God. God. God. God. GOD. God. GOD. GOD. Okay.
I can't believe I'm going to do this. What is the point of doing this? It's not like I'm being read anyways. But I'm angry, and I have to scream: Who the fuck is this fucking guy?
"Negroes vs. Black Conservatives"? See, that's just what you do. You set the motherfucking ground rules in double duh terms so that everybody can see what's coming. There's no such thing, this title implies, as a Black Un-Conservative. What there are, see, are Black Conservatives, and then there are Negroes. You can sense the trepidation in the man's fingertips as he lingers longingly over the keyboard, wishing he could put the other word in the title, the one that rhymes with plahziggers. And it's "vs.", as well, so there's a fucking wrestling match he's going to be talking about as opposed to motherfucking social issues.
Oh yeah, the EWLSDies. They'll fuck shit up, man, the ewlsdies, they got this little world twisted round their finger, from Lenny Bruce to Teresa Heinz Kerry, the whole bunchavem's nothing but a little cooler-than-thou trotskyite clique of APPEASERS.
Oh, I see. He's invented this wrestling match, and now he'd like to denounce it. It's not something he's dragging out of the sewer, it exists in the minds of white people. Would you like to know, hey, I've got a little copy of Oxford's Shorter English Dictionary in my back pocket here, hey, see, buncha definitions, look they got one here it's for racism: it reads
So basically, if you are assigning a characteristic to one particular race, say for example a tendency to see a dichotomy between one kind of black person and another which relegates one kind of black person to a lower caste depending on their political views, and you assign that characteristic exclusively, as you do when you use an expression like ewlsdies, then that there is a racist statement, sir. There has been so much repetition of the phrase "play the race card" in information circuits of a certain flavour that it's become fashionable to play it before one has even been dealt into the game. But fine, I know who he's talking about, he's talking about Streisand. Let's move on:
Grammatical seizures aside, there's a lot wrong here already. The terms "rank and file" and "leadership" are diametrically opposed. If one is a rank and file Democrat, then one is most specifically not in a leadership position in the Democratic party. So who's he talking about, if not every single Democrat there is? How ridiculous. I had to google Bob Beckel, never having heard of him before, and managed to find a fairly recent, lightweight piece he wrote on Ms. Rice in which he basically says she's in over her head. Is Massie saying he thinks she's not? Can he really think of anyone who wouldn't be? What's she going to do, butt heads with Cheney over untendered Iraq reconstruction contracts? As if. Also Mr. Beckel wrote his piece without once using words like "black" or "Negroes", so I'm not sure where he's getting that Beckel's is a "racist" bastardization. And corporate America? You can blame absolutely anything on those sons of bitches without it even meaning a damn thing since it's a polity everyone and noone belongs to. Corporate America is a schema, not an oak-and-veneer gentleman's club. Hasn't he been paying attention?
Yes, I've seen all those faces on the cover of Black Republican Aficionado. I remember Connerly as the guy with the Racial Privacy Act, basically a "don't ask don't tell" clause for being black in California. Thomas Sowell writes for the Jewish World Review; if you go to their website the donation advert is an amazingly Pink Floydian picture of two white-cuffed white-skinned hands clasped over a psychedelic image. Some of the names Massie mentions belong to men of the scholar-TV pundit persuasion, and I don't mean to racially bastardize them because it's hard to become a scholar, or a Fellow, or a professor, but answer me this: wouldn't you say that there's a great demand for conservatives "who happen to be black" to appear on television as commentators or to write for ideologically motivated publications like the Jewish World Review or the National Review? Furthermore, that the prominence these scholars receive could lead one to the conclusion that there are as many African-American scholars who agree with the course of the Bush administration as there are those who do not? Which, by the way, like hell there are. Well-intentioned or not, these telepundits are contestants in a rigged reality show, and their national prominence is indicative of nothing, withstanding women or notwithstanding them.
Yes it is indeed interesting to observe that these African-American people you've mentioned are neither impotent nor passive. Don't think you can disguise your abhorrent worldview with a thesaurus, Mr. Massie. What you mean to establish is that those African-Americans who disagree with any or all of those present on your list are very impuissant and recreant, and that these, to get back to your wrestling match, are the Negroes. Do I need to break out the OSED again?
Great. Yes, interesting, yadda yadda yadda. If you were white and stupid and you read this, what would you think?
He just went where?
Essentially, the Democrats' argument at the time was that an end to slavery would be bad for the economy. Fairly disgusting, but also a hundred and fifty two years ago, and we were talking about Condoleeza Rice, who's 49, and whose new office is (not coincidentally) enabling a massive expropration of resources from the Iraqi people in the interests of economic stability (which is not yet on the horizon).
Yes, Lincoln was a Republican. The Emancipation Proclamation was enacted by the then-governing Republican party, and these are things for which the Republican party should be proud. What about after 1960, though? What were the significant Republican contributions to the civil-rights movement when it, you know, actually existed as anyone now alive knows it? Oh yeah, they tried to STIFLE it.
Aaaanyways....
Lott's comments weren't specifically in support of Thurmond hiring a black in his senate office. They were specifically in support of Thurmond's 1948 bid for president, when he said that there was no army big enough to push desegregation on the southern states and force them to "admit the Nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches." That's why Lott was roundly criticized for his jocund (thesaurus says: delightful, mirthful, pleasant, agreeable) endorsement.
Robert Byrd was a Klansman in the forties, and there's a much-quoted 1946 letter he wrote that urgently supports the KKK. But Byrd turned his back on the Klan soon after that letter. Thurmond did not denounce his prior segregationist leanings until 1964, after much bloodshed and lots of ugly behaviour made the segregationist ideology very unpopular and politically inexpedient. Dodd's remarks were to the effect that Byrd would have been a great leader for any part of America's history, including the Civil War. Any idiot can see that this is an endorsement of the man as a whole, not one specific historical moment in his thought.
Conservatives are always looking for the "reverse-get": the moment where some really scurrilous thing said or done by a Republican is somehow echoed by a Democrat. What follows a reverse-get is somewhat weird: they don't denounce the Democrat's supposedly egregious behaviour so much as celebrate it, because its existence proves some kind of bias against them in the media. Never mind that the circumstances of each event may be only superficially similar. The reverse-get is the attempt to obviate the first sin by exaggerating the second; the appearance is of the first being exonerated by default. But any time you see a reverse-get, understand: this is how a Republican apologizes. Take it as such, but remember that it is not an honourable one.
As I understand it, we are having this conversation (or rather, I am speaking into a windsock in the desert) because of one talk radio host in Madison, Wisconsin who compared Rice to Aunt Jemima. His point was that Rice has, by all accounts, been ineffectual in her role in the Bush administration thus far. So her new appointment strikes the people who feel that way as filling the void with someone who won't argue with the Cheney doctrine, the way Powell did. He's since apologized for the remark, but fuck him anyways. If that's how he feels, he's entitled to his opinion (and without the race-baiting comments, it's one with which I agree) but if you can't contribute something meaningful to the discussion, "Sly", maybe you should shut the hell up before you make things even worse.
"Negroes vs. Black Conservatives"? See, that's just what you do. You set the motherfucking ground rules in double duh terms so that everybody can see what's coming. There's no such thing, this title implies, as a Black Un-Conservative. What there are, see, are Black Conservatives, and then there are Negroes. You can sense the trepidation in the man's fingertips as he lingers longingly over the keyboard, wishing he could put the other word in the title, the one that rhymes with plahziggers. And it's "vs.", as well, so there's a fucking wrestling match he's going to be talking about as opposed to motherfucking social issues.
In the minds of elite, white, liberal, socialist Democrats -
Oh yeah, the EWLSDies. They'll fuck shit up, man, the ewlsdies, they got this little world twisted round their finger, from Lenny Bruce to Teresa Heinz Kerry, the whole bunchavem's nothing but a little cooler-than-thou trotskyite clique of APPEASERS.
In the minds of elite, white, liberal, socialist Democrats, there is an unambiguous dichotomy between Negroes and black conservatives.
Oh, I see. He's invented this wrestling match, and now he'd like to denounce it. It's not something he's dragging out of the sewer, it exists in the minds of white people. Would you like to know, hey, I've got a little copy of Oxford's Shorter English Dictionary in my back pocket here, hey, see, buncha definitions, look they got one here it's for racism: it reads
(Belief in, adherence to, or advocacy of) the theory that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, qualities, etc., specific to that race, esp. as distinguishing it as inferior or superior to another race or races; prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism based on this.
So basically, if you are assigning a characteristic to one particular race, say for example a tendency to see a dichotomy between one kind of black person and another which relegates one kind of black person to a lower caste depending on their political views, and you assign that characteristic exclusively, as you do when you use an expression like ewlsdies, then that there is a racist statement, sir. There has been so much repetition of the phrase "play the race card" in information circuits of a certain flavour that it's become fashionable to play it before one has even been dealt into the game. But fine, I know who he's talking about, he's talking about Streisand. Let's move on:
A glaring example of this truth is the racist bastardization of America's newest secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. And the support for this racism from corporate America to Bob Beckel to rank and file Democrats in leadership.
Grammatical seizures aside, there's a lot wrong here already. The terms "rank and file" and "leadership" are diametrically opposed. If one is a rank and file Democrat, then one is most specifically not in a leadership position in the Democratic party. So who's he talking about, if not every single Democrat there is? How ridiculous. I had to google Bob Beckel, never having heard of him before, and managed to find a fairly recent, lightweight piece he wrote on Ms. Rice in which he basically says she's in over her head. Is Massie saying he thinks she's not? Can he really think of anyone who wouldn't be? What's she going to do, butt heads with Cheney over untendered Iraq reconstruction contracts? As if. Also Mr. Beckel wrote his piece without once using words like "black" or "Negroes", so I'm not sure where he's getting that Beckel's is a "racist" bastardization. And corporate America? You can blame absolutely anything on those sons of bitches without it even meaning a damn thing since it's a polity everyone and noone belongs to. Corporate America is a schema, not an oak-and-veneer gentleman's club. Hasn't he been paying attention?
Rice is one of America's most accomplished individuals, notwithstanding women – as is Bush judicial nominee Justice Janice Rogers-Brown; as is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; as is Ambassador and senatorial candidate Alan Keyes; as is Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Colin Powell and the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson. The aforementioned comprise a very small number of a very large and ever increasing number of conservatives who happen to be black.
Yes, I've seen all those faces on the cover of Black Republican Aficionado. I remember Connerly as the guy with the Racial Privacy Act, basically a "don't ask don't tell" clause for being black in California. Thomas Sowell writes for the Jewish World Review; if you go to their website the donation advert is an amazingly Pink Floydian picture of two white-cuffed white-skinned hands clasped over a psychedelic image. Some of the names Massie mentions belong to men of the scholar-TV pundit persuasion, and I don't mean to racially bastardize them because it's hard to become a scholar, or a Fellow, or a professor, but answer me this: wouldn't you say that there's a great demand for conservatives "who happen to be black" to appear on television as commentators or to write for ideologically motivated publications like the Jewish World Review or the National Review? Furthermore, that the prominence these scholars receive could lead one to the conclusion that there are as many African-American scholars who agree with the course of the Bush administration as there are those who do not? Which, by the way, like hell there are. Well-intentioned or not, these telepundits are contestants in a rigged reality show, and their national prominence is indicative of nothing, withstanding women or notwithstanding them.
It is interesting to observe that these are not the impuissant or recreant.
Yes it is indeed interesting to observe that these African-American people you've mentioned are neither impotent nor passive. Don't think you can disguise your abhorrent worldview with a thesaurus, Mr. Massie. What you mean to establish is that those African-Americans who disagree with any or all of those present on your list are very impuissant and recreant, and that these, to get back to your wrestling match, are the Negroes. Do I need to break out the OSED again?
It is further interesting to note that these listed are not recognized because of financial impropriety, illegitimate children, drugs, philandering, number of abortions, race baiting or complaints of whites holding them back. They are recognized for their hard work, honesty, integrity and diligence. They are recognized for their educational accomplishments, their personal sacrifices and their love for country.
Great. Yes, interesting, yadda yadda yadda. If you were white and stupid and you read this, what would you think?
This is not recrudence for elitist liberals and the Democrat Party – it is the continuation of that which they have stood for since their inception in 1840, when they wrote that efforts by abolitionists to interfere with questions of slavery ... endangered the stability and permanency of the Union. In 1852, the Democrat Party wrote they would oppose all efforts to oppose slavery.
He just went where?
Essentially, the Democrats' argument at the time was that an end to slavery would be bad for the economy. Fairly disgusting, but also a hundred and fifty two years ago, and we were talking about Condoleeza Rice, who's 49, and whose new office is (not coincidentally) enabling a massive expropration of resources from the Iraqi people in the interests of economic stability (which is not yet on the horizon).
From 1876 until 1960, Democrats successfully blocked all progress in civil rights. Prior to that, from 1860 to 1876, Republicans were singularly responsible for all black civil-rights accomplishments despite fierce opposition by Democrats.
Yes, Lincoln was a Republican. The Emancipation Proclamation was enacted by the then-governing Republican party, and these are things for which the Republican party should be proud. What about after 1960, though? What were the significant Republican contributions to the civil-rights movement when it, you know, actually existed as anyone now alive knows it? Oh yeah, they tried to STIFLE it.
Aaaanyways....
Liberal Democrats, aided by the true "house slaves," railed against Trent Lott, R-Miss., for his jocund comments celebrating the late Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday. While Thurmond was at one time a segregationist Democrat, it receives little notice that he switched parties in 1964, denounced his prior leanings and was the first Southern senator to hire a black in his senate office – something no Southern Democrat had ever done.
Lott's comments weren't specifically in support of Thurmond hiring a black in his senate office. They were specifically in support of Thurmond's 1948 bid for president, when he said that there was no army big enough to push desegregation on the southern states and force them to "admit the Nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches." That's why Lott was roundly criticized for his jocund (thesaurus says: delightful, mirthful, pleasant, agreeable) endorsement.
Yet there is nothing mentioned by liberals per Christopher Dodd's, D-Conn., superlatives about the racist Klansman, Robert Byrd, D-W.V. His comments that Byrd "would have been right for the Civil War" were accurate in his Democrat mind.
Robert Byrd was a Klansman in the forties, and there's a much-quoted 1946 letter he wrote that urgently supports the KKK. But Byrd turned his back on the Klan soon after that letter. Thurmond did not denounce his prior segregationist leanings until 1964, after much bloodshed and lots of ugly behaviour made the segregationist ideology very unpopular and politically inexpedient. Dodd's remarks were to the effect that Byrd would have been a great leader for any part of America's history, including the Civil War. Any idiot can see that this is an endorsement of the man as a whole, not one specific historical moment in his thought.
Conservatives are always looking for the "reverse-get": the moment where some really scurrilous thing said or done by a Republican is somehow echoed by a Democrat. What follows a reverse-get is somewhat weird: they don't denounce the Democrat's supposedly egregious behaviour so much as celebrate it, because its existence proves some kind of bias against them in the media. Never mind that the circumstances of each event may be only superficially similar. The reverse-get is the attempt to obviate the first sin by exaggerating the second; the appearance is of the first being exonerated by default. But any time you see a reverse-get, understand: this is how a Republican apologizes. Take it as such, but remember that it is not an honourable one.
As I understand it, we are having this conversation (or rather, I am speaking into a windsock in the desert) because of one talk radio host in Madison, Wisconsin who compared Rice to Aunt Jemima. His point was that Rice has, by all accounts, been ineffectual in her role in the Bush administration thus far. So her new appointment strikes the people who feel that way as filling the void with someone who won't argue with the Cheney doctrine, the way Powell did. He's since apologized for the remark, but fuck him anyways. If that's how he feels, he's entitled to his opinion (and without the race-baiting comments, it's one with which I agree) but if you can't contribute something meaningful to the discussion, "Sly", maybe you should shut the hell up before you make things even worse.
posted by gibletquesterrs at 5:48 PM
<< Home