an incendiary Nov. 29 post on a conservative Web site. The post was immediately and opportunistically seized upon by William Donohue, of the so-called Catholic League, a right-wing publicity mill with no official or financial connection to the Catholic Church.

[...]

It took only hours after Donohue’s initial battle cry for the video to be yanked. “The decision wasn’t caving in,” the museum’s director, Martin E. Sullivan, told reporters. Of course it was. The Smithsonian, in its own official statement, rationalized its censorship by saying that Wojnarowicz’s video “generated a strong response from the public.” That’s nonsense. There wasn’t a strong response from the public — there was no response. As the museum’s own publicist told the press, the National Portrait Gallery hadn’t received a single complaint about “A Fire in the Belly” from the exhibit’s opening day, Oct. 30, until a full month later, when a “public” that hadn’t seen the exhibit was mobilized by Donohue to blast the museum by phone and e-mail.

The museum caved. They caved. Why?

Time and again we see groups (and politicians) cave in the face of such obviously manufactured political theater. Where is the courage? Who thinks capitulation is a winning strategy, that it does nothing more than ensure future fake campaigns?

Why was Shirley Sherrod asked to resign so quickly last summer? Why was Van Jones thrown under the bus? Why do our Democratic leaders and institutions cave to the right wing noise machine, time and time again?

Why do they act so afraid that some pundit somewhere is saying something mean about them?

The fact that Republicans are allowed to do the same (or worse) without any pearl-clutching in the media proves how politically motivated these “fauxtrages” are. It’s all about framing, fear-mongering, indulging in stereotypes and retreading that well-worn path allowing the majority to pretend it is a persecuted minority, thus redirecting anger to a more politically expedient target.

Yes, it pisses me off. And with all of that swirling around in my head I turned the page and read Ishmael Reed’s op-ed piece in the same issue of the New York Times (expanded upon at blogs like my second home, The Swash Zone). Apparently, progressives calling for President Obama (and other Democrats) to show some backbone in the face of unprecedented GOP obstructionism need to STFU because we simply don’t understand what it’s like to be a black person in America:

One progressive commentator played an excerpt from a Harry Truman speech during which Truman screamed about the Republican Party to great applause. He recommended this style to Mr. Obama. If President Obama behaved that way, he’d be dismissed as an angry black militant with a deep hatred of white people. His grade would go from a B- to a D.

What the progressives forget is that black intellectuals have been called “paranoid,” “bitter,” “rowdy,” “angry,” “bullies,” and accused of tirades and diatribes for more than 100 years. Very few of them would have been given a grade above D from most of my teachers.

Um, here’s a news flash for you: President Obama has already been dismissed as an angry black militant with a deep hatred of white people. Or haven’t you been listening to Glenn Beck, the very same right wing commentator who cost Van Jones his job? Were you paying attention when Ben Stein came out and called then-candidate Barack Obama an angry black man on Fox News in 2008? No? Well, we progressives were, and we countered those accusations every time. Where were you?

Look, the “angry” label is nothing new, nor is it unique to black intellectuals. Maybe you weren’t paying attention when Republicans called Hillary Clinton “too angry” to win a presidential election in 2008. Karl Rove called Al Gore “one angry dude.” Howard Dean was too angry to be president in 2004 and here he is screaming after a primary win to prove it! We’re “the angry left,” and voters “don’t elect angry candidates,” as former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman famously told ABC News. (For some reason anger isn’t a negative for the Tea Party, though -- despite their guns and Town Hall shouting matches and hanging representatives in effigy. IOKIYAR.)

I get that there is a strategy among those in power exploiting cultural stereotypes and stoking fear of the “angry black male” to oppress black advancement in this country. That's the same reason we hear women are too emotional and gays are pedophiles and all Muslims are terrorists. We all have our baggage and yes, some people’s baggage might be heavier than others. But that doesn’t mean we capitulate to it. Caving to the whims of the hate machine which makes these erroneous claims does not make them go away. It enables them!

This is standard issue right wing framing. Liberals have been labeled “angry” (even “too angry”) for decades, and guess what, we are angry. We were angry when protestors rioted at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago and we were angry when we protested the Vietnam War and we were angry when we burned our bras in the 1970s and we were angry when we protested apartheid in the 1980s and we were angry when we protested the WTO conference in Seattle in 2000. Hell we were so angry over the stolen election in 2000 and subsequent Bush presidential misdeeds that we created a bumper sticker about it, which the Tea Party has conveniently co-opted.

It’s okay to be angry. Angry people get things done. I just never understood why being angry was supposed to be a bad thing, anyway. Just because the RNC says it is?

So no, I’m not going to tell Democrats not to be angry because Tweety might have a sad or Joke Line may wring his hands about frothy-mouthed liberal bloggers. Getting angry is okay, if you are fighting for your principles.

This is where courage comes in. Getting back to Ishmael Reed’s op-ed, I have to say I was mighty offended when I read this:

Unlike white progressives, blacks and Latinos are not used to getting it all. They know how it feels to be unemployed and unable to buy your children Christmas presents. They know when not to shout. The president, the coolest man in the room, who worked among the unemployed in Chicago, knows too.

Well damn, there’s a stereotype for you! Here’s a news flash for Mr. Reed: not all white progressives are used to getting it all, either. And I’ll be damned if I’ll be lectured on stereotypes by someone who can’t even recognize one when it pops out of his own keyboard.

Stand up and show some backbone, Democrats. Don’t cave to the right wing noise machine. Don't agree to a political approach which neuters liberal outrage, and only allows conservatives to get angry. Every time you do so progress takes a step back. Every capitulation emboldens the opposition. It's OK to be angry and it's even better to use that anger to harden your resolve.

And I guarantee you that the Republicans are going to say mean things about you. You can take that to the bank. You know what? They're going to say mean things anyway.

No You Cannot Be Racist Assholes. Deal With It

Dr. Laura is the latest in a long line of conservative personalities who are really just pissed off they can’t be intolerant assholes:

On Tuesday’s show, Schlessinger repeated the N-word several times after a caller, identified as Jade, asked if the word was offensive. “Black guys say it all the time,” Schlessinger, who never directed the word at the caller, said. When the woman objected, Schlessinger commented: “Oh, then I guess you don’t watch HBO or listen to any black comedians.”

Dr. Laura has since been forced to apologize for her repeated use of the N word on the air.

This is a really big issue for conservatives. It is, indeed, how Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage and the rest of the right wing talkers gained their fame, by tapping into this nascent feeling among a large number of people that they should be allowed to say whatever racist, bigoted, rude, obnoxious thing they want and suffer no consequences.

It’s the whole “PC” war all over again. They just never got over it, never wanted to accept the fact that white America is no longer the gatekeeper to American culture. Whites have to share a seat at the table with other races, other sexual orientations, other genders. Maybe the N word was used more commonly in the 1960s but so were separate water fountains and segregated movie theaters. If you can't connect those two then you really are beyond help.

I just never understood why people are confused about this. The argument that African Americans use the N word to refer to themselves is completely specious. So what? I can call myself a fat ass all day long, I might even let a family member get away with calling me fat ass, but that doesn’t mean I want someone I don’t know coming up to me and saying, “pardon me, fat ass,” or “hey fat ass, do you know what time it is?” (Disclaimer: I am not equating "fat ass" with "nigger," and am well aware of the institutionalized oppression the latter term represents versus the former. Analogies by definition are inelegant.)

Seriously, this is hard for you people to understand? I have lesbian friends who refer to themselves as “dykes” and you will even hear phrases like “dyke drama”; I know gay men who use the word “queen.” That doesn’t mean they will take kindly to a straight person calling them dykes and queens on talk radio.

Just because some Latinos may use the word “vato,” that doesn’t mean everyone should. Context, people, context. Words can have two meanings. Words can be friendly or derogatory, depending on how they are used and who uses them. When in doubt, don’t. This stuff isn’t that hard, folks.

Look, we have free speech in this country, so say whatever you want. But if it’s offensive to people, then expect to be called on it. And no, you can’t whine and bitch and moan when they do. You just look like bigger assholes.

The Horror & The Stupidity

Hey, conservatives:

Just because they didn't use a rope, that doesn't mean it wasn't a lynching.

I can't believe we have to explain this to you people.

Fool You Once

Erick Erickson agrees: Why haven't we learned not to trust these people?

Can we all now agree that Andrew Breitbart completely lacks any credibility whatsoever?

Initially, she said, "I didn't give him the full force of what I could do" and only gave him enough help to keep his case progressing. Eventually, she said, his situation "opened my eyes" that whites were struggling just like blacks, and helping farmers wasn't so much about race but was "about the poor versus those who have."

Sherrod said Tuesday the incomplete video appears to intentionally twist her message. She says she became close friends with the farmer and helped him for two years.

In the full 43-minute video of her speech released by the NAACP Tuesday evening, Sherrod tells the story of her father's death in 1965, saying he was killed by white men who were never charged. She says she made a commitment to stay in the South the night of her father's death, despite the dreams she had always had of leaving her rural town.

"When I made that commitment I was making that commitment to black people and to black people only," she said. "But you know God will show you things and he'll put things in your path so that you realize that the struggle is really about poor people."

Sherrod said in the speech that working with Spooner, who she does not name, changed her entire outlook.

"She's always been nice and polite and considerate. She was just a good person," Eloise Spooner said. "She did everything she could trying to help."

Thank you. Even right-wingers are distancing themselves from the Assclown of Asshattery.

And the NAACP has retracted its initial statement and issued a new one:

With regard to the initial media coverage of the resignation of USDA Official Shirley Sherrod, we have come to the conclusion we were snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart into believing she had harmed white farmers because of racial bias.

Having reviewed the full tape, spoken to Ms. Sherrod, and most importantly heard the testimony of the white farmers mentioned in this story, we now believe the organization that edited the documents did so with the intention of deceiving millions of Americans.   

The fact is Ms. Sherrod did help the white farmers mentioned in her speech.  They personally credit her with helping to save their family farm. 

Moreover, this incident and the lesson it prompted occurred more than 20 years before she went to work for USDA.

Finally, she was sharing this account as part of a story of transformation and redemption. In the full video, Ms.Sherrod says she realized that the dislocation of farmers is about “haves and have nots.”  

"It’s not just about black people, it’s about poor people," says Sherrod in the speech. “We have to get to the point where race exists but it doesn’t matter.”

This is a teachable moment, for activists and for journalists.

“Teachable moment,” indeed. How many "teachable moments" do we need? I’m sorry, but after the whole ACORN thing was revealed to be a sham, and then the whole trying-to-bug Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office thing, I just have to ask: why would anyone take Breitbart seriously? He has established that he has a political agenda.

Duh, people. He thinks you’re stupid. And unless this wrong is righted, he’s been proved correct. Because you don’t ask someone to resign when it’s been established that they were set up. You give them their job back and beg for forgiveness. The assholes here are Tom Vilsack and Andrew Breitbart: two different sides of the same coin.

I mean for crying out loud, they aren't "teachable moments" unless someone finally learns a fucking lesson.

What If The Tea Party Was Black?

... holding guns, like the Black Panther party was back? It’s the question we’ve all been wondering.

Via Oliver Willis:



One might also ask, what if the Tea Party were Hispanic, like those huge rallies back in 2006? Ah yes, I remember the classic right wing response.

Arizona: What The Hell Is Wrong With You People?

Apparently a mural depicting the ethnic makeup of an elementary school offended an Arizona city councilman, who also happens to have a talk radio show. He stirred up a shitstorm, causing the principal of the school to ask the artists to make the children's faces “happier” and “brighter”:

In a broadcast last month, according to the Daily Courier in Prescott, Blair mistakenly complained that the most prominent child in the painting is African-American, saying: "To depict the biggest picture on the building as a Black person, I would have to ask the question: Why?"

Blair could not be reached for comment Thursday. In audio archives of his radio show, Blair discusses the mural. He insists the controversy isn't about racism but says the mural is intended to create racial controversy where none existed before.

What an asshat. First of all, the most prominent child in the mural isn’t African American, he’s Hispanic. Secondly, it’s a teensy bit disingenuous to create controversy about a mural on your radio show, then complain the mural was painted only to be controversial.

Thirdly:

Faces in the mural were drawn from photographs of children enrolled at Miller Valley, a K-5 school with 380 students and the highest ethnic mix of any school in Prescott. Wall said thousands of town residents volunteered or donated to the project, the fourth in a series of community murals painted by a group of artists known as the "Mural Mice."

I’d say somebody will be lucky to get elected dog catcher in the next election. (And just as an aside, why is it that any nutjob who wants to open his pie hole about uppity brown people can get a radio show?)

Finally, the most hilarious thing of all is that this mural had nothing to do with race; it was painted to promote a “green transportation” campaign.

Of course, we in Nashville are no stranger to mural controversies: last year the Jefferson Street mural commemorating Nashville’s Freedom Riders was defaced multiple times. But at least we didn’t have a city councilman calling for its removal.

Sheesh.

Time To Party Like It's 1985

Once upon a time popular music artists were able to change the world and become a powerful voice for justice. That was 25 years ago, and while many of you whippersnappers are too young to remember the Artists United Against Apartheid campaign, let me say, it was a big, big deal.

So fast forward 25 years and here we are. How ironic that there is, in fact, a Sun City in Arizona. Might be time for some of the big names in music to rethink their summer tour stops.

Frankly, I was surprised that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed that horrid immigration law yesterday, but I don’t live in Arizona and I don’t know Brewer. Yes, immigration reform is needed and there are some issues at play which make this situation different from the apartheid law musicians protested 25 years ago.

But come on, folks. It all comes from the same place. And if we’re not vigilant and nip this crap in the bud, we just need to look back to 1985 to see exactly where it leads.

Unhinged

[UPDATE 2]: Meet "Solly Forrell", the "death Tweeter" mentioned at the bottom of this post. Apparently he is rethinking that assassination thing. Might have something to do with a Secret Service investigation.

------------------------------

Wondering how much longer our mainstream media will try to mainstream the racists, bigots and whackjobs that are the bulk of the Tea Party movement:

WASHINGTON — Demonstrators outside the U.S. Capitol, angry over the proposed health care bill, shouted "nigger" Saturday at U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia congressman and civil rights icon who was nearly beaten to death during an Alabama march in the 1960s.

Protesters also shouted obscenities at other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, spat on at least one black lawmaker and confronted an openly gay congressman with taunts.

This after Tea Party protestors mock a man with Parkinson’s.

Cue the right wingers’ retort that “liberals are mean too!” Yeah, we might be big fat meanies but unhinged hostility seems to dominate the Tea Bag crowd. It was on full display in Nashville last month.

[UPDATE]: Hey Blue Dogs: you really want to cast your lots with this crowd?

Institutionalized Racism, Media Edition

There’s a lament going around the intertubes imploring the media to stop calling earthquake refugees who have lost everything and are trying to get food and supplies “looters.” And I for one am glad that ordinary people are aware and sensitive to this even if our news media is not. Perhaps our media elites could learn a few things from us regular folks, who seem to be a little savvier than we are given credit for being.

Remember those reports of looters breaking into the UN warehouses? Turns out, not so much:

Some 6,000 tons of food aid will be distributed shortly in Haiti, a U.N. spokeswoman said Friday, adding that reports that U.N. warehouses in Haiti had been looted were overblown.

Officials checked four U.N. food agency warehouses in the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince on Friday after receiving reports from local partners of looting, said Emilia Casella, a World Food Program spokeswoman.

"The food is there," Casella told The Associated Press. "They are also working on getting a peacekeeper contingent to secure the locations."

Well, isn’t that special. We just knew “those people” were going to loot, didn’t we?

Of course, this doesn’t mean that all is peachy keen in Haiti. The people there have suffered a horrific disaster. Tens of thousands are without food, clean water, and supplies of any kind. People trying to survive are not “looters,” they are disaster refugees. So, dear Western media, please check your elitism (and labels) at the door and cut these folks some slack as you follow up on every rumor you hear.

Check out this story from the Wall Street Journal. In addition to the banner headline, the story refers to “looter” and “looting” no less than a dozen times. These are people trying to get food, soap and wash basins from a grocery store, not carting off television sets. In a few cases, store owners actually helped distribute the supplies:

Still, just a few blocks away on the road, a store owner was calmly overseeing an orderly emptying of his broken shop. He was using a kind of bucket-brigade of some 30 young men stretching over the store's shattered roof, handing out goods can by can.

Is it looting when the store owner is actually handing the stuff out?

Of course, I’m immediately reminded of this media low point from Hurricane Katrina. The Associated Press labeled a photo of a black man wading through chest-high water as “looting” a grocery store, while a virtually identical photo of a white couple identified them as “finding food.” Apparently the only difference between “finding” and “looting” is the color of someone’s skin.

This is an example of the subtle racism and “framing” that goes on in our culture on a daily basis, and rarely gets questioned. Our media elites happily flogged the Harry Reid “Negro dialect” fauxtroversy, getting wrapped up in the minutiae of a dog and pony show while never addressing the actual topic of racism the opportunity presented. And God forbid they should look at the actual racism that exists in their own organizations.

So it’s left to the blogs, once again. Over at Future Majority I found this interesting post about how the media reinforces racial and class stereotypes when it covers disasters like Haiti and Katrina. Here’s a quote from Dr. Kathleen Tierney, professor of sociology and behavioral science and director of the Natural Hazard Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder:

There is an institutionalized racism in the way these poor black disaster victims are treated. The victims of Katrina were treated with so much presumption, as if you could assume they were going to loot, because they were black. Just like we know that the people in Haiti are bad because they’re black. Black men especially are demonized. During Katrina, the media picked up on every rumor—whether it was raped four-year-olds in the Superdome or people shooting each other. Actually, for a paper me and a couple of my graduate students wrote called “Metaphors Matter,” we found some transcripts of TV programs in which members of the media expressed regret. They were saying, “We really blew it during Katrina; we acted on all of these rumors.” I myself was on Jim Lehrer’s show, where they were asking about the looting [in Katrina], and I got into it with a police officer, and he ended up agreeing with me that it was a myth. It’s not real...

I appreciate that reporters on the ground in a place like Port-au-Prince or New Orleans post-Katrina are doing an extraordinarily difficult job under harsh circumstances. And I don’t know how much of this kind of “framing” is a product of the biases of those on the ground, or their editors/producers safely back home.

I just know that we have to stop reverting to type and repeating these same stereotypes about people in the grip of unimaginable suffering.

Think Of The Children

You gays wanting to get married will just have to get in line because we still have a Justice of the Peace in Louisiana who won’t perform interracial marriages. But don’t call Justice Keith Bardwell racist; he’s just thinking about the children:

”I'm not a racist. ... I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house. My main concern is for the children."

See, this is exactly what I was saying yesterday when I spoke about “colorblind racism”: it’s nothing personal and everyone will get along just fine as long as everyone remembers their place!

I first heard about this on Bill Maher’s show last night. Maher was spot-on when he said it’s because Bardwell “doesn’t want any more Barack Obama’s running around.” Says Bardwell:

Bardwell said from his experience, “99 percent of the time” the interracial couple consists of a black man and white woman.

“

I find that rather confusing,” he said.

He said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. Bardwell said he came to the conclusion that most black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society.

Bardwell clearly has an indefensible position here. But so do a lot of other people involved in this story. For example, apparently the state attorney general knew about it and basically just told him to watch his back:

He said the state attorney general told him years ago that he would eventually get into trouble for not performing interracial marriages.



“I told him if I do, I’ll resign,” Bardwell said. “I have rights too. I’m not obligated to do that just because I’m a justice of the peace.”

I would love to know which AG it was who knew Bardwell was openly violating the law and did nothing about it. You know, that’s a form of racism, too.


(h/t Eclectic Radical)

Because What America Really Needs Is Yet Another Teachable Moment About Race!

I was pretty busy yesterday so I just caught a snippet of the uproar over how Rush Limbaugh was denied his constitutional right to be a part owner of an NFL team. I think the only thing preventing this from being a bigger story was the Balloon Boy thing and for that, at least, the Heene family has my thanks.

In fact, it was in trying to escape Balloon Boy coverage that I channel-surfed my way to MSNBC, only to see Al Sharpton and Pat Buchanan arguing about it.

Oh, geez.

Well, that kind of tells us all we need to know about how Hardball’s producers saw this story: another chance to go 10 rounds on the race debate! Pass the popcorn or maybe we should all reach for our politically correct beers? It’s another “teachable moment,” America! Cripes.

Seriously, MSNBC: just how productive can another Sharpton v. Buchanan debate on race really be?

I just caught Sharpton saying

The people that thought he was an asset began to think he was a liability. He’s trying now to make this like this is some wounding of American conservatism, he was rejected by his own partners, ultimately.

at which point the conversation was handed to Pat Buchanan who sputtered something about how it was “shabby,” “vindictive,” “petty,” and “disgusting.” With Pat Buchanan fast running out of adjectives, I switched back to Balloon Boy.

Basically I was able to glean that conservatives think this was all liberals’ fault (Red State’s take was pure comedy gold.) Aside from rolling my eyes and thinking “we get blamed for everything!, what is there really to say to an allegation like that? What did we do? Did we create an environment where Limbaugh’s racist rants are deemed inappropriate? If we did, good for us. But I never thought that was a liberal thing; I thought that was a decent people thing.

My mistake.

Despite all of the “teachable moments” our news media gives us, I’m going to agree with Adam Serwer, who pointed out yesterday that a big chunk of the right seems awfully confused about what racism is.

Writes Serwer :

On the one hand, there's the general anxiety on the right that comes from the recognition that one can't actually treat black people this way and expect there not to be social consequences. On the other, there's actual bewilderment about the very concept of racism -- conservatives understand in the abstract that racism is bad, but they seem incapable of identifying actual racist behavior. Instead, because (a) racism is bad and (b) liberals are bad (c) racism is a quality possessed by liberals. By definition, conservatives cannot be racist, because they are good, unlike liberals, and therefore nothing Rush Limbaugh says is racist. Moreover, while liberals have sometimes intimated racial motivation for conservative criticism where there isn't any, conservatives have refused to recognize when attacks on the president become attacks on black people. Calling the president "an angry black guy" is one of those times.

I do think that’s it in a nutshell. The noisy fringe of the conservative base, which tends to view everything two-dimensionally, does seem unable to identify actual racism. Take Rush’s younger brother David Limbaugh, a conservative writer and columnist for Townhall.com as well as the ultra-right wing website Newsmax. He called Maureen Dowd and Jimmy Carter racists because, as he wrote back in September:

I ask you: Who is more likely racist, the person who sees race every time she turns around or the person who aspires toward colorblindness?

Whaa...? So you’re saying you’re not racist, you’re just stupid?

You know, the opposite of racism is not being colorblind, especially in this day and age when “colorblind” is a nonexistent, unattainable ideal. So while you may strive all you like, you won’t get there by using “colorblind” to excuse your own racism.

In fact, what David Limbaugh and his ilk display is what's called "colorblind racism”. And no, I'm not making this up. Stephen Colbert parodied it beautifully with the bit about how he thought he might have a black friend but couldn’t be sure because he doesn’t see race. However, if anyone called him racist he’d be sure to show them a picture of himself with his black friend.

Hilarious. Those who write about colorblind racism say the “colorblind” argument has been used as a cover for a more nefarious kind of racism, the kind that says one group of people is allowed to continue to oppress another group because they have decided racism is a “thing of the past.”

This is not about race so much as power; the group that has traditionally held it is unwilling to give it up, and they don’t care what race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. that you may be. Progress! Sure, your kids can attend the same school as theirs, but let’s make sure everyone knows their roles, okay? You stay in your social and economic place with the limited opportunities parsed out to you and leave the rest of the pie for the folks who have traditionally gobbled it up.

For some reason we never seem to get to the “power” part of the race conversation. A big reason is because having Al Sharpton and Pat Buchanan offer “two sides” of the Limbaugh issue doesn’t educate anyone about anything except that our news media is dominated by a bunch of buffoons.

So, back to Rush Limbaugh. Like Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and the rest of the right-wing gabbers, he’s spent his entire career chasing headlines by being controversial. The price for that is when you step outside your little bubble you run across business partners who don’t view controversy as a selling point. It might sell books, but controversy doesn’t sell football.

Rush just got smacked by the free hand of the market. His business partners didn’t want problems with sponsors, issues with the players and all the baggage that comes with having a controversial figure as a partner.

Sorry, dude. Don’t blame liberals, though. Maybe what Rush Limbaugh needs from this "teachable moment" is a little personal responsibility.

Suffer The Little Children

Southern Female Lawyer has written a post that just breaks my heart.

What is the point of all the battles over de-segregation and all of the ground gained over the past 30 years if we’re going to self-segregate anyway? I certainly can’t fault anyone for doing what they think is best for their children and I’m grateful I don’t have to face such a decision. But the entire conundrum depresses me.

Fear is such a nefarious thing. We make so many fear-based decisions, and we think we’re doing the right thing, but really all we’re doing is shutting off the possibility for good to bloom in the world. To use a Christian term, we’re shutting off grace.

I read of this situation and I think of two children who could learn something from each other, and in so doing, maybe break the cycle of fear and hate that runs unfettered through our communities.

But what if it doesn’t work out that way? What if the children learn bad things from each other, what if prejudice and hate bloom in the world instead? We can’t know how it will turn out; we simply must have faith.

I think this is what Jesus meant when he said

“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

To act in faith despite fear, to be a peacemaker and changemaker despite fear, to stand in the gap for a righteous cause despite fear, these are the lessons of Jesus. Not, you know, crap like this.

How do we keep getting it wrong?

I don't think God wants us to retreat to our separate corners and stew in our hate and mistrust. Maybe as adults we're too set in our ways to change. And sometimes it just takes more faith and courage than we can muster to let our children "come to him."

It's enough to break your heart.

They Just Can’t Help Themselves

Conservative political/media strategist/Red State co-founder Joshua Trevino, on Twitter just now:

Oh, that’s just lovely. Which makes this ringing endorsement at the Trevino Strategies’ website so much more ironic:

“Josh Trevino is one of the most important members of a rising generation of thoughtful conservatives. Josh's analysis is consistently clear headed and refreshingly objective. It is never tendentious but always effective in making the point. In reading Josh you always feel as if the last words that need to be said on any particular have been said. ...”

Indeed.

America The Awkward

I’m so glad we have an African-American president and gay marriage in five (or is it six?) states and all of the other things that prove America has moved past its historic squeamishness of all things non-white, non-straight and non-male.

That means we can ignore people like the Family Action Council of Tennessee’s David Fowler, who objects to a proposed ordinance that would protect Metro Nashville GLBT employees from discrimination on the grounds that it would be “awkward”:

Asked about the unintended consequences, he said passage of a bill would lead to lawsuits and confusion and awkward situations, citing a recent publicized case in Maine in which a transgender student who was biologically a boy was allowed to use the girls restroom.

For the perfect takedown of this idiocy, read Aunt B. I just loved the whole “awkward situations” thing, though. Heavens, we can’t have that. Let’s make sure gays, lesbians and transgendered folks continue to face job discrimination because to do otherwise would be, ahem, “awkward.”

Meanwhile, in Philadelphia we have inner city kids barred from a private swimming pool because of “complexion” issues:

Creative Steps Day Camp paid The Valley Swim Club more than $1900 for one day of swimming a week, but after the first day, the money was quickly refunded and the campers were told not to return.

At first there was no explanation, but some of the campers recalled overhearing comments about the color of their skin while at the club.

Then the swim club president John Duesler issued this statement: "There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club."

Yes, well, if you take a look at the club’s website, the patrons are all of a certain, shall we say, complexion. I imagine having all of those brown inner city kids in the pool would be very awkward, indeed.

Finally, on Fox & Friends we have host Brian Kilmeade going into full meltdown mode as he claims whites marrying non-whites has weakened our gene pool, leading to things like Alzheimer’s. You just can’t make this shit up:

Brian Kilmeade: We keep marrying other species and other ethnics--

Gretchen Carlson: Are you sure you are not suffering from some of the causes of dementia right now?

Brian Kilmeade: The problem is the Swedes have pure genes. They marry other Swedes, that's the rule. Finns marry other Finns; they have a pure society. In America we marry everybody. We will marry Italians and Irish.

Dave Briggs: This study does not apply?

Brian Kilmeade: Does not apply to us.

Italians and Irish as another species? A rule that Swedes can only marry other Swedes? Intermarriage leading to Alzheimer’s?

Is Kilmeade on crack?

Gosh I’m glad we live in a post-racial America, an America where we don’t need things like anti-discrimination laws. To admit otherwise would just be too darned awkward.

Everyone’s A Little Bit Racist

[UPDATE 3]:

Blue Collar Muse FAIL (below via Pith):

Update: Well, it turns out Mr. Graves isn't a Democrat at all. According to Pith's multitude of informed sources, he's a Republican. Whoopsies! Guess that's why the Republicans haven't held their little media event about this yet. Graves voted in the 2006 GOP primary. In addition, he lists among his Facebook groups the College Republicans, Bush is my Homeboy (whatever that is), and Republicans for Alternative Energy. Also on his Facebook, he says he's a fan of Bob Corker. We're not sure how he wound up in Camper's office.

Yeah I'd like to know how he ended up in Camper's office, too.

Regardless, I'd like to know why he was fired and Goforth was not. What's the HR policy, Kenneth?

-------------------------------------

[UPDATE 2]:

So the aide who sent the e-mail from the Democratic legislators office has been fired. Sherri Goforth, on the other hand, still has a job.

Wow. I was certain Blake Graves would get the same "reprimand" as Goforth. I guess I was wrong.

I'm confused because it was initially reported that he was an intern. Perhaps he still is; Braisted reports Graves was honored with a resolution recognizing his work with the College Republicans.

Now I'm really confused. What was a College Republican doing working for Democratic legislators?

[UPDATE]:

Just to clarify, while I did receive the e-mail in question, I did not get it from anyone involved in state government or party politics. My only e-mails from politicians or Democratic Party officials are of the "please send us money" variety.

I simply don't move in those circles, despite being, ahem, "a popular Left wing blogger."

I'm still giggling over that.

Anyway, the e-mail I received came from a personal contact who is not involved in politics in any way.

-------------------------------------

ACK didn’t think the Sherri Goforth story was newsworthy but he calls our attention to this e-mail sent by a Democratic Party staffer an aide intern to a Democratic legislator.

Oddly enough, someone sent me that e-mail; at the time I didn’t see it as racist but I found the kids in the dog crate picture off-putting as it looked to me like it was making fun of child abuse. I trashed it.

So everyone’s a little bit racist, after all. Hey, it’s Tennessee! We’re all doing it! With that in mind (wish this had a picture but it's just music):

TNGOP Petty Party V.2

So we finally have the reason why Republican legislators voted against locating privately-funded statues of Al Gore and Cordell Hull, our state’s two Nobel Peace Prize winners, on state capitol grounds: it’s because Gore’s not dead yet:

On largely party lines, the Senate voted Tuesday not to support a proposal to erect statues depicting Gore and fellow Nobel laureate Cordell Hull, on the basis that recipients of Capitol Hill honors should be dead. Hull died in 1955.

This, of course, is silly. Republicans named every square inch of public space after Ronald Reagan while he was still alive; here in Nashville there’s a statue of Billy Graham in front of the Southern Baptist Convention just up the street from the state capitol, and last I checked he’s still alive.

But I realize these are not the state capitol grounds and didn’t require legislative approval. Yada yada. Fine.

From The Tennessean:

Few references to Hull were made during the debate. A bust of Hull — who served as Secretary of State during World War II under Franklin D. Roosevelt and helped establish the United Nations — sits directly across the hall from the Senate chamber, and a government building near the Capitol has been named in his honor. Rather it was the idea of honoring Gore that seemed to make lawmakers balk.

Since we’re talking state capitol statues, I wonder if we will ever get around to removing the statue of devout racist Edward W. Carmack? Carmack was a former U.S. Congressman, Senator, newspaper editor and racist who was killed on the streets of Nashville after advocating the repeal of the 15th Amendment in his newspaper:

"I don't think anyone knows who he is or why he's there," said attorney and professor Lewis Laska. "Edward Ward Carmack was one of the most racist politicians in Tennessee history." Laska feels the statue should come down because of what Carmack stood for.

"He wanted the 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution repealed. That's the amendment that gave black men the right to vote. He thought that lynching was a good idea because it kept black people 'in their place,'" said Laska.

Well by all means let’s keep the statue of Carmack on the state capitol grounds, then. And let’s make sure no Republican legislator has to gaze upon the visage of Al Gore on his or her way into work. That would be just too awful.

Meanwhile, I suggest we find another place for the Gore and Hull statues. How about dedicating a Nobel Peace Park? Yesterday I suggested the traffic circle in front of the new convention center, but any place prominent will do. Perhaps the new Riverfront Park? The Nobel Peace Prize is an international achievement; recognition of Tennessee’s honorees should be located where our city’s visitors can learn about the achievements of Tennessee’s native sons and daughters. The State Capitol? Feh. We can do better.

And as for the statue of Edward W. Carmack let me suggest a dark closet deep in the bowels of the state legislature where the rest of Tennessee’s racists remain.

TNDP Responds To Racist E-mail

TNDP Chair Chip Forrester is demanding Sen. Diane Black fire her staffer who sent the racist e-mail.

He says:

“Is this indicative of what Senate Republicans think about our Commander-in-Chief?” Forrester asked. “This email is reprehensible, insults the office of the President, and is embarrassing to all Tennesseans regardless of political party.”

[...]

“I am calling on Sen. Black to reject this racist smear and fire this staffer who, on state government time, on state government computers, using a state government email account, launched this bigoted attack on our president,” Forrester said. “Keeping her on the staff would send the message that this type of behavior is condoned by the House Republican Caucus.”

Here’s the kicker:

“We have hundreds of state employees facing the possibility of losing their jobs due to the budget deficit and no fault of their own. I think we could save at least one of those jobs by firing Sherri Goforth.”

Ouch.

At the same time the Tennessee GOP is dealing with a racism scandal, South Carolina Republicans are doing likewise. First there was the slur about Michelle Obama’s ancestors being gorillas; then we had this:

Green posted this, then deleted it some time later:

JUST HEARD OBAMA IS GOING TO IMPOSE A 40% TAX ON ASPIRIN BECAUSE IT'S WHITE AND IT WORKS.

I think it’s abundantly clear that the Republican Party has a race problem. As someone who lives in the South, these kinds of things reflect very poorly on the region. If I were an international corporation looking for a new U.S. headquarters, why would I choose a place that seems to be going out of its way to portray itself as an intolerant backwater?

Republicans are in charge of our state legislature. Turning a blind eye to these kinds of racist slurs further cements the impression that the Republican Party endorses intolerant views. This is bad for the state of Tennessee, it's bad for the Republican Party, and it's bad for the South.

The progressive blogosphere has spoken out against these attacks. The Tennessee Democratic Party has spoken out against these attacks.

I am still waiting to hear from the Republican Party.

Just STOP It Already!

[UPDATE]:

Apparently Goforth just “feels sick” about sending the e-mail to the wrong list:

When I asked her if she understood the controversial nature of the photo, Goforth would only say she felt very bad about accidentally sending it to the wrong list. When I gave her a second chance to address the controversial nature of the email, she again repeated that she only felt bad about sending it to the wrong list of people.

They just don't get it. And Goforth will keep her job. Figures.

----------------------

I’m still fuming over Newscoma’s post.

That anyone thought e-mailing that photo was funny, cute, clever, or anything close to appropriate boggles the mind. That it was a staffer for State Senator Diane Black, chair of the Senate Republican Caucus, well, what can I say. Tennessee is the state of Chip “Barack the Magic Negro” Saltsman; it seems the problem is endemic to the TNGOP. I hope Sen. Black does the right thing and puts her house in order.

But it's not just Tennessee. Today I saw this news on CNN:

A South Carolina GOP state activist has apologized for calling a gorilla an "ancestor" of first lady Michelle Obama. Affiliate WIS reports.

WTF?!!

This shit matters, people. Frank Rich gave a rundown of some of the racist, inflammatory, offensive rhetoric that regularly passes for public discourse from conservatives toward President Obama and I have to say I’m shocked and ashamed:

But hyperbole from the usual suspects in the entertainment arena of TV and radio is not the whole story. What’s startling is the spillover of this poison into the conservative political establishment. Saul Anuzis, a former Michigan G.O.P. chairman who ran for the party’s national chairmanship this year, seriously suggested in April that Republicans should stop calling Obama a socialist because “it no longer has the negative connotation it had 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago.” Anuzis pushed “fascism” instead, because “everybody still thinks that’s a bad thing.” He didn’t seem to grasp that “fascism” is nonsensical as a description of the Obama administration or that there might be a risk in slurring a president with a word that most find “bad” because it evokes a mass-murderer like Hitler.

[...]

Obama’s Cairo address, meanwhile, prompted over-the-top accusations reminiscent of those campaign rally cries of “Treason!” It was a prominent former Reagan defense official, Frank Gaffney, not some fringe crackpot, who accused Obama in The Washington Times of engaging “in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain.” He claimed that the president — a lifelong Christian — “may still be” a Muslim and is aligned with “the dangerous global movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood.” Gaffney linked Obama by innuendo with Islamic “charities” that “have been convicted of providing material support for terrorism.”

If this isn’t a handy rationalization for another lone nutjob to take the law into his own hands against a supposed terrorism supporter, what is? Any such nutjob can easily grab a weapon. Gun enthusiasts have been on a shopping spree since the election, with some areas of our country reporting percentage sales increases in the mid-to-high double digits, recession be damned.

Indeed. There was a time when entertainers like Limbaugh, Savage and Coulter were seen as the circus sideshow to the national discourse; now the corporate media treats them like legitimate pundits, and their brand of vitriol spills over into the real world. Politicians now think nothing of saying the most outrageous things. Conservatives love to ridicule "political correctness" but some of y'all need some manners or you shouldn't be in office.

So stop it. Cut it out now. Do not emulate the yakkers who should be exiled to the far edges of the talk radio dial. And if someone on your staff sends this out under the banner "Historical Keepsake Photo," I hope you show them--and others--that it's inappropriate and there are consequences.

And the photo:

TNGOP Racism Alert

Newscoma has the goods.

And people wonder why right-wing extremism is on the rise. Come on, who thought this was even close to appropriate?

The person responsible should be fired.