Wednesday, November 15, 2006

The "Right" Is Just Wrong Wrong Wrong!

Does the Fox News Channel support terrorists? Well, yes they do. Palestinian terrorists were paid $2 million from Fox News to ensure the release of kidnapped "journalists" Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig who were kidnapped in Gaza earlier in the year. The terrorists, from the Gaza-based Popular Resistance Committees, said they used the money to buy weapons to "hit the Zionists." On behalf of any dead Jews that were killed as a result of Fox News's terrorist support plan -- Fuck You Hypocrites! How many more abductions will take place now that these scumbags know they can get a huge payday by kidnapping Americans. Fox is the lowest of the low.

Now that the Democrats have the majority in the Senate, hearing will be held on global warming. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who will be the chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, will finally address the issue in a meaningful way. The former chair, Oklahoma's James Inhoffe (perhaps the stupidest man ever to hold the job of Senator), said that global warming is a "hoax" and has blocked all funding to combat the problem. Finally, some sanity will return to the environment committee.

You know how conservatives are constantly whining about the need to regulate the internet to "protect the children" from porn? Seems like this is yet another conservative myth. According to a new study, only 1% of all internet sites feature explicit sexual content. The results of the new study have been presented in federal court in a lawsuit being brought against Attorney General Alberto "the torturer" Gonzalez by the ACLU. The study was commissioned by the Justice Department, but because the results of the study do not match the Bush Administration's position, they tried to supress it. "One of the things we think came out of the government's study is that the chance of running into graphic content on the Web when filters are on is extremely low,'' said Catherine Crump, staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Mississippi Senator Trent Lott is back in the leadership of the Republican Party. Today, he won the post of Minority Whip in the Senate. Lott used to be the Majority Leader until 2002 when his praise for the 1948 candidacy of segregationist Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond for President caused his ouster. Thurmond is not worthy of praise of any sort. He is known for leading the longest ever Senate filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, he raped a black woman that worked for his family in the 1920s and subsequently a child was born (Thurmond never publily acknowledged the child was his), and though some claim Thurmond became more "moderate" on issues of race, he never repudiated his defense of segregation.

Despite numerous allegations of personal and professional misconduct, the Bush Administration has once again nominated Kenneth Tomlinson for an administration position. He has been nominated again to head the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The board "oversees Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio and TV Marti, broadcasting initiatives in the Middle East and other nonmilitary U.S. broadcasting overseas." In a report by the State Department's inspector general, Tomlinson was found to have "misused government funds" in his position. Tomlinson's name became known nationally when he was forced to step down from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for violating his office's code of ethics by promoting conservative programming, and cutting funding for programs he deemed "liberal."


Snave said...

Re. Tomlinson, I was not even aware he had had to step down! That's good news, but I still think we need that FAirness Doctrine back in action.

I can't believe they would be so fooking stoopid as to elect Lott to a leadership position... of course he is very good at political maneuvering, so I guess it makes sense, but jeez...

Finally, global warming will be addressed in Congress in a meaningful way! Bush will have his veto pen ready, I'm sure.

Anonymous said...

Well, well, Trent Lott is back in power. Maybe eventually they can change the name from the Republican Party to the Southern White Citizens Association.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of racist congressment, you guys forgot to mention Senator, and former Senate Majority Leader, Robert Byrd of West Virginia. He was a honcho with the Ku Klux Klan and within the last couple of years, used the word "Nigger" in a T.V. news interview, not once, but twice.

How the heck did you overlook mentioning him? Oh wait, I know... he's a Democrat!

Dave Splash said...

No asshole. The piece is about Lott and why he was removed from leadership. Is it even possible for you to stay on topic? I have no interest in defending Byrd (though he has repudiated his earlier behavior and apologized unlike Thurmond), though you clearly have no problem with Thurmond's vile behavior. Hey if raping the help is your game, then you have way more serious problems than being a Republican!

Anonymous said...

Asshole? When you start throwing out the gratuitous cusswords, I know you are crafting one hell of a cogent argument.

Of course I have a problem with Thurmond's behavior; Lott's too. What I also have a problem with is your one-sided tsk-tskings of the right side of the aisle, while you ignore the slime on your side and deny that they exist.

Byrd repudiated his earlier behavior? When? It wasn't that long ago I was watching the footage of him using the word "nigger" on national television. I don't know about repudiating his behavior, but he has certainly lied about it. He chalks up his KKK membership as a brief indiscretion from his youth. Never mind that he was a kleagle, which means he recruited others to the Klan. Never mind that he wrote a letter to a Mississippi senator, stating that he would never fight, "with a negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Now let me axe you something: If Byrd were a Republican, would you give him a pass regarding his past, even if he did allegedly repudiate it? Be honest - if he was a Republican, you would hold his KKK membership against him no matter how long ago it was, and no matter what he might have done to atone for it. Your attempts to downplay the KKK member in your Democrat midst are downright pathetic.

You have no interest in defending Byrd (even though you did it anyway), because his continued presence as a Democrat in the United States Senate negates any complaints you make about Thurmond, Lott, or anyone else.

Dave Splash said...

First off, the tone of my earlier comment may have been a little harsher than I intended. It was early morning and I was tired. Oops. But as far as my "one-sided tsk-tskings of the right side of the aisle," why is that a problem? This is a blog. The entire thing is my opinion. I don't have to be "fair and balanced." I am all for healthy debate, but when someone (in this case you) ignores the central point of the posting and just tries to insert a "But Democrats have bad guys, too" argument, I sometimes get annoyed. You are free to do the same thing on your blog (which you do). If you want to argue that what I said is wrong, then ok. But to just point out an unrelated Democrat is not constructive in my opinion.

Like I said I will not defend Byrd -- never have. I, honestly, don't see how anyone could ever join the Klan or any of those white power groups. I also don't see how anyone with a conscience can sport a Confederate flag or talk about the "Southern heritage" with anything other than disdain. But just for the record, here is what he said when he used the "N-word" on TV -- "My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time." Source.

He later apologized for the statement and for his being in the Klan, "We all make mistakes. I made a mistake when I was a young man -- it's always been an albatross around my neck -- in joining the Ku Klux Klan. We all make mistakes. We can strive to overcome them.".

That is the last time I will get into Byrd on this blog. I don't like him, and don't want to be put into a position of defending him. But Thurmond never even said he was wrong to hold the opinions he did. He never apologized to the nation for holding back the civil rights of millions due to his personal bigotry. I'm sorry but the scales are just not even between Byrd and Thurmond.

One final point, in trying to find racism in the Democratic Party, you have to look to what one mad said decades earlier. To fin it in your party, one must only look to last week's election. The racist ads in TN or the threatening phone calls to blacks in Virginia and Florida. Your party's "southern strategy" is still in effect. Perhaps you should get your house in order before coming over and condeming mine.

Sorry for calling you an asshole.

Anonymous said...

To find racism in the Democratic party, I don't have to look in the distant past, I only have to look to a few weeks ago when Steny Hoyer said that Michael Steele was "slavish" to the Republican party. I only have to look to Donna Brazile describing the Republican party as a "bunch of white boys." I only have to look to Senator Christopher Dodd extolling the virtues of, yes, Robert Byrd, describing him as someone who "...would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation."
Really Senator Dodd? Robert KKK Byrd would have been right for this country during the Civil War? I only have to look to Hillary Clinton talking about Mohandas Gandhi running a gas station in St. Louis, I only have to look to Howard Dean who, in a speech, essentially said that blacks and other minorities are only fit to be on the hotel staff. And you can source the "white nigger" soundbite if you want; it doesn't matter. Had a Republican said the same thing, you would be raking him over the coals, not downplaying it. I only have to look to USA Today columnist Julianne Malveaux, who said that she hoped Clarence Thomas's wife fed him lots of eggs and butter so he would die early like other black men.

I freely point out the misgivings of the Republican party on my blog even when I am zinging the Democrats. If you want to be more one-sided on your blog, that's your choice. The least I can do is remind you and your commentors that the political situation is not as black and white (no pun intended) as you make it out to be. Until the Democrats can own up to the racism that permeates their party, they are going to continue to look like hypocritical fools as they excoriate the Republicans for their behavior, while defending or minimizing similar behavior when Democrats do it.

Dave Splash said...

I guess I don't see your point. None of the examples you cited are even slightly racist. The Hoyer comment could be interpreted to mean 100s of things. I didn't hear a single prominent black person or leader say anything about it. Donna Brazile's comment is not racist. Saying the GOP is a bunch of white boys does not quite qualify. As for the Dodd comment, it's convenient that you ignore the context of the quote and use it to claim Dodd is endorsing one element of Byrd's past. That's grasping at straws, dude. The Hillary thing was a joke -- again you took it out of context. And the Dean thing you are grossly misinterpreting for your own ends. What he said was that the the only minorities at a Republican event would be the hotel staff. It's not a comment I would have made, but it in no way can be construed as racism. Last time I checked Malveaux is black, so I am unsure how her comment about another black person could be seen as racist.

Sorry, man. Do more research. And remember, the Limbaugh/Hannity interpretations of things do not constitute fact -- it is just the opinion of a couple of blowhards. As for your comment, "Until the Democrats can own up to the racism that permeates their party, they are going to continue to look like hypocritical fools as they excoriate the Republicans for their behavior..." explain to me why upwards of 95% of all blacks vote Dem, and the percentage of Latino voters that vote GOP went down this last election cycle. There is a perception (fair or not) that the GOP is hostile to minorities. But the numbers speak for themselves. A much broader slice of America votes Democratic -- that's just a fact.

Anonymous said...

That was about the most pathetic example of defending the indefensible that I have seen in quite some time. None of my examples are even slightly racist you say? "Slightly" racist? Do you care to withdraw that statement? Let's break these down shall we?

First off, take any of these examples I have mentioned, reverse the parties, and you would be all over them like white on rice (or black on beans; I have to be equal opportunity here). The Hoyer comment could be interpreted how many ways? He used the word "slavish" while describing a black senatorial candidate, and he made his remarks to a mostly black audience. For God's sake, even Hoyer said he shouldn't have used those words, and yet you describe them as not even slightly racist.

Donna Brazile's comment was not racist? Reverse the parties and the races: So I guess you would have no problem if I called the Democrat party the party of the black boys?

Ah yes, when a liberal/Democrat says something racist, it is always because it was taken out of context. If you want to use that argument, then you might want to rethink what Trent Lott said about Thurmond. That could also be interpreted to mean 100s of things also.

Hillary was also taken out of context, I see. If a Republican said the same thing, would his/her words be taken out of context too? C'mon!

The Dean comment about the hotel staff; again reverse the parties. If a Republican had alluded to the fact that minorities are only good enough to be hotel staff, I can just imagine what you would have to say about it.

Ah, Malveaux is black so her comment cannot be racist. She can wish death upon Clarence Thomas due to his blackness, but that's not racist. Would she be racist if she called him Uncle Tom or Oreo? And I guess I shouldn't get upset anymore when at my school one black student calls another black student a nigger or a nigga. They're both black after all, so that term can't be racist when they say it.

I'll tell you why minorities tend to vote Democrat: First it's plain old fashioned inertia. They have been doing it since the 1930s, so to most it has always been done that way. Second, it's peer pressure. If I was black and I was called a house nigga, or Uncle Tom, or Oreo, or sellout for voting Republican, it's not hard to imagine the temptation to play it safe and vote Democrat. I wish people were more confident with their convictions, but unfortunately, peer pressure and the threat of being ostracized are powerful motivators. The biggest reason for the monolithic voting record is because the Democrats are not afraid to lie about the positions of conservatives and the Republican party regarding minorities, while at the same time, the Republicans are too wishy-washy and incompetent to properly dispute the Democrats' lies. Hurricane Katrina would be a prime example. The federal government's response to Katrina was just as incompetent as its response to just about every other hurricane in memory - I remember the complaints about the slow response time to Hurricane Andrew - yet it was painted by Democrats as Bush wanting to kill black people, or not caring about black people. I have had black students of mine ask me, "Why did George Bush want to kill black people during Katrina?" Kanye West gets on national television and says, "George Bush doesn't care about black people." It's ridiculous.

Sorry Howard, but your attempts to downplay or dismiss the truth are sounding more and more desperate.

Anonymous said...

Dang it, I always forget something. I forgot to mention Al Sharpton. Here is a racist bar none. He has called Jews "diamond merchants", has complained about "white interlopers" in Harlem, incited a follower to kill 7 people while burning down a store because a "white interloper" wanted to keep his clothing store operating in Harlem. He shared a stage with the absolute racist Jew-hater Khalid Muhammad and called him a "articulate and courageous brother", he libeled six innocent (white) men by accusing them of raping Tawana Brawley and smearing her body with feces. When it all turned out to be a hoax, Sharpton refused to pay court-ordered libel damages of $345,000, and still refuses to apologize for what he did.

So what, you might say. Sharpton is a marginal figure, you might say. Is he? Not only has he run for president, he shared the stage with the other Democrat candidates. He has appeared on Meet the Press and other news shows (including on Fox News, God help me), Hillary Clinton has shared the stage with him several times. Is Sharpton ever called on by the Democrats for any of this stuff he says and does? Hell no! How do we know this? If he was called on it, he would not be sharing the stage with anyone. Democrats should not be giving this hateful racist the time of day; instead, they embrace him.

So on one side, you have Sharpton. On the other side, you have Byrd. Ah yes, those Democrats are a real tolerant bunch.

Anonymous said...

So because their supposed "intent" is not to be racist, Democrats can say all these racist things and not have to answer for it? That is what I think you are saying here. Hillary Clinton can bring up the whole Gandhi = Apu from the Simpsons stereotype and she doesn't have to answer for it because she's a leftist. That is the stupidest thing I think I have heard you yet say.

You say the southern, racist Democrats left went to the GOP from the '40s to the '60s? Then how is it that more Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than the Democrats? By the way, Robert Byrd, current Democrat, and Al Gore's father were instrumental in trying to stop that bill from passing.

The Republican message machine is second to none? You can't be serious. We on the right have had to fight the tide every step of the way. Your side always brings up Fox News and Talk Radio. Fine, we dominate with those. Have you watched or listened to NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, PBS, NPR lately? If Fox News is "right wing", you're going to tell me that these other networks are not "left-wing"?

And yes, I do bring up Kanye West. He is not some "random" person. He is a multi-million dollar hip-hop star who said what he said on television in front of national audience. You say because he isn't a politician or member of the media that what he says doesn't matter? Who the hell do you think the kids I teach listen to? Katie Couric? Kanye West saying that George Bush doesn't care about black people reverberated with most of the kids in my classes. When I mentioned that some kids in my class asked me about Bush not caring about black people, where pray tell do you think they got that idea? You seem to live in some kind of vacuum where you think that only the utterances of certain people matter. In reality, it is one big unholy mess.

I don't believe that blacks have to have their hand held like you assert. Unfortunately, through racial set-asides, quotas, and other condescending features of the travesty known as affirmative action, it is your side who seems to want to do the hand holding. What I do know is that when my black students make their decisions based on what Kanye West says, I do worry about the future; same as when I see my white female students dressing like Britney Spears. Ugh!

Last thing, tell me exactly what George W. Bush should do for the poor that hasn't already been tried? Minimum wage? It costs people jobs (and is unconstitutional to boot). Welfare? Clinton and the Republicans already reformed it. Tax cuts? Most of the poor don't pay income taxes anyway. The rich and upper middle class pay most of the income taxes.

What pray tell should be done for the poor?