Should Government Go After Fox, Breitbart?
The DailyCaller has a good article about left-leaning bloggers and journalists who are calling on the federal government to clamp down on Fox news after reporting Andrew Breitbart’s edited video of now jobless Shirley Sherrod supposedly admitting her own racism in her job. When people watch the video of Ms. Sherrod in its entirety, they can gleam from it a wholly separate picture.
Here’s the rub: I know Fox News and Andrew Breitbart participated in ruining this lady’s career, and they should be reprimanded by us, the consumer. However, I can see outcry on both sides of the aisle after this story broke, and especially after the fecal matter met the fan blades; but I did not see the same response from the left after ABC news reported on bad information. That is what Fox is guilty of, reporting faulty information. They should apologize and set the record straight, but government should stay the hell out of it. Otherwise, if the government lays down the law on Fox News, they should go after ABC for reporting false information about President Bush’s Air National Guard records, and Andrew Sullivan for his Levi and Bristol Palin infatuation (all which turned out to be false) and hell, every other news organization that reported something that ended up damaging their own credibility anyway. That’s what will, and should, happen with Andrew Breitbart and Fox after this fiasco.
-rj
Race-ing Against Social Justice–Farrakhan’s Racist Words
On Sunday afternoon, “An estimated 20,000 people” gathered to hear religious leader Louis Farrakhan speak. Salon reports that Farrakhan “predicted trouble ahead for President Barack Obama and urged him to do more to improve the lives of blacks and downtrodden.” In elaborating on what those troubles would be, Farrakhan said “the ‘white right’ was conspiring to make Obama a one-term president.” The association of ‘blacks’ with ‘the downtrodden’, and the assertion that political lines are divided by race only perpetuate the fear and hate that advocates for social justice and racial equality seek to eliminate. If our nation is ever to overcome racial prejudices and discrimination, we cannot overlook such language nor allow it to be disguised as anything other than what it is–blatant racism.
Harry’s Situation…
In the episode of the FX show It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia called “The Gang Goes Jihad,” the three guys who own the Philadelphia bar come face-to-face with a man who just moved from Israel and had bought land that included a portion of their establishment. Throughout the episode, the three characters banter over the proper use of the term Jew. At one point they T.P. the man’s building, during which this exchange occurs:
“That jew’s in for a hell of a lot of work.”
“Wow, wow, cool it man.”
“What? What are you talking about?”
“Dude, you just dropped a hard J.”
“No man, he is of Jewish descent and that is a lot of toilet paper. That is going to take a lot of time to clean up. I was thinking bout the context the whole time.”
Suffice to say, I love this show. But who needs to fork over the extra money to get FX Network when you can watch similar debates occur on the local news? It’s one thing to have three mentally unstable friends squabble over political correctness; how about a twenty three year Senator, and current Senate Majority leader demonstrating his inability to decide whether or not to use the out-dated term negro? In case you have been living with Patrick Star under a rock this past week, here is what Senator Reid is quoted in a new Mark Halperin book, Game Change:
“He (Reid) was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he later put it privately.”
The words could have come straight out of Archibald Bunker’s mouth. What is it that has the country so enveloped in this demonstration of ignorance? Ironically enough, Sen. Reid was attempting to compliment the future President of the United States. Instead people are up in arms. If we dissect the statement, we can see that there are distinct parts that probably incite more reaction than others. In what context is the term Negro acceptable? None (and the same goes for you Rush, even though you used it in a parody that ended up making fun of just this situation). Is it true that lighter-skinned African Americans tend to be more influential, more popular, and more electable in society than those who are darker? Sadly this seems to be the case in many situations, but I cannot pretend to be able to comment on the use of such racially charged language and how blacks feel about it truly, in their heart of hearts. Perhaps we should look at what he meant by “Negro dialect,” what does he mean there? Surely he demonstrated that he is out of touch with America because most people refer to ‘Ebonics’ or ‘street-talk’ when they are trying to make a similar point. Nobody is unaware of either of these terms, and his comment just shows his ignorance to popular culture as well as manners.
There is a lot to analyze there; but there seems to be something missing that is causing such turbulence in the souls of many Americans. For me, it’s not what was said on the surface, as much as it is what was said without being said. How can we use this black man to our advantage? He is black, which is useful; he ‘is articulate,’ which is useful; he can turn his ‘blackness on and off;’ which is useful; in the end, this black man is useful and will succeed for us because he is black how we want him to be, but not black when we need him to be. THAT my friends, is racism. There seems to be a disconnect between people who are viewing these comments and only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and those of us who see the rest of the iceberg plummeting miles into the ocean.
This was seen on Sunday, when I watched with gaping mouth, as Liz Cheney and George Will clashed over this point. Mr. Will seems to be looking at the comments on a surface level, Ms. Cheney on the deeper level. In order to be completely forthcoming, I must fess up to a deep admiration to both people (and NONE of the others around the table). I was sad to see the two fight, and sad to differ from George Will, again. However, I think those African Americans who are tired of feeling like pawns in a political game; whether it’s an effort to win voting blocks in cities with programs that have proven to be detrimental to the black family and communities, or putting up candidates that fit a litmus test for winning and avoiding the Bradley Effect. This is not a case of Republican versus Democrat, this is a demonstration of a disgusting ends justifies the means mentality for domestic politics, and should be condemned as such.
-rj
Who Cracks the Code?
One often hears that this or that political statement traffics in ?coded? racist imagery.? McCain commercials showing white women or black men or even white men used coded racial imagery.? Libertarians complaining about ?government thugs? must be appealing to coded racist terminology.? Political cultural cliches are inevitably a racist code.? Fears about redistribution are really coded fears of racial redistribution.? As Matthew Yglesias puts it:
Well, obviously you could read just about anything as a coded racist appeal. And I think a case could be made that you?d be right to.
But what good is code?? Self-described racists like the Aryan Nation don?t bother to traffic in codes ? they rely on explicit appeals to racial solidarity.? If racists made up a vast majority, or even a large plurality, of the committed opposition to President Obama, couldn?t they more effectively communicate their complaints to each other without relying on obscure and hard to understand codes?? A code only increases the costs of political coordination.? Only those who take the time to deconstruct the racial meanings will get the message.? Or, you can only find the racism if you are looking for it.
Inevitably, this means that progressives will crack the code first.? As remarkable as it may seem, few conservative or libertarian Americans support candidates and movements merely for the strength of their rhetoric?s racist undertones.? If they did, they would have candidates and movements with worse actual tones ? much more relevant to the only vaguely political majority that they must win over.? The cost of good racist codes would be the opportunity cost paid in foregone good rhetoric.? Progressives, on the other hand, are generally disinterested in absorbing core conservative or libertarian beliefs.? Policing rhetoric for accidental racial double-entendres is much more politically fruitful.
Cryptologist-in-Chief Jimmy Carter recently determined that ?an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a Black man.?? He is not alone, judging from Politico?s Arena. Progressives, as usual, can see far more racism than conservatives.? James Zogby explains how they do it:
Look at the signs, read the slogans, listen to the speeches, look into the eyes of the marchers and taunters!
I was present at the 9-12 DC rally against President Obama, so perhaps I am a part of the ?intensely demonstrated animosity?.? I certainly didn?t feel like a violent, hate-filled, racist troglodyte.? More like a cheerful, hopeful, freedom-loving idealist.? And that?s how I interpreted the crowds around me.? Perhaps Zogby knows better than I do.? Or perhaps when our methodology consists in ?looking into the eyes? of our opponents, we see just what we want to.
