Home / Culture and Society / Satire: MSNBC Series, “To Catch a Racist”

Satire: MSNBC Series, “To Catch a Racist”

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Dateline MSNBC series, with host Chris Hansen, “To Catch A Predator,” is known for its undercover sting operation to catch those sick individuals that prey on our youth via the internet. But did you know that MSNBC is now engaged in a scheme to protect our president? Yes, they are on “racism patrol,” staking out protests and criticism so that they can catch themselves some racists!

“To Catch a Racist” hosts include Keith Olbermann (brainchild of “Worst Persons”) and his sidekick, Janeane Garofalo (brainless), as well as Dylan Ratigan, Chris Matthews, and others. The latest is Nora O’Donnell, who attempted a “got a racists” outside shot.

The left-wing media is relentless with their talking “race baiting” heads and not only are they trying to capture any “sign” of racism, they are targeting African-American citizens to make sure they are safe.

Kelly O’Donnell, an NBC reporter, confronted Darryl Postell at the April 15, 2010 Tax Day Tea Party rally in Washington D.C. O’Donnell’s question, “There aren’t a lot of African-American men at these events, have you ever felt uncomfortable?” Postell responded, “No, no, these are my people…Americans.”

It turns out Postell is a retired Air Force veteran and appeared on Fox News to talk about this incident. Gretchen Carlson asked why he attended the rally and Postell answered, “I care about the country and I know the direction that most tea partiers are moving in and they care about liberty and government intrusion, so I just wanted to go and be a part if it.”

Lloyd Marcus, a black conservative and Tea Party rock star, is on the left-wing media’s radar and on his website journals some of his interviews — more like interrogations, with the hopes that Marcus will ID the racists.

At the April 15th Tax Day Tea Party, Marcus was ambushed by a reporter for Ebony (a prominent national black magazine), who according to Marcus, asked him “the same two questions every other reporter has asked;” ‘Are the tea parties racist?’ ‘Why are blacks not attending?’ Marcus explained to the reporter, “the Tea Party movement is not about race, but about stopping an out-of-control administration from pushing our country towards socialism.” Frustratingly, the Ebony magazine reporter replied, ‘So why do you hate Barack Obama?’ The reporter asked again, ‘Are these rallies racist?’ Marcus notes that it was if the reporter never heard a word he said.

Another account occurred right after Marcus performed at the Tea Party in Traverse City, Michigan (part of the Tea Party Express tour) when a “white snooty female reporter” asked him a “series of annoying questions straight out of the liberal playbook.” Marcus goes on to describe what got his “blood boiling”; when she asked him the following question with what he described as “the trademark liberal condescending edge,” ‘Mr. Marcus, don’t you think by calling yourself an unhyphenated American, you are encouraging white people to feel comfortable with their racism?’ While Marcus wanted to respond negatively, he chose the higher ground and ended the interview abruptly, “With all due respect, I strongly disagree.”

Where were the left-wing “racist police” when Kenneth Gladney, a black conservative, was physically assaulted and racially insulted by SEIU thugs (oh, I mean members) outside a 2009 town-hall meeting in St. Louis, Missouri –– just for handing out “Don’t Tread on Me” flags? Maybe they were on a coffee break having “cupcakes” with Olbermann.

In March, another MSNBC “To Catch a Racist” host, David Shuster, interviewed (more of a duel) Kevin Jackson, author, blogger, black conservative, and a well-known speaker at the tea parties. Shuster was armed with his bag of race-baiting talking points and brought up what he considered “the violent imagery and rhetoric,” specifically in reference to the ObamaCare, March 20th protest on the steps of Capitol Hill. Jackson responded, “I’ve been to hundreds of tea parties around the country. What I can tell you is that I’ve never seen any blacks lynched at one of them. That’s still one of those things that only Democrats can hold a distinction about.”

Shuster later asked if Jackson was okay with how President Obama had been depicted in signs at Tea Party rallies, the Hitler mustache and the Joker. Jackson responded, “It’s par for the course. Every president that’s been elected has gone through something like that.” Jackson also reminded Shuster that Bush had been demonized as a gorilla, a chimpanzee, a cowboy, cowpoke, and a host of other things. In fact, “[Bush] was depicted as Hitler many, many times and more than Obama.”

Jackson is dead on, Bush was called every ghastly name in the “hate” book; evil, the Antichrist, Hitler, terrorist, fascists (to name a few), and they just didn’t want to kill him, they wanted to impeach, imprison, smite, shoot, hang, bomb his house, chop his head off, and burn him. Although it is unclear in what order they wanted to do all of this. But that was back in the day when it was “patriotic to speak out against our government” –– when Bush was president.
[Three “hate Bush” photos; pick a year –– 2001 to 2008 –– you will find tons; and for your attire pleasure; “Kill Bush” t-shirt]

It is no longer patriotic to speak out against our government; it is downright racists and the left-wing media is hot on the case. Thank you MSNBC…these protestors are Astroturf, radical, angry mobs, armed and dangerous with signs that say, “Kill the Bill,” not “Kill Bush.”

[Photo right; March 20, 2010 Protest against ObamaCare]

I guess we “concerned citizens” should remain silent and allow this administration to do whatever it wants. After all, Obama and his cronies (including Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) know what’s best. Let’s just light a campfire, burn our Constitution, hold hands, and sing Kumbaya as they chip away at our liberties and bankrupt our country. Any criticism over a federal government that has grown too large, too expensive, too intrusive, and in many aspects too corrupt is, in the shallow words of Garafolo, “racism straight up.” And, well, Olbermann (talk about an angry white man) is just pissed off because he didn’t get enough “free hate Bush cupcakes.”

I hope the gang at MSNBC catches all those damn racists! Maybe we can arrest them, make them register as “racist offenders,” and start a “racist registry.” With a quick Google search we can find the little red dots (racists) within a 10-mile radius, pulling up their “rap sheet.” Angry dudes lounging on the grass with the, “No ObamaCare” sign. Hateful teenager holding sign that said, “I’m 14, Stop Spending my Retirement.” Radical grandma for her sign that says, “Stop the Insanity, the borrowing, spending and taxing.” All guilty, lock the em’ up! The most violent citizen, “You can’t fix STUPID, but you can vote it out!” and the dangerous woman with the words, “NO socialism.” Make sure the racist dog, Scruffy, with his plate that says, “I didn’t read the stimulus bill either,” is arrested too –– he or she looks like a real threat to our government!
[Photo right, Dog at Tax Day Tea Party, April 15, 2009 in California]

Personally I have witnessed “racism straight up” from my two stepfathers and other people I’ve known over the years, who called me an “N-lover,” and it sent chills down my spine and got my blood boiling. Back then I didn’t sit back idly –– they were confronted harshly regardless my age. While I am not a member of any tea party –– not the joiner type –– I refuse to sit back and watch this crap coming from the left-wing media, labeling ALL critics of Obama and his administration as racists; causing more division. In doing so, I won’t sit back and condone the very offensive and obvious racially charged signs as well as any of the shameful and lame ones displayed at some of the Tea Party rallies and elsewhere. As I watch the reported behavior and disgraceful comments coming from the fringe nut-jobs –– which attach themselves to all movements –– I am equally appalled.

Come on people, let’s honor our First Amendment –– speech, press, and peaceable assembly –– by protesting with dignity and don’t give the left-wing media or anyone else a reason to demonize legitimate criticism of our government, its policies and direction. For God sakes, leave your racial remarks, guns, Hitler signs, hate, and violence at home.

Let me be clear, by no means does this imply that the Tea Party movement is about race and ALL, or even the majority of protestors are racists. And as the debate over Immigration reform heats up; we can expect more racists charges to emerge, with MSNBC at the helm. On the other hand, I won’t bury my head in the sand and claim that racism is dead. Despite the fact that 2008 was a historical moment for our country, electing our first African-American president, Obama, who won by a large margin, racism still exists in America and it’s ugly. However, you don’t have to be white or part of the Tea Party or any “party” to be a racist — it comes in all colors and exists on both sides of the political isle. Racism is an issue that deserves much better –– an intelligent discussion, not reckless accusations, assumptions, and the manipulation of the facts.

When Nathanial Stuart, BigGovernment.com, covered the April 15, 2010 Tax Day Tea Party rally in Washington D.C., he decided to do a few interviews of his own. He wanted to know what attendees thought about the left-wing media’s (Huffington Post, New York Times, and MSNBC) charge that the tea party goers as racists and hateful. One woman in particular (didn’t get her name, but I like her), was asked about her feelings on MSNBC’s reporting that black conservatives have been called Oreos, traitors, and Uncle Tom by other blacks. Her response, “If we’re talking about Olbermann — Keith Olbermann is not a black person. I am not an Oreo. I am a very aggressive, assertive, professional black woman….”

Earlier in Stuarts interaction with this woman, she had this to say, “…Black Americans have been following Democrats off a cliff for the last 40 years…So, I’m out here with my family of tea party people — Democrats, Republicans, Independents…It’s not that we hate the president, its not that we hate the Democrats; but we love our country, we love our children.” We’re allowed to have a voice. Just like they’re allowed to have a voice.” Amen sister!

Powered by

About Christine Lakatos

  • MSNB-Who? They should take your suggestion on the reality show. Their ratings suck (could it be because of the programming? ya think?) and they could use a kick in the pants to jump start their blahs.

  • Jordan Richardson

    For a network with ratings so consistently “in the toilet,” they sure do a decent job riling up the righties.

  • Christine,

    From what little I see of American media (and I do try to see as little of it as I can), they are no better than the left-wing scum in what passes for the lame stream media here.

    A lot of the stuff you talk about (American racism) is something I can no longer relate to.

    Using charges of racism to shut someone up is an old Stalinist tactic. That I can relate to. The Wahhabi scum and their running dog Jewish (liberal) apologists here do it all the time. We nationalists are just learning how to do it ourselves. It’s an enjoyable experience to turn that weapon on our tormentors.

  • Jordan Richardson

    You’ve obviously been seeing enough American media to catch a fair bit of Sarah Palin’s Palinisms, eh Ruvy? “Lame stream media?”

    Come on.

  • You’ve obviously been seeing enough American media to catch a fair bit of Sarah Palin’s Palinisms, eh Ruvy?

    Since I see Palin as the best of a bad lot, I make exceptions for her and read her Facebook comments and listen to her speeches.

    But I’m a socialist, not a right winger, and much of what she says in terms of American internal policy leaves me cold and grateful I no longer live there. Between fascists who are spending America into a toilet, and anti-fascists who would leave the poorer poorer off (no solution for avoiding that toilet yet, though), the choices look pretty dismal for the Americans.

  • Ours is a “left-wing scum” but Ruvy’s brand of socialism is OK.

    I guess you just can’t help yourself, Ruvy, can you, hurling insults at the people rather than at their government. And you wonder why you’re being turned off.

    How many comments have you generated by your latest, rather reasonable article? Two or three?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Christine –

    Jesus once said, “By their works shall ye know them.”

    Witness the immigration law just passed in Arizona.

    Witness the near-total lack of brown-skinned people in photos of Tea Party rallies…and see how the few minorities who are there, are specifically targeted for camera shots. Far more telling are the shots of the overall crowds – almost completely lily-white.

    Witness the total of FOUR African-American legislators elected by Republicans since 1901…and NONE since 2003 (which is before the time that Obama’s name was well-known nationwide).

    Christine, we all know most Republicans are not particularly racist…but the above FACTS show that racist whites are FAR more comfortable among Republicans than among Democrats. What really sucks for the Tea Party crowd is their mass case of denial by pretending that racists who show up at Tea Party rallies must be liberal plants, because gosh-gee-willy, there’s no racists among us good white folks!

    YES, there’s racists among every color, but political rallies that contain lots of people of EVERY color are always, always, ALWAYS less racist than political rallies that are fully or almost fully people of ONE color.

    This is one argument you can’t win. All you’re doing is showing your ignorance of race relations and your clinical case of denial of the problems that exist among the Republicans and in the Tea Party crowds.

    I hear your rhetoric, but I pay much more attention to what I see with my own eyes. “By their works shall ye know them.”

  • Baronius

    Glenn, you count brown faces in a crowd shot? That’s disturbing.

  • Jamison

    “Witness the immigration law just passed in Arizona.”

    How is that racist?
    Arizona didn’t invent the law that you had to be in this country legally. The federal goverment you bow down to did. Arizona has just finally decided to enforce it.

    Do you ever leave the house without ID? Legal immagrants shouldn’t either. How is that racist?

    A guy gets pulled over for speeding. He is asked for ID, he has none. He doesnt speak english. He is asked for proof of insurance. He has none. The plates on the car are expired. In your mind, the next logical step is ‘let him go’? or would it be “Gee, I wonder if they are breaking the law by being here illegal?”

    How dare you use the words of Jesus to promote your leftist race-baiting hysteria. I take personal offense at that. Jesus welcomed all. SO does America. Jesus never broke laws nor encouraged his followers to. “Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars.” If “Ceasars” law was to deport people in a country illgally, I am pretty sure Jesus wouldn’t be cool with that. The Bible also encourages followers to obey the law of the land. Illegals aren’t doing that.

    And man, get a life. You are SO OBSESSED with race it’s sad. I have been to tea parties, even the biggest one in DC. Didn’t see ONE RACISTS SIGN, saw LOTS OF BLACKS, saw HOMOSEXUALS, saw LATINOS.

    Whatever you see from your MSNBC colored glasses is NOT the real world. Stop seeing color man, and see Americans.

  • EJ

    I’d like to know what the hell an “African American” is. Are you talking about people of the black race? I know several people from Africa who could be considered “African American”, but they’re white. The only thing that using a PC term like that does is make you sound like an ignorant and stupid fool.

  • EJ

    In addition, if we’re supposed to be able to see past the color of your skin, why do you liberals constantly bring it up? I honestly don’t care what race you are, it’s character and personality that I care about. You people are the real racists because you just can’t seem to stop pointing out race whenever something happens that you don’t like. If a white cop stops a black person for speeding you scream racism. If someone doesn’t the the fact that Obama is president, you sceam racism. You should try shutting up about race.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jamison –

    Okay, you say there’s LOTS of blacks at Tea Party rallies…and since there’s so many right-wing sites with pictures of Tea Party rallies, how about you do a little RESEARCH (like I did) and find a picture of a crowd at a Tea Party that’s even five percent minority.

    That’s a picture of the CROWD, Jamison. Not a group, but a CROWD of at least 100 or more. And don’t try to pretend those pictures aren’t there – there’s plenty of pictures of crowds at Tea Parties.

    I hear your testimony, but I trust my eyes more than I trust your rhetoric. Show me the PROOF.

    I’m looking forward to your reply.

  • Dan

    “How dare you use the words of Jesus to promote your leftist race-baiting hysteria”—Jamison

    Amen. One of the more sleezy manipulations to justify liberal hate.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius and EJ –

    Address the following point:

    Witness the total of FOUR African-American legislators elected by Republicans since 1901…and NONE have served since 2003 (which is before the time that Obama’s name was well-known nationwide)

    So…considering the fact that African-American families tend to the conservative side on issues (witness the vote in CA’s Prop. 8), why the dearth of black Republican congresspersons?

  • For people who claim that race isn’t or shouldn’t be a big deal (I agree), Jamison and EJ sure do get pretty frickin’ upset about it.

  • EJ

    We’re upset because people like Glenn make a big deal of something that shouldn’t be an issue. So what if there were only 4 Republican congressmen? Why are you so concerned about race that you have to find a racist problem with everything? Just leave the issue alone, and we’ll leave it alone. We should be united as a country, and as Americans, not “African Americans”, “Mexican Americans”, Asian Americans”, “Irish Americans”, or any other hyphenated names like that. By making those disctintions, you only serve to make people think that race matters; and it doesn’t matter.

  • Cannonshop

    #14 He’s gotta run, first, Glenn. Secondly, while the majority of black families may be conservative on social issues, they’re largely yellow-dog democrat everywhere else.

    Nobody wants to be labeled an ‘Uncle Tom’ after all.

    It’s only in places like Oklahoma, where the culture’s actually progressed beyond Tammany Hall that you get gentlemen like J.C. Watts. In the urban coastal cesspits Race will be forever more important than character, resulting in things like the distinguished male model and newsreader in the white-house.

  • In that case, EJ, the Tea Party ought to be speaking on behalf of all Americans?

    Have they? Do they?

  • I just love comment #7. Look at all the pictures with no people of color…now look at the pictures of people of color…kinda damned if you do and damned if you don’t!

    Of course we’re all racists, that’s why the dems are getting back at us with a tax on tanning beds! You’ll show all us white folk won’t you?

  • Hillarious, Andy. A tax on tanning does like membership dues in a private club, doesn’t it?

  • EJ

    @ 18, the Tea Party speaks on behalf of a lot of Americans. But you know that’s not what I was talking about. If it was, we should only have one political party, right? It doesn’t matter what your race is, I’ll either like or dislike you based on your actions and character, not race. I really don’t give a damn if you’re white, I won’t like you if you support illegal immigration. Nor would I give a damn if you’re black, if you support reparations against white people for the slavery of the 19th century I won’t like you.

  • Well, EJ. Perhaps you were not addressing this, but this was the object of contention – that the teapartiers, perhaps because of their composition, reflect and express views – at least insofar as health insurance goes – which run contrary to the views held by the poor, the black, the unemployed.

    As per the most recent NYT polls, they were better educated and more well-to-do than average Americans. Are they a majority? I have no way of knowing. But to speak on behalf of all those who might stand to benefit from Obamacare, definitely they did not.

  • zingzing

    ej: “I’d like to know what the hell an “African American” is.”

    they are the descendants of the african slaves we hauled over here from the 17th-19th centuries, who, in the process of enslavement, lost much of their african culture, religion and customs. in america, under slavery and then in quasi-freedom and then in freedom itself, they developed their own unique hybrid culture and identity that fused together their disparate african roots into an “american” whole, and which differs from every other black culture in the world, african or diaspora.

    also, that was probably the most moronic question i’ve ever seen.

  • EJ

    Maybe not, butyou have no way of knowing that the hold to views which “run contrary to the views held by the poor, the black, and the unemployed” either. Nor do you, desipite what any polls say, have any way of knowing the economic or educational composition of the Tea Party movement.

  • EJ

    So what if they’re decendants? I’m part Irish and part Mexican. Maybe I should call myself an Irish-Mexican-American?
    If they were born here in the United States, they’re Americans, not Africans or African Americans. And African is NOT a race, it’s a nationality. There are plenty of people who are Africans who are white. Nor is American a race. It’s a nationality. The term African American is a confusion of races and nationalities created to be politically correct.

  • And African is NOT a race, it’s a nationality.


    There is no country or nation named Africa.

    Try again.

  • Baronius

    Glenn, I did address your point when I said that your preoccupation with race is disturbing.

    Christine, you can’t shame these people. They walk into a room and count the number of people of each race, and think you’re a racist because you don’t.

  • John Wilson

    EJ, #16 sounds like a plea to ignore racism. But ignoring racism will not help getting rid of it.

  • “Nor do you, desipite what any polls say, have any way of knowing the economic or educational composition of the Tea Party movement.”

    So what are they? Undifferentiated mass? People at large? What does that mean?

    You mean the only affinity among them are cries for limited government and state rights?

  • “Christine, you can’t shame these people. They walk into a room and count the number of people of each race . . .”

    Is that what Glenn intimated he was doing? A rather odd reading of the comment. But race and gender still appear to be one of the first things one notices about a person or a crowd. Anyone who denies that is an idiot.

    So yet, one can tell right of the bat about the composition of a crowd, or whether one’s interlocutor is a black, or a female, and all such things. Does that mean one has to resort to counting? Of course it doesn’t.

    Again, only a fool would.

  • EJ

    I caught that after I posted it. My mistake. It’s a continent. However, I’m still correct in saying that there is no race of African. No, we shouldn’t ignore racism. But we should stop attrubiting racism toanything bad that happens between people of different races. Just because a white cop shoots a black person, does that mean that the cop is racist? Not unless you have very specific reasons to believe so, such as the cop saying something like “I’m going to shoot the nigger”. It could be any race, it doesn’t matter. But people need to stop immediately screaming racism everytime something happens between different races, whether it’s a poltical party predominately composed of one race, or a police shooting, or a crime statistic, or a protest, or whatever else you can think of. No, that’s not what I’m saying at all, and you know it. You’re implying that Tea Party members are racist because there aren’t many, if any, black people among them. You’re also saying that the Tea Party doesn’t hold to beliefs that a lot of poor, black, or unemployed people believe. All I’m saying is that you have no real way of knowing that beyond your own speculations and a poll that you cited from a notoriously biased source.

  • “Jesus never broke laws”

    Because you know everything about him from reading a few stories that document a part of his life.

  • zingzing

    baronius: “They walk into a room and count the number of people of each race”

    ha. sure. the noble conservative.

    ej, while i understand what you’re trying to say, you’re making a rather pointless point. “african-american” is used to describe black americans when black americans need to be described as such. our olympic basketball team isn’t the african-american basketball team. but michael jordan, when the question is on minority nba team owners, isn’t just an american either.

  • “You’re also saying that the Tea Party doesn’t hold to beliefs that a lot of poor, black, or unemployed people believe.”

    I think it’s rather apparent that they don’t, by and large. Now, how does it resemble the Civil Rights movement, for example? Who were the whites who marched along with the blacks then?

    We know that George Wallace and the rednecks were not part of that crowd.

    And on what basis do you ground your own conviction that the teapartiers represent the working poor, the blacks, and the unemployed? Doesn’t it stand to reason that if by and large they did, they would be joined in the common cause by their brothers and sisters. But that wasn’t and thus far isn’t the case. So something doesn’t compute here.

    Either way, the country is divided along the healthcare lines and a whole bunch of other issues such as the role of government, of the “free markets,” etcetera and etcetera. A call for unity is great and I’m all for it, but there has first got to be a common ground – points of common agreement. I don’t see that happening as yet. Do you?

  • zingzing

    “Jesus never broke laws”

    um… yes he did. you’re kidding, right? why do you think they executed him?

  • “but michael jordan, when the question is on minority nba team owners, isn’t just an american either.”

    Nicely put, zing. Validates the use of the term without any racial overtones.

  • “Crucified,” zing, is the right word.

  • EJ

    @ 33. The term “African American” is ONLY a used because it’s politically correct and probably won’t offend people. Yet, it’s incorrect. Neither Africans nor Americans are races, so you can’t use that term to decribe a race. It’s like calling someone an Native American Indian when describing his race. American Indians (as opposed in Indains from India) are of the red race. Describing someone as a Native American Indian when you want to describe his race is incorrect.

    @34 I don’t know where you’ve been, but I’ve seen a lot of different races and types of people at Tea Party rallies (btw, I’m not a Tea Partier). That’s why I say that they do represent many different types of people. Maybe it’s different where you are, but the ones that I’ve seen were composed of many different people, not just a few scattered races intermingled with white people.

  • zingzing

    ej, african american is what it is. you’re thinking about it too much.

  • EJ

    So says the person who knows he’s wrong..

  • Dan

    Don’t look now, but whites are quite under represented in the Democrat party. Except in leadership positions of course.

    My analysis for why there are so few blacks at tea party gatherings is cultural. A very large segment of the black population has a historical culture of dependency. Tea partiers are independent. the black people who are at tea party functions are typically self sufficient, able people same as the whites.

  • EJ –

    If the term such African-American (or Irish-American or Italian-American) were an anomaly, it would sound so – yes, to the ear. But they don’t. In fact, they’ve become accepted as part of the lingo, especially when it comes to expressing one’s ethnic pride.

    Do you see a contradiction there – expressing a pride in one’s original culture and their ancestors’ and “being an American” at the same time?

  • #41:

    Ergo: Since only a minority of blacks are self-sufficient, only a small proportion of the total black population are teapartiers.

  • EJ

    I agree with Dan. Tea Partiers are, for the most part, independant and self suffiecient people. Black people, in general, aren’t. If it’s an expression of pride in one’s origional culture, that’s perfectly fine. I have no problem with that. You just need to recognize that it’s NOT a correct term for race. Race is different than nationality, or culture. Just as saying “Hispanic” is not a correct term for race. Hispanics from from the island of Hispanola. It’s a nationality, not a race. The terms Italian-American and Irish-American are the same thing. They do NOT desribe race.

    @ 41. If that’s true, what’s racist about that? The people here who’ve been making an issue of black people not being Tea Partiers are implying that the Tea Party is racist because of the lack of black people.

  • zingzing

    dan: “A very large segment of the black population has a historical culture of dependency.”


    ej: “So says the person who knows he’s wrong..”

    sorry. no.

  • “Race is different than nationality, or culture. Just as saying “Hispanic” is not a correct term for race. Hispanics from from the island of Hispanola. It’s a nationality, not a race. The terms Italian-American and Irish-American are the same thing. They do NOT desribe race.”

    Great. We reached a point of agreement.

  • EJ

    @ 45
    Actually, yes. “You’re thinking about it too much”. That’s only an arguement someone would give when he knows he’s wrong, but still wants to say something. It’s an excuse to try to say that I don’t know what I’m talking about, yet still allow you to look good by not saying exactly that.

  • EJ

    Exactly. That’s why I refuse to say African-American. It’s incorrect to say that when describing a race.

  • Jeff Forsythe

    It would appear to me as if an “African-American” values the “aftrican” above the American. Why don’t you people just all say that you are Americans instead of all of the extraneous and unnecessary labels?

    Frankly we do not have this problem here in Utopia

    Mr. Forsythe

  • In actual point of fact, Dan did provide at least one alternative explanation as to the rather poor participation of blacks in the Tea Party movement (and that’s regardless of whether I agree with him about his rather general characterization of blacks as exhibiting a “historical culture of dependency.”

    So that’s one reason for “poor participation” on the part of blacks (in addition to the overused “race argument”)

    Another possible reason: blacks simply don’t see the objectives of the teapartiers as representing their objectives and interests.

    A third possible reason: blacks themselves may regard the teapartiers as racists.

    So there you are, ladies and gents. Choose your poison.

  • zingzing

    ej, it has become part of the language. it describes what it describes. get over it.

  • EJ

    That’s why it only serves to divide us rather than unite us when we use terms such as that. We need to look at ourselves as Americans first and foremost. Then we can recognize our ancestry and heritage. ‘African-Americans’ value their African heritage above their American heritage, ‘Irish-Americans’ value their Irish heritage above their American herigate. That only leads to people valuing the heritage of their home countries or ancestry rather than their American heritage. If they value their ancestry so much, maybe they should move back to their respective countries.

    Zing: Yeah it does describe something. That somethin that it describes is NOT what you mean when you use the term. You should really learn how to use the English language correctly.

  • Zing, you and ej are closer to agreement than you think.

    Re-read the first part of his #44 (except for the first two sentences).

  • zingzing

    roger, i’m saying he’s making a rather pointless point. i understand what he’s trying to say, but who gives a shit? he’s arguing semantics. why? i don’t know.

  • EJ

    You obviously don’t know how important semantics is then.

  • I don’t know about other kind of motivation, but African-American, Irish-American, Italian-American are terms which have come into use (even before the advent of PC) as legitimate expressions of a person’s ethic background, original culture, etc. – especially appropriate during celebration days – e.g., the Columbus Day, St. Patrick Day, etcetera. So EJ has not denied that; they are not terms which denote race.

    As to the other point, whether the pride of being an American should supersede the pride in one’s cultural origins – that’s another question. One could well argue that for a long long time, the American blacks had very little reason to feel pride about being Americans (because they weren’t regarded as such); but things are changing, hopefully.

  • Jeff Forsythe

    Please allow me to clarify. I never meant to imply that I agree with his “They should go back where they came from” line. I was only observing that pride in being american could come first obviously.

    After all I’m proud to be a Utopian above all else as are we all here.

    Mr. Forsythe of Utopia

  • EJ

    And if they’re so proud of their heritage that they value it above their pride of being an American, why should they stay here? I’m not saying to kick them out. I’m saying have pride in THIS country above others. After all, why is it that people come here? Because this country is better than other countries that don’t have freedom.

  • Hey Jeff,

    Can I get a one-way ticket?

  • My my, what did I miss?

  • zingzing

    ej, one can be proud of both heritage and the nation one lives in. just because the “african” in african-american comes first doesn’t change that…

  • Baronius

    “so says the person who knows he’s wrong”

    EJ, I disagree.

  • I wonder what “Minorities” living elsewhere should be called. African-Germans, Hispanic-Poles, Native American-Greeks?

    “People?” Nah. That’s too simple. “Citizens?” Nah. That’s too exclusive. How about ape-descended carbon-based life forms? That might be OK for now.

    In the interest of solving all of the problems of racism in the tea party movement, there must be racial quotas, with minimum standards for attendance by race. If those quotas, established by a new Bipartisan Uniformity in Racial Progress (“BURP”) Commission are not met, meeting permits must be denied.


  • Don’t look now, but whites are quite under represented in the Democrat party. Except in leadership positions of course.

    Probably without meaning to, Dan puts his finger on the real issue here.

    Arguing over whether the Tea Partiers or anyone else to the left of David Duke are racist is, frankly, pointless. The days when it was acceptable for a mainstream organization to be openly racist are long gone. And quite rightly, the average Republican, or Democrat, or Tea Partier, will be appalled at anything racist he perceives going on in his organization.

    But you can’t get away from the fact that there is still racism at work in American society. It just tends to be institutional rather than individual. So it would benefit you much more to look at exactly why it is that a black American is more likely than a white American to go to prison for the same crime, for example, or why a white applicant has a better chance of landing a particular job than a black applicant with the same qualifications… or just why it is that there are so few black Republicans and so many black Democrats.

    There’s no one simple answer to any of these questions either.

  • Ooh look, another Dan!

    Greetings, O Parenthesised One.

  • Thanks, Doc.

    Here is another perspective on allegations of conservative “racism.” I had wondered why leftist folks are so obsessed with race, and the linked article seems to explain it.


  • Interesting article, Dan. Thanks for the link. Interesting comments going on here as well. Catcha later, gotta go to my daughters softball game.

  • EJ

    So, Dr. Dreadful, what proof do you have to back up your claims?

  • Jeff Forsythe

    Interesting how Mr. E.J. presumes that we must accept his rambling consciousness as gospel, yet demands proof of others’

    Good morning boys and girls can you say hypocrite?

    No tickets available Roger but I will put you on the waiting list.

    We had a hyphonated fellow here once. He called himself an intellectual-Utopian. We deported him of course.

    Mr. Forsythe

  • Christine,

    gotta go to my daughters softball game.(emphasis added)

    Better watch your language; it could be construed as sexist, ageist and otherwise politically incorrect.

    Here: I fixed it for you: gotta go to my age-victimized adult-status-deprived offspring’s racially-and-ethnically-inclusive non-violent athletic event.

    That’s better.


  • EJ

    @ 62: Why exactly do you disagree? Unless you explain your reasons, I don’t really give a damn that you disagree. You might want to learn how to have a debate of discussion. Giving opinions without giving reasons why you hold those opinions is pointless, and frankly, stupid.

    I’m not making claims about society like Dreadful is doing. If you’re going to make a claim that black people are more likely to go to prison than a white person for the same crime, you should back up that claim. My opinion is just that, an opinion; and any claims that I have made are based on my observations. But claiming something as fact doesn’t mean anything unless you provide some proof. All I’m saying is that, based on my observations, people who hyphenate their race or nationality really aren’t patriotic because they seem to value the heritage of their home countries above their American heritage; or they’re trying to describe a race using incorrect terms. If you describe yourself as an African-American when trying to describe your race, you’re WRONG. As I said before, there is no race of African, nor is American a race. If you’re using the term to describe your heritage, you’re telling people that you’re not an American first and foremost. You should be American first. You should be proud of this country and proud to be called an American, not an African-American, or Irish-American. Again, based on my obervations, people who (incorrectly) hpyhenate their races, or hyphenate their nationalities like that haven’t assimilated into the United States; they seem to only care about the benefits of living here rather than actually being patriotic and loving this country. It seems to me that most people like that, who talk about how great their home country is and how proud they are to be from that country, should just go back to their countries, since they’re so proud of them anyways. If you come to this country, you should assimilate into our society and should be patriotic; you shouldn’t be here just because of the benefits of living here as I’ve seen many people who hyphenate their races or nationality names. I don’t mean to say that you should be able to speak Spanish (for example), or display a Mexican flag, or anything like that. I’m saying that you need to be more proud of this country than other countries, that you need to consider yourself an American before anything else. Go talk to almost any legal immigrant from previous generations, and they’ll tell you the same thing.

  • Clavos

    Nor is American a race. It’s a nationality.

    No, it isn’t. Like African or European, it merely denotes what continent an individual is from. As a Mexican (which IS a nationality) by birth, I, (and all others born in the Americas) resent the arrogance of persons born in the USA referring to themselves as “American.” You are no more American than I, or than a Canadian, or Brazilian, Argentine, Peruvian, Honduran, etc. ALL of us are Americans, even if we’ve never set foot in the USA.

  • zingzing

    “As a Mexican (which IS a nationality) by birth, I, (and all others born in the Americas) resent the arrogance of persons born in the USA referring to themselves as “American.””

    yes, we’re united statsians. the name “united states of america” obviously comes from the fact that individual states in america (the continent) were combined together. “america” is the only part of the phrase that makes sense to use. and, being that the us was the first post-colonial sovereign nation, we grabbed whatever name we cared to, i guess.

    but, like “african-american,” it’s just a damn word. no use getting all upset about it. i assure you that there’s no arrogance about it. it just is the way it is. has been for a long time. if you want persons born in the us to identify another way, invent a fucking time machine. it’s too damn late.

    either way, what would you suggest if not “american?” “united statesian” really doesn’t work.

  • zingzing

    “the first post-colonial sovereign nation”

    without looking up the history of every nation in the americas, i do wonder if that’s true. is there another nation (in the modern sense) that has consistently been known by the same name longer than the united states? i know brazil was always brasil, but they didn’t truly gain independence as brazil until the early 1800s. either way, people didn’t give a shit about such trivial things back in the pre-revolutionary days. they had better things to worry about. like marauding europeans and the like.

  • EJ

    The full name of this country is the United States of America. We commonly shorten the name and call ourselves Americans.

  • Clav,

    Although perhaps anti-semantic (sorry for the pun –not really), I agree.

    Here in Panama, a very small part of an America which extends all the way to the southern-most tip of Argentina, I refer to myself as a “Gringo.” That term seems properly to include those of us from the United States but to exclude Canadians and others from elsewhere on the continent; aside from “United States Citizen” or “North American,” I know of nothing else appropriate.

    I consider it offensive to Panamanians to refer to myself as an “American,” although few would take it that way and most would with good humor ascribe it to my ignorance. I suspect that were a Frenchman to use the term “European” as applicable only to those from France, some Germans, Belgians, Swiss and others might properly take offense.

    Nevertheless, perhaps concerned that the term “Gringo” might be considered a term of disparagement, some Panamanians refer to those of us from the United States as “Americanos.” I rarely try to correct them or to point out that “Gringo” is not the least offensive; it’s their country and they can use whatever terminology they choose.

    I don’t understand all the fuss about politically correct nomenclature. Fortunately, it has not infected Panama to a great extent. Here, nicknames are common: Flaco, Gordo, Chombo, Chino and others are simply accepted without offense. Why are Gringos so !@#$*(&* easily offended?

    Just out of curiosity, are you considered a “Gringo?”


  • Clavos

    We commonly shorten the name and call ourselves Americans.

    And you’re arrogant for doing so, gringo.

  • Clavos


    In Mexico, we call gringos “North Americans,” but even that’s an insult to ourselves, for we are “North Americans” as well, as are the Canadians.

    Gringo works fine for me at least for when my Mexican side is referring to my gringo side.

    In fact, gringo is only an insult in Mexico when it is preceded by pinche.

  • EJ

    You don’t seem to know the difference between arrogance and pride. United States citizens who refer to themselves as Americans are not arrogant. It’s simply a shortend way of refering to the United States of America. We also commonly refer to the country as the United States.

  • Clavos

    Oh I know the difference, alright.

    OTOH, you, typically for a gringo, have no sensitivity for the viewpoints of non-gringos.

    To us, yer arrogant and more.

  • EJ

    Gringo, huh? I bet you didn’t know that I’m half Mexican, and that most of my family are still Mexican citizens and live in Mexico. Doesn’t really sound like someone who’s a gringo. And even though I’m half Mexican, I refer to myself as an American, nor Mexican-American.

  • zingzing

    clavos: “And you’re arrogant for doing so, gringo.”

    then stop calling us americans, or americanos. you just feed our totally, insanely gross arrogance. the nerve we have. it’s something i think about constantly. don’t i have something better to do? no! the fact that i’ll call myself whatever the internationally accepted nomenclature is for people of my nation will NOT STAND! this arrogance has gone far enough! who do we think we are?! HUH!? fucking arrogant pricks calling themselves whatever they want to call themselves. that’s right. yeah, you go on and call yourself whatever the fuck you want to call yourself, americans, and we’ll fucking call you on your fucking arrogance every goddamn time. you hear me!? i’m going militant on this motherfucker. jesus christ!

  • Clavos

    You refer to yourself as an American, you’re a gringo, alright.

  • zingzing

    there are far worse things in the world, clavos. not being a “gringo,” you understand, but the fact that americans call themselves americans shouldn’t be too far up on your totem pole of complaints. it’s totally useless. get over it.

  • zingzing
  • #70 – Dan(Miller); lol…actually I had to count the non-whites to see if her softball team is racist.

  • Oh my gosh; did Clavos make an appearance on my thread? I was thinking about you Clavos; how’s the boating?

  • Funny snarky headline from Wonkette today:
    Is It Okay To Call Someone ‘Colored’ If That Person Is Charlie Crist?

  • Clavos

    Great, Christine! Just got back from two weeks cruising in the Keys.

    No gringos there, they call themselves Conchs and their islands the Conch Republic. Only half facetiously they speak of seceding.

  • zingzing

    clavos, did you tell all those arrogant gringo “americans” where they could fuck off to, or is all this just a pose?

  • Wow, I’m jealous. What is all this gringo talk? Is everyone behaving? I hope so.

  • STM

    Clavos: “Only half facetiously they speak of seceding.”

    Maybe they should join forces with that clever mob also down your way that wants to create British West Florida.

  • STM

    See here for details of their perfectly reasonable plan

    Nice flag too!

  • EJ (@ #68, 71):

    I would have thought that the phenomena I mentioned were common enough knowledge not to need citations. Apparently not.

    I’m off to bed now, but I will look around and post some links to the relevant studies tomorrow.

  • EJ

    Possibly. But with all the claims of racism now, especially white racism against blacks, you need to back up your claims with proof.

  • Cannonshop

    #74 I believe the musical group “Arrogant Worms” has a song discussing how unfair it is that the Yanks have taken “American” as theirs, instead of “united statesians”.

    Of course, on a side note… prior to the ware between the states (AKA “Civil” war) in the 1860’s, one did not tend to refer to oneself as “american” so much as by the State which one hails from. One of the reasons Lee didn’t take up the offered command of all U.S. forces in 1860 was that he was, after all, a “Virginian” First, because “State” meant “Country” or “Nationality”, this of course went away with the defeat of the Confederacy and the assertion of Federal Power. One could look at it as similar to the way Gauls late in the Roman Empire period considered themselves “Romans”.

  • STM

    Cannon: “united statesians”.

    Excellent. Lol. Love it … United Statessians is to become my new catchcry!

    The Arrogant Worms are, indeed, arrogant.

  • STM

    EJ: “Just as saying “Hispanic” is not a correct term for race. Hispanics from from the island of Hispanola. It’s a nationality, not a race.”

    I though that too once about hispanics and hispaniola, but it’s not quite right.

    Some of them might have been from Hispaniola, but most, as Clav, kindly pointed out, are descended from the people of Hispania … the iberian peninsula, ethpain and portugal.

  • EJ

    It doesn’t matter who they’re descended from. Unless they’re from Hispanola, they’re not Hispanic. In order for people to correctly refer to themselves as Californians, they must be from California. It doesn’t matter where their ancesters are from, if that specific person isn’t from California, he isn’t a Californian.

  • I thought that Clavos what a stickler for correct usage of English.

  • Doug Hunter

    Nice angle with the article and interesting comments. This issue isn’t going away, it raises the stakes and is a powerful, low risk argument for the left. If their view becomes historical fact, the right will forever be stained (worse than they already have been painted) with racism, if our view becomes accepted reality then they were simply erring on the side of the downtrodden and victims. In short, they have everthing to gain and little to lose from this issue so they bring it up at every opportunity.

    ***This argument also explains why corporations seem to come out with the left on certain social issues (it’s not principle, it’s risk aversion). The risk of being wrong is so much lower if ‘your heart was in the right place’.

  • Clavos

    . Unless they’re from Hispanola, they’re not Hispanic

    Wrong. The etymology of Hispanic is from, as Stan pointed out, Hispania, the Roman name for the Iberian Peninsula, not the Caribbean island of Hispaniola, half of which is occupied by Haiti, whose citizens are certainly not “Hispanics.”

    Hispaniola is an Anglicization of Columbus’ name for the island, La Española.

  • “This argument also explains why corporations seem to come out with the left on certain social issues (it’s not principle, it’s risk aversion). The risk of being wrong is so much lower if ‘your heart was in the right place’.”

    Good point. Hopefully, it will rub off though and become a matter of principle. Corporations would stand much to gain, especially in the present climate.

  • STM

    Aaaargh cap’n, we’s headin’ straight fer that bloody ‘ispan-yola!

  • STM

    Look lively then!

  • STM

    Yer maggots!

  • Baronius

    The USA and los Estados Unidos Mexicanos are both “United States”. It’s as imprecise for an American to say he’s from the US as it is to call himself and American.

  • Unless they’re from Hispanola, they’re not Hispanic.

    People do get some funny ideas about language sometimes.

    I once did a course with a woman who was convinced that the word history was sexist because it literally meant “his story”.

    She was completely unaware of the etymology until I corrected her.

  • Here is something by Peggy Noonan; sometimes I disagree with her, this time I agree. This part speaks of racism.

    The establishments of the American political parties, and the media, are full of people who think concern about illegal immigration is a mark of racism. If you were Freud you might say, “How odd that’s where their minds so quickly go, how strange they’re so eager to point an accusing finger. Could they be projecting onto others their own, heavily defended-against inner emotions?” But let’s not do Freud, he’s too interesting. Maybe they’re just smug and sanctimonious.

    The American president has the power to control America’s borders if he wants to, but . . . Bush and . . . Obama did not and do not want to, and for the same reason, and we all know what it is. The fastest-growing demographic in America is the Hispanic vote, and if either party cracks down on illegal immigration, it risks losing that vote for generations.

    But while the Democrats worry about the prospects of the Democrats and the Republicans about the well-being of the Republicans, who worries about America?
    . . . Continued . . .


  • There seems to be a new limit on comment length; to evade it, here is the rest of the previous comment.

    No one. Which the American people have noticed, and which adds to the dangerous alienation – actually it’s at the heart of the alienation—of the age.


  • I don’t think it’s the length of your comment per se, Dan. I’ve written some quite lengthy ones in the last couple of days with no problems.

    It may be, though, that a limit on the amount you can copy and paste has been imposed. I’ll check with the editors’ group.

  • Anyway, while Noonan may have a valid argument to some extent, I think she overstates her case. To lay the entirety of American malaise at the doorstep of illegal immigration is a bit of a stretch.

  • John Wilson

    That’s a poor article by Noonan, I would have expected better than a series of strawmen.

  • Doc, I don’t think she does that; she uses illegal immigration as an example. Before citing it, she notes:

    It is, most recently, the result of two wars that were supposed to be cakewalks, Katrina, the crash, and the phenomenon of a federal government that seemed less and less competent attempting to do more and more by passing bigger and bigger laws.

    Add to this states on the verge of bankruptcy, the looming debt crisis of the federal government, the likelihood of ever-rising taxes. Shake it all together, and you have the makings of the big alienation. Alienation is often followed by full-blown antagonism, and antagonism by breakage.


  • zingzing

    “If you were Freud you might say, “How odd that their minds so quickly go to projecting, how strange they’re so eager to point an accusing finger. Could they be projecting onto others their own, heavily defended-against inner emotions?”

  • EJ

    @ 109 Thanks for your proof. It’s still arguable the numbers of black people incarcerated or not hired for certain jobs is not caused by racism. But I’ll accept your proof of what you claim. @110: I think that Noonan is on to something. Many politicans don’t give a damn about anything that won’t get them a vote. They seem to be using any argument that they can in favor of illegal immigration, including racism where there is none. Mexicans are, in general, of the white race. So for people to claim that white US citizens are racist for being opposed to illegal immigration is simply not true. And not only is it not true, it shows the foolishness and willful ignorance of people talking about something they don’t know about. And as far as regular citizens making claims of racism, that’s usually called projection. If you talk to Border Patrol agents, Minutemen, illegal immigration protestors, or any other person who’s against illegal immigration, MOST of them aren’t racists, they don’t want to kill them just because they’re here illeglly. It’s human nature to shift the topic from something they’re not comfortable with or don’t like to something else. Ultimately, pro-illegal immigration people don’t want to discuss the issues of border security, deporting illegal aliens, or almost anything else regarding real solutions to the problem. So they shift the topic to racism by trying to claim that most, if not all, people who are anti illegal immigration are racists. They try to do that by claiming that white US citizens are racists because the people they want to prevent from illegally coming here or want to deport are of different color. They deliberately confuse skin color and race.

  • zingzing

    the very idea that those who decry racism do so because, deep down, they’re really racists is just… moronic and sophomoric. ugh.

  • zingzing

    ej… that’s a pretty weak argument. what would you call the National Organization for European American Rights or projectusa or v-dare, etc, etc, etc. if they aren’t racists according to your rather convoluted little theory, then what are they?

    please feel free to make up an entirely new word.

  • Re #118 — Compared to what?


  • zingzing

    ej: “Ultimately, pro-illegal immigration people don’t want to discuss the issues of border security, deporting illegal aliens, or almost anything else regarding real solutions to the problem.”

    um, that’s because we don’t want a berlin wall between our nations and we know that deporting all of the illegal aliens is impossible. we also don’t want to discuss those things because those are your solutions (and unworkable at that). why would you expect someone who disagrees with your fantastical ideas to actually seriously discuss them as “real solutions.”

    we want to discuss amnesty and easier pathways towards citizenship so that these people can be productive members of society, not police state killzones along our southern border.

  • Mexicans are, in general, of the white race.

    I don’t think so. There’s certainly an upper class descended from the original Spanish settler elite which is mostly white, but the vast majority of Mexicans are of mixed race – that’s certainly the case around here, where almost half the population is Latino.

    In fact, I’ll go out on a limb and say it’s hard not to be surprised when you meet a Mexican who looks European.

  • zingzing

    dan: “Compared to what?”

    it’s remarkably similar to “i know you are but what am i?” ain’t it?

    it’s also something unknowable. these people are such huge racists that they don’t even know it? come on. what next? deep down, republicans really like getting taxed and they don’t even know it?

  • what next? deep down, republicans really like getting taxed and they don’t even know it?


  • Baronius

    Zing (#118) – At a minimum, the people who decry racism are obsessed with race. Arguing about whether someone who thinks about race constantly is a racist is just semantics.

  • zingzing

    “At a minimum, the people who decry racism are obsessed with race.”

    at a minimum, they don’t like racism. obsession is a maximum.

    “Arguing about whether someone who thinks about race constantly is a racist is just semantics.”

    how do you mean that? there aren’t many people who think about race “constantly.”

  • Sorry, Baronius, but both your points are really weak.

    1. Just because I decry murder doesn’t mean I’m obsessed with crime.
    2. You can dismiss almost anything as ‘just semantics’. In fact, it’s become a pretty popular pastime around here lately.

  • Baronius

    Dread, if you think about murder all the time, read books about it, hang out on websites and accuse people of killing people, et cetera, you’ve got a problem. And the difference between killing people with plastic explosives and killing them with dynamite is just semtex.

  • Clavos

    And the difference between killing people with plastic explosives and killing them with dynamite is just semtex.

    I love that. Funniest pun on this thread so far.

  • I am so glad you guys are having fun!

  • doug m

    Looking at the comments and the circles being run around is a good indication of race obsession as well, Baronius.

  • Yes, good one, Baronius.

    But do you seriously think that’s what MSNBC is doing? Or what zing is doing?

  • Baronius

    I don’t watch MSNBC, and I wouldn’t feel right commenting about Zing. But I do believe that the person who shouts “Fire!” in a crowded theater is either cynically destructive or as obsessed with fire as an arsonist. Maybe obsessed in a different way, but just as likely to harm innocent people.

  • zingzing

    i’m obsessed with music and women and whiskey. three obsessions is more than enough for me, thanks.

  • Here is another good article on the racism complex.


  • But I do believe that the person who shouts “Fire!” in a crowded theater is either cynically destructive or as obsessed with fire as an arsonist.

    Unless there actually is a fire.

  • Jeff Forsythe

    An intriguing conversational turn here.

    Through the power of satelite I have personally visited westboro’s site, listen to Rush Limbaugh, watch fox news and even support an occasional conservative candidate for Parliment here.

    However I also view MSNBC, the BBC, CNN (love Rick’s list), and have visited a liberal website or two.

    The point I am trying to make here is that I never judge something without observing and getting to know it first. Similar to writing a book review without reading the book?

    So why is it that in your culture you judge others without “walking a mile/kilometer in their shoes first?

    Dear me; does that make me one of your “liberals?”

    Mr. Forsythe

  • I agree with the Powerline blogger’s argument that throwing accusations of racism around in this context is largely futile, but I did get to wondering whether such accusations really are all that liberals have to offer in opposition to the Tea Party Movement.

    So I did a quick census.

    A Google search for ‘tea party movement’ returns the following results on the first couple of pages (not counting official/pro Tea Party websites, Wikipedia, conservative sources like the Washington Times, and foreign sources which (presumably) have no vested interest one way or the other):

    – a Newsweek article arguing that the tea partiers are dominated by conspiracy theorists
    – an NPR opinion piece which touches on the racism issue but also assesses the mood of teapartiers as disgruntled with both big government and those who aren’t grateful for the America they have
    – a HuffPo article which calls the teapartiers ‘a national embarrassment’ because the movement is uncoordinated, lacks direction and is disconnected from reality
    – an AlterNet report on a poll which confirms the conservative demographic of the Tea Party Movement and concludes that it will have greater clout in the Republican primaries than at any national election
    – a New York Times piece which surmises that the teapartiers have more in common with the Patriot movement than with the GOP
    – a Daily Beast article which lists the ‘Top 5 Misconceptions’ about teapartiers
    – an op-ed in Forbes which accuses the teapartiers of being misinformed, particularly about taxes
    – a fairly neutral Time profile of the movement

    Not much discussion or accusations of racism there, from what I could see.

  • zingzing

    dan: “the racism complex.”

    ah. there’s no racism on the right. the left is just crazy. you guys are getting into some pretty detailed psychological territory for people who “don’t care” about race.

  • Apropos of my post #138 above, I wonder, if I were to do the same search, how many of the pro-Tea Party search results would contain complaints about the Left accusing them of racism?

    Watch this space…

  • …Not many, as it turns out. The teapartiers themselves seem to be more concerned with, well, teapartying.

    (And stabbing each other in the back. And claiming that only their particular group represents the real Tea Party and that all the others are corporate-funded/GOP-funded frauds. And saying that the Tea Party has failed and needs to shake off the Tea Party image and re-launch as… Tea Party 2.0. It’s all great fun.)

    There’s a fair bit of steam being got up about illegal immigration, but that’s to be expected.

  • Doc,

    You say, I did get to wondering whether . . . [racist] accusations really are all that liberals have to offer in opposition to the Tea Party Movement. They are not, but they are among the most offensive and most easily reduced to a bumper sticker. They are also the sort which, to rebut, require the proof of a negative. Claiming that something bad happened is far easier than proving that it did not happen. How would you go about proving that on April 1, 2010 between 11:00 a.m. and noon you at no time uttered or heard anyone utter the forbidden word “Nigger?” I could not do so, and I doubt that you or anyone else could.

    I wrote an article here early last month in which I addressed the tea party movement and its amorphous nature. It is not a political party and should not try to become one. Instead, it should support candidates from any party or none (or independents) supportive of its basic values, which are few and simple.

    I agree that many are disgruntled with both big government and those who aren’t grateful for the America they have. Me too.

    According to your cite to HufPo, the movement is a national embarrassment because the movement is uncoordinated, lacks direction and is disconnected from reality. It may well be disconnected from reality as perceived by the folks at HufPo, but then so am I. I am also disconnected from reality as perceived by the folks at Daily Kos; but then I view HufPo and Daily Kos as “national embarrassments.” As to being uncoordinated and lacking direction, so much for the AstroTurf claims. Should it become coordinated and have an externally imposed direction, it might as well roll over and die.

    As to the Newsweek conspiracy theorist theory, I think it is so much bunk. Any loosely organized collection of diverse folks has some nuts. Even the cabal of superior writers seems to have a few. I suspect (but don’t know) that some Methodists may be “9-11 truthers.” So? Should we all disparage BlogCritics and Methodists in general on that account?

    If, as AlterNet suggest, the movement will have greater clout in the Republican primaries than at any national election, I wonder whether AlterNet paused to consider the impact on national elections of who gets nominated.

    If, as Forbes indicates, the tea party folks, a diverse bunch, are confused about tax issues, they are in both good and bad company, from Fox to President Obama. The recent Hiring Incentives legislation is producing all sorts of tax confusion among expats here and around the world. It may cause Panamanian banks to cease doing business even with U.S. citizens (like me) who merely have small checking accounts in which their monthly Social Security payments are electronically deposited, because they can’t understand its impact either; I have read the #*$&$& thing and don’t understand its impact on me. Nor does anyone else here.


  • All good points, Dan, but I was merely trying to demonstrate that criticism of the Tea Party/ies has a lot more scope than simply accusing them of being a bunch of racists.

    I find that to be adequate refutation of your linked article’s suggestion that liberals are devoid of ideas and are left with only that with which to attack the Tea Party.

    Indeed, to claim, as Simon does, that American liberalism is in rigor mortis – i.e. dead – is, at a time when there’s a Democrat president and Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, the height of chutzpah.

  • STM

    Geez, all this talk of tea is making me thirsty: I’d love a nice cup of tea.

    Just thinking about that, why doesn’t Barack follow Liz’s lead with her Buck House tea parties, and throw a nice front-lawn tea party at the Big White Joint.

    I’m sure Liz would tip him in to the proper way of doing it … you know, the right kind of cake and sandwiches, and no tea bagging for starters.

    It’s pot or nothing for a decent cuppa. And those nice watercress or cucumber sandwiches (white bread only) with the crusts cut off, and some lovely cakes.

    Barack could get all his tea party mates onside. “Hey look, guys, me and Michelle, we’re with ya … I’m throwing me own tea party here specially for you.”

    See, if Barack joined the tea-party set, instead of just standing on the sidelines and watching the action, he could quieten things down.

    And imagine how much all those lovely tea party folks would love to be invited to a presidential tea party in their honour!

    A quick course on how to bow and curtsy to the President and the first lady and they’d be off.

    This is my plan for solving the tea party impasse.

    I believe it would work, too, because everyone loves a good party, right?

  • STM

    And everyone loves a nice cuppa.

  • STM

    This is America’s problem IMO, having no taste for the delicious leaf after dumping all that good tea in the harbour … see, everything looks better, calmer, rosier, after a nice cup of tea and a bit of a lie down – whereas coffee just makes you ultra-hyper.

  • I know, Stan, I know. Crazy Americans, after dumping tons of perfectly good tea into Boston Harbor, suddenly after 200 years they want to dredge it all up again. No wonder it tastes bitter. 🙂

  • STM

    Whaddya think of me plan for Barack’s Big Tea Party, Doc?

    Reckon they’ll buy it??

  • STM

    From what I can gather, a lot of Americans right now seem to love a good tea party. This could be the answer!

  • Baronius

    Zing – Let me tell you something about me. My dad fought racism back when it was common. I was raised to not think about race. I don’t want to think about it, and I resent it when someone brings it up. As I see it, both false accusations of racism and racism itself are injurious to a society that’s trying to put race in its rear view mirror. Americans fought and died to get us past race. We’re spitting on gravestones at Gettysburg every time we stir up racial tensions.

    The race-baiter is worse than the racist, because he has the appearance of right on his side. Guys like Tim Wise get a hearing. We fail to understand how quickly righteous anger can turn ugly.

    So I’m not posturing on this subject, and I’m not on the defensive. I’m offended. I see the words that you pass along as having the power of division. The blame for the next generation of racial problems falls on the people the left listen to, not the ones I listen to.

  • Baronius

    With my last comment in mind, let me address Mr. Forsythe. You listen to both sides of the story before making a decision, and you don’t judge people unfairly? That will make you a liberal, at first…

  • This is a bit late as I have been away but earlier Clavos was posting about the origins of the word Hispanic and that it came from the Roman word for the Iberian peninsula, Hispania.

    When I was living in Spain and studying Spanish I read up on the word and learned that it pre-dates the Roman Empire by many years and apparently came from ancient Phoenician and meant “land of rabbits”, which I thought was quite charming.

  • STM

    Bet most of them ended up in the pot Rosey.

  • Arch Conservative

    Today we will get to see all the illegals marching in the streets, further exhibiting their disdain for this nation, it’s legal citizens and it’s laws.

    But their just poor poor people who’ve come here to work hard, play by the rules, and make a better life for themselves right?

    It’s amusing that idiots like Gavin Newsome are banning travel to Arizona by city employees and others are boycotting Arizona. With 70% of the people that actually live in AZ supporting the new law, I’d say those doing the boycotting probably wouldn’t have been welcome in the first place.

  • Jeff Forsythe

    Mr. Baronius after some consideration I will accept the mantle you have given me with pleasure and bear it proudly

    Mr. Forsythe~Utopian Liberal

  • Jeff Forsythe

    Of course Mr. Rose has now opened up several narrow-minded comparisons between Hispanics and rabbits.

    Mr. Forsythe~Utopian Liberal

  • Jeff Forsythe

    Mr. Conservative, I have observed your blinkered narroow-mindedness. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

    Are you a closet liberal?

    Is this a deception for our entertainment or are you really as shallow as you appear?

    Mr. Forsythe~Utopian Liberal

  • Jeff Forsythe

    In the third epoch of my storied education we were taught a quote that most of us here use as what passes as our national philosophy.

    If memory serves it goes like this:

    …and then the gods spoke onto the people
    and we make a decree for all men
    and for all time to come.

    Those who battle shall die in battle
    Those who cower whall live afraid

    But only those who love
    shall reap of this earth
    and sow the seeds for tomorrow.

    The source escapes me, but I have carried that with me through the journey of my life.

    Mr. Forsythe~Utopian Liberal

  • Doc, re #143 — Rigor Mortis is probably a tad extreme. How about “on life support” or “soon to go on life support?”

    The outlook at the moment seems inauspicious for the “liberals,” but of course most anything can happen between now and November. Still, it is far from certain that the next congress will have a Democratic Party majority.

    Support for repeal of President Obama’s signature Health Control Bill has varied from about fifty-four to fifty-eight percent, and

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% of likely voters nationwide favor repeal, while 41% are opposed. Those figures include 48% who Strongly Favor repeal and 29% who Strongly Oppose it.

    Over the past four weeks, support for repeal has remained in a very narrow range from a low of 54% to a high of 58%.

    President Obama’s positive ranking went into negative territory in about June of last year and has never returned to positive territory. Today, 30% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10 The graphic presentation of the daily tracking polls from January 21, 2009 until today here is interesting.


  • Jeff Forsythe

    Mr. Miller even you should know that a United States congressman/senator votes according to who pays him the most for his vote, not by the opinions or urgings of his constituancy, and certainly not by his/her won conscience.

    I would presuppose that a poll of the local cash-laden lobbyists would be more telling as to the results.

    Wouldn’t you?

    Or are you simply posting lengthy poll results in order to herd your readers into thinking that your point of view is in the majority hoping for a forgone conclusion?

    Mr. Forsythe~Utopian Liberal

  • You’re a welcome addition to the BC community, Jeff.

    Keep on truckin’!

  • Mr. Forsythe, re # 160

    You say,

    Mr. Miller even you should know that a United States congressman/senator votes according to who pays him the most for his vote, not by the opinions or urgings of his constituancy, and certainly not by his/her won [sic] conscience.

    I’m well aware of that, thank you very much, and it may well be among the reasons for voter displeasure. However, the polls are said to be of voters, not congresscritters, and may (or may not) reflect what is likely to those members up for re-election in November.


  • Dan, your poll numbers all come from Rasmussen. You don’t mention that it has been consistently an outlier compared to nearly all other polls. [Just as every comment I’ve ever seen you make on here swallows right-wing rhetoric whole, and rejects the possibility that Dems could possibly be correct on any issue.]

    RealClearPolitics’ average of various presidential approval polls [Gallup, Pew, ABC, Fox, as well as Rasmussen] is currently 47.7% approval, 45.9% disapproval. The disapproval rate has not ever reached 48% in the average, and has gone down slightly during April.

    A closer look at polls about healthcare shows that “the health reform bill” in the abstract gets lower approval than many individual items that are actually in the bill. In other words, some significant part of the public is accepting the negative rhetoric about the bill rather than reacting to the bill’s actual content. And the negative rhetoric has contained more than its share of whoppers — distortions, half truths and untruths. And I would venture to say that you’re so glad they disapprove that you don’t much care how they arrived at that conclusion.

  • Polls should never be any indication as to whether an idea is a good one or not – especially concerning issues about which there is more disinformation that information.

    I’m quite willing to let the next election determine the outcome.

  • Jeff, of course Roger loves you — since you join him in tarring all politicians with the same corruption brush.

    It’s only fair to acknowledge people who really care and really try to do their job well. Saying all 535 Senators and Reps are all the same and all equally corrupt is intellectually lazy and demonstrably false.

  • Baronius #150:
    The problem is that your POV basically doesn’t allow anyone even to discuss race, since the very act of just bringing it up is taboo for you.

    You accuse Zing of making accusations he hasn’t made, because of this weird absolutism you have: If race is a part of a discussion, the discussion is automatically tainted by liberal bullshit.

    This is the very definition of an ideological straitjacket.

  • Jeff Forsythe

    I resoundingly take exception at your assumption that I am anything more than an observational neutral regarding American politics Mr. Handy.

    Indeed, we watch the legislative process in the U.S. with little more than bemusement since our own form of government is much simpler and more accountable to its constituancy.

    Where your senators and congressmen represent thousands or even millions, ours represent at most three hundred.

    It is a rare occasion when less than 85 percent of our voters participate in scheduled elections. I consider this on par with the effectiveness of an instructor with 25 pupils versus one with 60. In your system of government attention to the individual is hopelessly lost in the crowd.

    Over in America we have observed an almost complete disconnect between the voter and its governmental representative to the point that most voters do not even know his or her name.

    Since this creates a vacuum and as you know nature abhores vacuums, it is natural that lobbyists would rush in to take their place and assume their voices.

    We have watched democracies all over the world fall into chaos because of ever-lenthening distinces between the common man and his/her representative in government.

    A pity really

    I do not consider most American politicians corrupt, as you assume, but more ill-informed as to the wishes and ideas of those they were sent to represent because of a lack of communication.

    If my assuming the yoke of Mr. Baronius’ assumption that I was a liberal in his and/or your definition of the word, I apologize for the confusion.

    Mr. Forsythe~Utopian assumed Liberal

  • Handy,

    I had an eye-opening experience about “politicians” the other day – mere councilpersons in the township of Hopkinsville. They all think they’re made of better clay; all belong to country clubs, have their hands in the local businesses and utilities; they’re not “of the people.” In fact, they detest people.

    So the corruption and collusion starts at the local level; and I’m not even talking about state or national offices.

  • “Jeff, of course Roger loves you — since you join him in tarring all politicians with the same corruption brush.”

    It takes more than an agreement on one particular issue, Handy.

    Jeff offers an insightful and penetrating analysis in many of his comments, and he does it cleverly; that’s why I appreciate his input.

  • The Rasmussen polls on approval v. disapproval of President Obama are clearly stated to reflect strong approval vs. strong disapproval. The polls on the Health Control Law include 48% who Strongly Favor repeal and 29% who Strongly Oppose it. I seem to recall that those who feel strongly are more likely to go to the bother of voting than those who don’t feel strongly.

    Still, I think it’s great to encourage the administration to continue along its present path. Keep up the good work, guys. More of the Same! More! The cliff is probably no more than a figment of fevered and malfunctioning Conservative brains (assuming against all evidence that they have any at all). Who knows? Come November, the Democrats may increase their majorities in both houses. Doubtless, the more President Obama campaigns on behalf of Democrats, the more seats they are certain to win. Count on it!

    As to whether polls reflect what’s good or bad, of course they don’t; to the extent that they mean anything at all, they reflect what the voters consider good or bad, often a very different thing.


  • Well, here’s a question then: are our duly elected representatives meant to merely reflect the voters’ preferences, or should they be allowed to act according to their own best lights while in office?

    I don’t believe it would be contrary to the spirit of a representative democracy if one were to opt for the latter.

  • Jeff Forsythe

    An election is a gamble that the person you select is like-minded and would vote in your stead in the legislative process. Unfortunately in democracies worldwide high-priced ad agencies present the candidate in a grossly deceptive and misrepresented way order to “please all of the people all of the time.” This leaves the voter giving power to someone who is nothing like him, nor would properly represent him in government.

    Over here an election is not permitted until each constituent is allowed to converse for a minimum of five minutes person-to-person with each candidate. You chose whom you bond with and who as closely as possible represents your view.

    Unfortunately America’s vast population prevents such a thing.

    Mr. Jeff Forsythe of Utopia

  • Re #171 — see comment #160. I think it evidences a somewhat but not quite excessively cynical attitude.

    With that comment in mind, I agree that congresscritters and other political types should be guided by their consciences. However, if one campaigns and wins an election on the promise, for example, to support legislation banning dog and cat spay and neutering clinics, I think he is under an obligation to do so. If he instead offers legislation appropriating $10,000,000,000 for such clinics, he had better watch out come election time.

    Members of the House have two year terms and members of the Senate have six year terms. Lots of things change during their terms and new issues arise. That’s why their overall political philosophies matter the most and why I don’t like “one issue” candidates or voters.


  • Fair enough, Dan.

  • “Unfortunately America’s vast population prevents such a thing.”

    Provided then that we stay within the limits prescribed by a liberal democracy as the best possible form of government, the answer has to be limited federalism and maximization of state’s rights.

    But divorcing money from politics has to the first order of business.

  • re #175 — Roger, you say,

    Provided then that we stay within the limits prescribed by a liberal democracy as the best possible form of government, the answer has to be limited federalism and maximization of state’s rights. (emphasis added)

    I am so shocked that I almost spilled my tot of rum; fortunately, my reflexes are still adequate to prevent such a tragedy.

    Is that really you, or has an (undocumented) alien from outer space taken control?


  • I can be logical at times, Dan. And of course, I was responding to a real problem raised by Jeff. There are natural limits to a representative form of government, limits beyond which it’s no longer workable.

    And I do thank you for your compliment.

  • zingzing

    baronius “I was raised to not think about race. I don’t want to think about it, and I resent it when someone brings it up.”

    a utopian, myopic way of looking at the problem. it is a problem and it needs to be discussed. note i never accused you of racism, so don’t think that i am. racism needs to be talked about, unfortunately, and you’ll just have to get over it.

    “As I see it, both false accusations of racism and racism itself are injurious to a society that’s trying to put race in its rear view mirror.”

    both true. accusations of actual racism, however, are not.

    “Americans fought and died to get us past race. We’re spitting on gravestones at Gettysburg every time we stir up racial tensions.”

    well, that’s not particularly true to begin with. and the next 100 years made their gravestones one grand spittoon. now they’re more like a baseball umpire.

    “The race-baiter is worse than the racist, because he has the appearance of right on his side.”

    hrm… how so?

    “Guys like Tim Wise get a hearing. We fail to understand how quickly righteous anger can turn ugly.”

    as i said before, i’d not heard of wise before that article, but i fail to see how his honest questioning could lead you to that conclusion.

    “So I’m not posturing on this subject, and I’m not on the defensive. I’m offended. I see the words that you pass along as having the power of division.”

    too bad you’re offended, but i have no clue what your last sentence there is supposed to mean.

    “The blame for the next generation of racial problems falls on the people the left listen to, not the ones I listen to.”

    your father sounds like he was a good man who’s ideas on race were honest and well-intentioned. in general, i’d agree with him. color blindness is the goal, surely, but the problem is that society as a whole is not there yet. let’s watch the unintended (but wholly obvious) consequences of arizona’s anti-immigration legislation. let’s watch the tea party call obama both kenyan and islamic terrorist just because of his skin color and his name. you and i both have hopes for a world where race doesn’t matter. but you don’t seem to realize that the world isn’t there yet.

  • Re #177 Roger, you are more than welcome.

    Since the parts of your quote I put in bold print are the basic tea party principles I really like, can I expect to see photos of you at one of those events?


  • Zing, I can appreciate Baronius’s position without necessarily agreeing with him about the virtue of, as he said, of putting the race question “in our rear-view mirror.”

    Don’t you?

  • zingzing

    roger: yep, see the last paragraph of my response to him in 178.

  • Well, Dan. Perhaps I’m coming to another realization – that legislating “from the top,” however well intended, is not necessarily the answer. Perhaps the people must come into its own for a real change to take place.

    You can’t eliminate injustices by fiat. A change of heart is needed. And you can’t impose that from without.

  • OK then, zing.

  • Baronius

    Mr Forsythe – I said that such open-minded thinking will make you a liberal, at first. There will be one or two issues on which you lean the other way, but you’ll generally be on the side of the liberal angels. Then you’ll look into an issue more closely, and discover that the liberals are deeply illiberal on it. Then another. Soon you’ll start every sentence by saying that you don’t believe the labels “liberal” and “conservative” have any meaning. Within a couple of years, you’ll be a dyed-in-the-wool conservative.

    That’s the way it happens in America, anyway.

  • Somewhat of a caricature, Barnoius, in that you equate modern-day liberalism with intolerance.

    Do you?

  • Baronius

    Handy, according to Mark Twain, everyone talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it. The problem with race is that once people start talking about it, within a generation or two they try to do something about it – something awful. So I’m not going to talk about it, and I’m not going to trust anyone who insists on talking about it.

  • Baronius

    Roger, I wouldn’t have put it that way. I’ll have to think about that.

  • zingzing

    baronius: “The problem with race is that once people start talking about it, within a generation or two they try to do something about it – something awful.”

    want to give an example?

    “So I’m not going to talk about it, and I’m not going to trust anyone who insists on talking about it.”

    i don’t think i need to point out that you’re talking about it. do you trust yourself?

  • I do agree that the term “liberal” no longer conveys any distinct meaning. It’s outdated.

    I prefer the term “progressive” much better. Perhaps it’s best to speak of “the Left” or “the radical Left” as the counterpoint to traditional/conservative thought. It’d serve thus as a catch-all term to be filled in with details.

  • As I say, Baronius, your position is weird and unfathomable, and your explanation doesn’t help.

    For a whole century [and more] after Gettysburg, racism of the most vicious and horrifying sort was frequent in American life. We did make progress from the 1950s onward — but not by avoiding the subject!

  • Arch Conservative

    Didn’t you guys have anything better to do today?

    It was in the 70’s, sunny all day and not an illegal in sight where I am.

    Doesn’t get much better than that!

  • zingzing

    “It was in the 70’s, sunny all day and not an illegal in sight where I am.”

    well, we don’t all live where you do, mr. and how do you know that there weren’t any illegals? did you ask everyone you met… or is there some other method to your investigation?

  • I’m certain, Handy, that Baronius is as much against racism as any of us. Racism, besides, has many faces – against blacks, gays, women, illegals, what have you. But I do agree, on the other hand, with Dan Miller’s point that accusations of that sort don’t contribute much to the general discourse. In fact, they tend to inhibit it.

  • Archie lives in his own world, God bless him.

  • Baronius, re #184

    I agree, and you bring back memories. The very first article I wrote for BC, back in April 2008, suggested that the word “liberal” no longer has any meaning and should be retired.


  • Jeff Forsythe

    191-I would surmise at the risk of sounding judgmentally posh that Mr. Arch would consider anyone not descendant of the original Mayflowor arrivals to your shores as an illegal immagrant.

    Mr. Forsythe

  • Jeff Forsythe

    I have noted with some interest a writers profile page, however I have not encountered one for your regular readers.

    Does such a section exist and/or is a membership required?

    Mr. Forsythe

  • I’m certain, Handy, that Baronius is as much against racism as any of us.

    Fer cryin’ out loud. I am not accusing him of being pro-racist, just of not making any sense.

    And it sounds odd, Roger, to try to include homophobia and sexism in a larger definition of racism. But it is all related: fear/distrust of the other, “otherism.” Bill Clinton gave a great speech once in which he talked about how negative political speech is so often about “Them.”

  • Relatedness was all I was aiming at, Handy.

    And as far as Baronius and his views are concerned, I’m more adamant about building bridges than on tearing them down.

    Once you accomplish the former, you’re likely to find out that the ideas that seem to separate us will take care of themselves.

  • zingzing

    there’s no way that baronius actually believes what he said up there. try to think of a way to talk about arizona’s recent blunder without talking about race. try to read your way through this comment thread without realizing that this has been about race. baronius’ “So I’m not going to talk about it, and I’m not going to trust anyone who insists on talking about it” is as much a lie as “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” was in its day.

    i can’t wait for the day that someone pulls over a white republican in arizona, asks for id, is told “i lost it” and gets his ass hauled off to jail. the space for shenanigans that this legislation provides is endless. don’t like your brown neighbor? steal his documents and call his ass in. welcome to the witch trials.

    i tried to find out how an officer establishes “reasonable” suspicion in this case, but, unless i’m mistaken (it is a 17-page long pdf), there is no discussion of how that occurs.

    arizona takes over for texas in this month’s stupid state poll, and depending on what happens in may with the textbooks, might hold onto it for another few months.

  • Virginia has had a few idiotically winning moments of late as well. They have a matched set of right-wing religious nut extremists in their gov and atty gen.

  • EJ

    @ 193: You obviously don’t know what RACISM is then. If you’re not discriminating against someone based on their RACE, it’s BY DEFINITION, not racism. Discriminating against gays is NOT racism; discriminating against women is NOT racism, discriminating against illegal aliens is NOT racism. BY DEFINITION, racism is discrimination against people based on their race.

    Go educate yourself before you make a fool of yourself on the internet.

  • zingzing

    oh ej… you do realize that that’s implicit in roger’s point, right? it’s just discrimination. you’re making another non-point. maybe you can try reading between the lines for once before making “a fool of yourself on the internet” now and again…

  • EJ

    “Racism, besides, has many faces – against blacks, gays, women, illegals, what have you.” Sure sounds to me like he’s saying that discrimination against gays, women and illegals is “racism”.

  • STM

    Tea? Yep, I’m up for one.

  • Jeff Forsythe

    Oh good Stan I have just arrived home from a fancy dress do.

    Where are you serving

    Mr. Forsythe

  • STM

    I was hoping Barack and Michelle might throw a nice tea party on the front lawn and invite all those lovely tea-party people. I’d love an invite. The only thing better than an invite to one of Aunty Liz’s and Phil the Greek’s tea parties at Buck House would be an invite to a nice tea party in Washingmachine.

  • EJ

    I don’t see why they shouldn’t.
    I mean, they did invite a white cop and black college professor over for beer…

  • STM

    As long as they don’t insist on teabagging, which is a failure of Americans.

    Pot is the only answer.

  • Jeff Forsythe

    Even enjoy a pleasant croquet match, but that is quite a trip for me. I was never one for chin-waggers though

    Mr. Forsythe

  • STM

    It’s obvious EJ that tea parties are the flavour of the month right now … and Michelle and Barack need to get in on the action.

    I can provide a protocal list: What kind of tea to use; how to make it; how to show the nice tea-party guests to bow and curtsy properly to the prez and the first lady; how to make white-bread cucumber and watercress sandwiches with the crusts cut off .. etc.

    Marquees are a must too, but they’d have to habve a higher roof line than normal to fit all the placards in.

    But, look … anything’s do-able

  • Jeff Forsythe

    A very odd thing just happened, I was rejected because of who some software program thought I was?

    I was so gobsmacked that I had to retry several times before the blasted thing would allow it through.

    Bit of a snobish thing.

    Mr. Forsythe

  • STM

    “I was never one for chin-waggers though”.

    Really?? Yes, I am annoyed too by the chattering classes.

  • EJ

    Actually, all that needs to happen is for a white Tea Partier to offend one of Obama’s rich, black buddies…then they’ll both be invited to the White House…or African American House…

  • Jeff Forsythe

    Would I be considered a commoner if I said I prefered coffee? My home island was quite famous for it.

    Mr. Forsythe

  • STM

    You’ve been rejected by the protocol software, obviously.

    You must learn the proper nuance of “bob’s yer uncle” if you are to receive an invite.

    I am going to give Barack and Michelle a bell and suggest they throw a tea party. I will ask that you be first on the list.

    I will see if you can sit between EJ and Arch.

  • STM

    … and right opposite Ruvy

  • zingzing

    ej: “Sure sounds to me like he’s saying that discrimination against gays, women and illegals is “racism”.”

    you’re very strict about language, aren’t you? “i couldn’t care less.”

  • Jeff Forsythe

    I was making a joke about “George Birthington’s Washday and was rejected.

    Mr. Forsythe

  • STM

    Mr Forsythe: I believe at Liz and Phil’s tea parties, to accommodate the three or four American and overseas guests among the 5000 invitees, they usually have a nice pot of coffee on hand just in case.

    EJ: I will try to get you an invite and give you the bowing and curtsying instructions, just in case you want to take the missus along.

  • STM

    Zing… would you like an invite to the tea party too??

  • STM

    Mr Forsythe, this gets curioser and curioser … is your home island shaped like a witch taking a dump??

  • STM

    Or is it a shape that is easily bent into a map of the mainland using a coat-hanger that can then be used as a car radio aerial??

  • Jeff Forsythe

    It is a shame I can not hire a concourde any more, though I doubt the short boat trip to Ascension would be worth it because it is doubtful that their runway is long enough for one.

    Mr. Forsythe

  • zingzing

    ej: “invited to the White House…or African American House…”


    really, i don’t know what that supposed to mean… if you’re looking for a tea partier to offend a black person just look up “tea party racist” on google images. it’s happened before. “niggar” is all you have to see. what a douche.

  • STM

    St Helena??

  • zingzing

    stm: “Zing… would you like an invite to the tea party too??”

    nah. tea is what i drink when i’ve had too much coffee. pretty much in a bad mood by then. i do like some chinese teas, but the girlie-girls never serve them.

  • EJ

    Well, you can speak for yourself…if you learn how to spell correctly.

  • Jeff Forsythe

    Utopia is an island approximately 127 km west north west of St. Helena in the central south Atlantic. From satellite photos it appears to be just under the surface of the waves, which fortunately cuts down on tourist traffic. I was born in Longwood and have been educated all over the world.

    Mr. Forsythe

  • zingzing

    who is “you,” ej?

  • Jeff Forsythe

    I do hope you pronounced that correctly when you typed St. Helena Stan?

    Mr. Forsythe

  • Jeff Forsythe

    I have also been accused of generating hurricanes by sneezing in my garden. This theory was strengthened not long ago when I made my first trip to Sydney Australia and a huge red dust storm erupted.

    Mr. Forsythe

  • Jeff Forsythe

    I must depart, I keep losing the satelite

    Cheers then

    Mr. Forsythe

  • STM

    Longwood, Fl, or Longwood, Mexico?

    O, silly me. Sorry, Longwood, VIC?

  • Jeff Forsythe

    Longwood St. Helena Stan

    Do not know how long I can remain connected. I presume it solar

    Mr. Forsythe

  • Jeff Forsythe

    Napoleon’s hometown after he lost his goolies?

    Mr. Forsythe

  • STM

    “Napoleon’s hometown after he lost his goolies”

    Poor bugger. He met his waterloo.

  • STM

    Sounds fascinating anyway Jeff, if it’s kosher. How many people still live on the island?

  • STM

    Nice flag too … has something in the corner I like.

  • STM

    So it was you who caused the red dust storm, was it. Why do I get the feeling I’m taliking to Doc or Rosey here???

  • Jeff Forsythe

    My apologies, I was otherwise engaged.

    Which island? Utopia-4000 or so
    St. Helena-not sure. I rarely go there any more and my father fled with us when I was five. There are not more than us. Most are still on the dole or at Her Majesty’s pleasure

    The Flag or the coat of arms?

    Mr. Forsythe

  • Jeff Forsythe

    I didn’t get to see much of the city but it looked for all the world like it was on fire (Sydney) and everything was coated with a red dust that we were told to avoid inhaling.

    Mr. Forsythe

  • STM

    It was pretty bizarre waking up to it, actually. It DID look for all the world that the world had ended. My daughter got a bit freaked out when she looked out her bedroom window. A “bit” is probably a bit of an understatement.

    Yeah, I like the flag in the corner.

  • STM

    I like places that have that flag in the corner of their own.

    Including Hawaii …

  • STM

    Also, Jeff, I don’t understand how you can be living in Utopia when that is where I live.

  • Thanks, zing. I should have suspected that EJ might be eavesdropping and been more careful about my language.

    Sorry, EJ. Didn’t mean to cause a storm in a teacup.

  • Poor bugger. He met his waterloo.

    Well, by that stage, as long as there was water in the loo it wouldn’t have mattered whether he had goolies or not.

  • STM

    I can see why he might have found Saint Hel-eena a bit of a struggle. I mean, you could make the best of it if you like swimming and snorkelling and fishing and what have you, but there’s not that much there. Jamestown, the capital and main port, is tiny and right on the beach. Hard to know how they’d unload anything with a decent swell running … looks pretty nice though.

    Mr Forsyth claims to have been born at Longwood, the place of Napoleon’s exile. Why do I suspect this is one of Mr Forsyth’s flights of fancy.

    Had he said Longwood, Victoria, I wouldn’t have believed him either.

    And he definitely doesn’t live in Utopia, because I’ve never seen him here.

  • Jeff Forsythe

    Hiya Stan, my famlly fled St. Helena when I was but five, forgive me if I neglect to keep all of its vital statistics readily at hand. I travel there very infrequently when I can nick a ride on the RMS.

    Oz by the way is in an entirely different ocean than Utopia. I have tried clicking my ruby slippers together to get there but I kept winding up in the middle of a blooming wheat field in Kansas instead.

    Mr. Forsythe

  • STM

    Looking at the pictures of Jamestown and surrounds has actually made me want to go there for a visit. I like quiet places. A few weeks of doing nothing, coupled with a visit to Ascension, would do me just fine.

    I never tire of doing very little.

  • STM

    Where do most of those leaving St Helena go Jeff. I assume they have full UK citizenship restored now after that stupid British overseas citizenship business in the ’80s, so they could go to Britain to live, couldn’t they?

  • Jeff Forsythe

    It is best to stay in the interior where it is less sweltering. The beachheads are more stone than sand. Prepare to stay a fortnight as the RMS H. arrives really infrequently. They were scheduled to have a proper airport but the Italians are dragging their feet.

    If memory serves there are three hostels which are barely occupied. Also be prepared to be inundated with beastly Jehovah’s Witnesses, who have all but taken over.

    Mr. Forsythe

  • Jeff Forsythe

    251-Indeed. Father took us to Scotland in ’80, then to the U.S. in ’85 and we settled in Ontario Canada in ’88. Mum still lives there.

    Father once threatened any hope of return home unless I decided on an accent. I seem to acquire them depending on whom I’m speaking and many people think I’m mocking them.

    I’ll never forget the first time I told someone in the U.S. that I was a fag boy as a child at school.

    Mr. Forsythe

  • STM

    Ended up in Canada, eh? I take it by the use of the term fortnight that your family didn’t move to the US, but have you since become a United Statesian or have you taken the opportunity to move to the Old Dart with the full UK citizenship restored?

    I do know about the RMS St Helena because it sails from Cape Town and I have considered making the journey in the past and still might. You can fly direct to South Africa from here. I have heard the new(ish) ship is much better than the old one, and is quite a luxurius trip with a lot of crew looking after not too many passnegers.

    And regarding the airport: it seems to be on permanent hold, which means the British government will have to keep the ship running or get a new one.

    As much as I love Italians (there are, I suspect, many hundreds of thousands of people with Italian heritager in this country, and they’ve made the place infinitely better and were the first to awaken our palates to new possibilities; every second corner has a decent cafe on it now, just like Italy), it’s a mistake to let them build anything except a giant plate of pasta.

  • Jaminson:

    “Arizona didn’t invent the law that you had to be in this country legally.”

    Maybe they should just base their law on it, saying you have to be in the US legally to be in Arizona legally; they can do that.

    Legislators are just so stupid that they can’t write new laws that comply with existing ones, and so they’re left wide open to legal challenge.

    I can accept that this type of law can lead to racial profiling, since any drug-cop will tell you that it’s easy to trump up a legitimate stop; if you just follow ANY driver, they’re bound to commit a minor violation you can stop them for, like switching lanes without signaling even if it’s 3am with no one on the road, momentarily drifting over the dotted line etc; they call it “bobbling,” and it’s a standard practice of cops– it’s also upheld by court-law, I just don’t remember the exact case name.

    The simple solution, again, is just pass a law requiring legal US-entry status in order to enter Arizona; they have every right to do that, since the Constitution only forbids states from stopping people who are in the Unted States LEGALLY from entering– NO ONE ELSE.

    Therefore they have EVERY RIGHT to prohibit those without legal US status from entering ARIZONA– and then they couldn’t possibly be accused be “usurping federal jurisdiction” or whatever.

    It might be accused of “racial profiling–” hell, EVERY law can, since race is a PART OF ANY SUSPECT’S DESCRIPTION– they don’t say “be on the lookout for a person of indescript race, age, height, weight and gender!” That would be SLIGHTLY useless information.

    So the problem isn’t just with the federal government being hostile to border-security, it’s ALSO the stupidity of the legislature that they can’t pass a law that will stand up in court; just like two wrongs don’t make a right, federal breaches of the Constitution against the state, don’t merit STATE breaches of the Constitution against INDIVIDUALS– just go to any airport for proof of how well THAT works!

  • P.S. I LOVE how people are insane enought to think that “being born in the US makes you a US citizen.”

    Um, NEH-EH.
    If an expectant French couple are touring the United States, and the wife delivers their child 2 months early, should their child be a US citizen, and thus unable to vote in France? How is that fair to them?
    Or, alternatively, should the parents be able to DECIDE on their child’s citizenship? How is that fair to the rest of us?
    Or worst of all, should the child have “DUAL citizenship,” and thus be able to vote in BOTH countries?

    All of these make NO sense!
    The answer is simple: CITIZENSHIP IS HEREDITARY. That’s why Obama INSISTS that he was born in the US– i.e. since his only adult parent was AFRICAN, and therefore his mother, a minor US citizen, had to be in the US in ORDER for him to inherit her citizenship; if she had been a minor, he would have inherited only his FATHER’S citizenship.

    The original purpose of the 14th Amendment, was that slaves were citizens of AFRICAN NATIONS by birth–that’s the only reason they were ABLE to be born slaves, since US law FORBADE a person being born into slavery– it’s the Fifth Amendment. Meanwhile, African laws DID permit it.

    Now, to extend that to say that every live birth delivered within 3 miles of a US coastline are US citizens, is the most RIDICULOUS STEAMING PILE OF SHYSTERISM I’ve EVERY smelled come out of a crooked politician!

    According to this, EVERY refugee child born on a boat, only needs to come THREE MILES inside US coastal-waters, in order to claim anchor-baby status!

    So NOW what do you do– put a DIKE around the country, as well as a wall? I don’t think Hillary can manage it!

    There’re more holes in US immigration-and-citizenship law, than in the damn southern-border fence.

    The simple fact is, that special-interests don’t WANT to stop immigration; democrats socialists want the higher numbers from becoming the welfare-check state for all the world’s poverty, and fatcat-republicans want the cheap-labor. Meanwhile it’s the common REAL US citizen who gets hit by it.

    And the truth is, that’s the elephant (and donkey) in the room that no one wants to talk about: the US is not a democracy but an OLIGARCHY ruled by special-interests– and HAS been ever since the Civil War, which was actually to establish federal supremacy over every state– and thus make the federal government into the FINAL WORD on the Constitution, allowing them to pass any law, impose any tax, and enforce any policy that the politcians wanted, subject only to some slight hindrance that mob of sheep called “the American voters.”

    And so the same federal government which can pass and enforce any law it pleases, can even MORE easily STALL INDEFINITELY from taking action against even the most obvious problem.

    They could solve the immigration-problem AT WILL, simply by enforcing tax-laws against anyone who hires illegal labor, cross-referencing SS# databases to see who IS paying taxes on ILLEGAL labor, etc, PROSECUTING those who hired illegals, etc.

    Then, no one would bother coming to the US illegally to work, because no one would dare HIRE an illegal alien!

    But the polticians DON’T do ANY of these things, for the simple reason of RATIONAL INDIFFERENCE– i.e. their donors (for republicans) or rabble-rousing activists (for democrats) WON’T LET THEM; and so we have a minority of Americans making the rules for everyone else– i.e. OLIGOPOLY.

    And that’s is EXACTLY what Madison and Jefferson SAID would happen, IF THE STATES WERE UNABLE TO REFUSE FEDERAL RULE!

    So you kool-aid brainwashed folks can ALL thank your god, Abe Lincoln, for the problem– you’ve earned it!