What we have here is what I would call the height of irresponsibility for a couple of members of Congress. Apparently, yesterday there were Congressional hearings about the whole Trayvon Martin ordeal. I'm not quite sure why they were holding hearings when all of the facts aren't exactly in or known. And some facts may never be known. But hey, let's hold hearings anyway and say things that are wildly irresponsible.
I'll start with a one Representative Frederica Wilson. Here is what Ms. Wilson had to say today about a subject that I cannot imagine she has some sort of secret knowledge about. "Mister Speaker, this is Trayvon Martin. Trayvon Martin's murderer is still at large. I want America to see this sweet, young boy who was hunted down like a dog." Well, then.
I'm really surprised at the kinds of things that you can get away with saying as a Congressperson. Can you call someone a murderer based upon the facts that are available to us at this time? She doesn't know any more than the rest of us know. And honestly, we don't know a lot. I have several questions about what went on that night. I'm not sure why it's taking so long for information to be released, but the longer it takes, the more likely it is that people continue making irresponsible statements like that of Ms. Wilson.
And while I'm on the subject, I have to address her "this sweet, young boy" comment. Because the media seemingly wanted to turn this into a race war, the most commonly circulated picture of Trayvon is one where he is about 13 or 14. You've probably seen this:
But have you seen this?
Or how about this one? Nice grill:
And I wouldn't want to leave out his tattoo. (Yep. 17 years old and sporting a rather large tat.)
Now, just because these photos are more representative of how Trayvon looked recently does NOT mean that he should have been shot. And maybe he was sweet. And maybe he was nice. Everyone has a good side. But these pictures do not exactly portray that of a "sweet, young boy". And I really don't appreciate the media skewing the perception of this for ratings or views or whatever the hell they're interested in these days.
You know what else I don't appreciate? Representative Hank Johnson, for one. Here's what he said about this: "He was executed for WWB in a GC. Walking while black in a gated community." Oh, for cryin' out loud. First of all, it's my understanding that he was in the gated community because his dad lived there. So black people in that community isn't a surprise. Second, it's also my understanding that Trayvon didn't live with his dad (and was only there because he was suspended from school) and therefore, wasn't known in that neighborhood. Again, I'm not saying that the kid should have been shot. I'm just saying that claiming that he was "executed" for being black is awfully disingenuous. (By the way, if the name Hank Johnson sounds familiar to you, this is the same guy who thought that Guam, an island, might one day tip over. And while that doesn't excuse his comments, it does explain a little bit. He ain't all that bright in some areas.)
Why do so many of these black folks that are speaking out think that every white person is a racist? It's like they have some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy that they really want to be true. And then they pull stuff like this and wonder why people get all upset and then attribute that to racism either. We don't not like you because you're black! No, we don't like you because you think every white person is a racist! And we're tired of it. Things happen! Horrible things, sometimes. But it doesn't mean that they're ALL because of racism or racists. So I'd really appreciate it if people would just pipe down until everything is known. Please, pipe down.
Finally! The WB has gotten it right. They're not trying to change or ignore "history". (I'm using the quotation marks because I'm about to start referencing cartoons and giving them a "historical" status felt a little weird.) They're just showing it for what it is. And what it is is Tom and Jerry cartoons that weren't always politically correct.
Look, there were some things in older cartoons that were fairly racist. Now, I'm not a big fan of the word "racist" because it gets thrown around all of the time lately, usually in the context of things that are so not racist, but it's appropriate here. Take the character Mammy Two Shoes. Yep, that was her name. Behold!
Yeah, that doesn't look all that great. And usually, Mammy Two Shoes didn't have a face. She was usually depicted as such:
See? Not much better. And that's not really the extent of it, but you get my drift. And while I personally don't think that it's a big deal, you know that there are people out there who would think it's a big deal. (Or, at least, they're going to want to make a big deal out of it. Big difference.) And those are the sorts of people that usually complain until something is taken off the air because they find it sooooo offensive. And unfortunately, a lot of companies simply comply because they are afraid of offending people, even though the number of people who are NOT offended greatly outnumber the nimrods who are offended. But not The WB. Nope. When they were airing a bunch of Tom and Jerry cartoons recently, they came up with this "disclaimer" or warning label or whatever you want to call it. Behold!
It's brilliant. Simply brilliant. You can't ignore this sort of stuff. And just because there might be something in it that isn't acceptable in current times, doesn't mean that it still can't be enjoyed in the proper context. Or even the improper context. Hell, they're freaking cartoons! They're going to be enjoyable in spite of the unflattering depiction of the maid (who, by the way, is NOT REAL). And I cannot even tell you how grateful I am that The WB is still showing these cartoons. It might not seem like much, but trust me. It's a lot. And now, we sit back and wait for the complaints to roll in. And they will. Roll.
Oh, most of news media. How I despise you so. Please stop feeling the need to make things that are completely innocent into something that is falsely inflammatory. David Gregory, I'm talking to you.
Fox Nation gives us the low down of when Newt Gingrich was on Meet the Press on Sunday with Mr. Gregory. Gregory played a clip from a speech that Newt gave in Georgia on Friday. The gist of the whole thing was jobs. This is what Newt said: "You want to be a country that creates food stamps, in which case frankly Obama's is an enormous success. The most successful food stamp president in American history. Or do you want to be a country that creates paychecks?" OK. Seems like a bit of a slam, but I'm OK with it. I know what he's trying to say. (He can't blame it all on President Barry though, even though he's trying.)
You want to know what David Gregory thought he was trying to say? I don't know if you do. Let's find out. David Gregory actually had the nerve to say: "First of all, you gave a speech in Georgia with language a lot of people think could be coded racially-tinged language, calling the president, the first black president, a food stamp president." Oh, for cryin' out loud. WHAT?!
Racial?! Racially tinged language?! How do you figure, Dave?? Because it was in Georgia? Well, that doesn't make any sense. Because there are a lot of black people in Georgia? No, that doesn't make any sense either. Is it because David Gregory is trying to start some sort of racial controversy that does not, in any way, shape or form even exist? I don't know if that's the motivation behind it, but it's more logical than the other two possibilities that I mentioned.
I am appalled. That's one of the more ridiculous and inane things that anyone has ever implied racism to be. Do I have to keep reminding people that he's HALF WHITE?! He's the first half white president, NOT the first black president! And if you do want to go with his being partially black, why don't you call him the first half black president?! Oh, because that wouldn't have enough opportunities to imply racism now, would it? Morons. Knock it off, David. You know better than that. The video of this asininity is below. It should make you angry and annoyed. If it doesn't, you're doing it wrong.
Today's story about a company caving into complaints about nothing (instead of standing their ground because they did nothing wrong) involves...*spins wheel*...Duncan Hines amid complaints that allege that their commercial for what appeas to be some sort of cupcake frosting is...*spins wheel*...racist.
Before I even get into the ridiculous incident which sparked these ridiculous cries of racism, I have to bring up the point that I always bring up when this happens (and it happens far too frequently). That point being do these people making these claims actually think that Duncan Hines and the makers of this commercial are racist? Do they actually think that Duncan Hines and the makers of this commercial decided this would be a good idea because it was racist? Do they actually think that the makers of this commercial and Duncan Hines thought that the best way to express their racist views was under the guise of trying to sell cupcake frosting? Really? Because if you do think that this commercial is racist and if you do think that any of these things that I just listed are true, then you need to wear a helmet at all times. And not just one of those skull cap helmets, either. I'm talking full noggin, full facial covering helmet. And possibly a suit of armor as well. You are a soft, soft individual. So soft.
Since Duncan Hines was cowardly and, instead of standing up to these morons shouting "Racist cupcake makers!", they have pulled their ad from YouTube. I wanted to include the ad first, have you watch it and then tell you what the problem is that some people wanted to have with it. (Naturally, there's no telling just how many people saw this as a problem. These days, it could have been one. Who knows?) But since the ad isn't there anymore, I'm just going to past the link to it here. So, do me a favor. Watch the video, but don't read anything in the article that accompanies it just yet. Just watch the video and then continue reading. Fair enough? (Come on. I rarely ask anything of you other than to just read my drivel on a daily basis and pass the link along to everyone you know and random strangers. You can do this for me just this once, right?
::: waiting ::: ::: waiting :::
You're back! Nice to see you again! OK, so now you've seen the video. Did you see how it was just oozing and dripping with racism? Did you see how all of those cupcakes were calling each other the N-word? Did you see how the black cupcakes had to sit at the back of the bus? Of course you didn't! Partly because there wasn't a bus, but mostly because there WAS NO RACISM!
I turned to the good folks over there at the New York Daily News to find out what the dealio was. Turns out, there are people out there that think that those cupcakes actually resemble (wait for it) people in blackface. ::: blink ::: ::: blink ::: Wait. I thought that they looked kind of like the claymation California Raisins dudes. Were those racist? They weren't, were they? Nah. I'm pretty sure they weren't. Almost positive. OK, soooo...what now?
Correct. Blackface. I was seriously confused. I still am. They really don't look like they're in blackface to me. Let's look again. Here's a cupcake from the commercial:
And here's "World's Greatest Entertainer" (as he was dubbed back in his heyday) Al Jolson in blackface:
Yeah, I still don't get it. I decided to check other sites to see if there could be any rational light shed on this and sadly, there was not. I did learn of a blog called Racialicious which delved into the subject lightly. And by 'delved' I mean that there were more comments than there were words in the article itself. And those people need my helmets! Holy canoli, I was stunned. Sadly, sadly stunned. The only legitimate point that someone over there made was that the title of this ad was "Hip Hop Cupcakes". There wasn't really any hip-hop involved in the thing, though. I guess if you mention hip-hop, it automatically means that you must be talking about black people? I wonder if there would have been all of this to-do about it if they had simply called it by a different name?
It's chocolate frosting or chocolate glaze or something chocolate on white cake cupcakes! If anything, wouldn't that be a harmony of black and white, coming together in harmony for the sake of all that is delicious? Why is it racist? That's right. It's NOT! Oh, but one person opined "Clearly there are no minorities in the board room where they work on advertising at Duncan Hines." Hmmm. Interesting assumption. And not surprising since you also assume that it's clearly a concerted work of shouting racism across the baked good airwaves. What if there ARE minorities in the board room where they work on advertising at Duncan Hines? Then what?? Is it still racist in your mind, oh-wee-little-commenter? What's your race? It's almost as if it would make you feel better if people actually were racist. It's such an odd thing to want, especially considering how against it you claim to be.
I cannot tell you how angry made-up racism accusations make me. Just because I am white, that doesn't make me a racist. I am tired of defending my non-racism. I am tired of mentioning that I have plenty of friends who are not white. I am tired of hearing the black vs. white argument, as I don't see that there is one within my circle of existence. Yes, I realize that it does exist out there, but how much of that is a continuation of the apparent desire to make SURE that it exists with asinine claims of blatant racism against entities such as the makers of freaking cupcake frosting?!
Screw you, Duncan Hines. You know it's not racist, so why didn't you just say so and let the commercial keep running up on YouTube? Why aren't you releasing statement that declares how angry and incensed you are at any accusation that your company ran a racist commercial? Why aren't you standing up for yourself for what you know is true? I've said it before (and unfortunately, I'm still waiting for it to happen), but I guarantee you that the first company to respond to accusations like this in the manner that I've suggested will be hailed as the retail messiah from sea to shining sea. If Duncan Hines had stood up to these accusations, I would have bought Duncan Hines products for the rest of whatever and I would have recommended them to everyone I know at any given opportunity. Now? Well, now I'm buying Betty Crocker. She hasn't proven herself to be a corporate wussy yet.
What's it going to take for the NAACP to completely go away? I'm getting really tired of their completely idiotic accusation of racism this and racism that. For cryin' out loud, they call themselves the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Isn't their name alone kind of racist? Or demeaning? Or something completely against what they always claim that they're for? I was hoping with their latest "Cry racism" moment it would perpetuate their downfall or, at the very least, completely remove any last shred of credibility that they might have actually had. But, unfortunately, that's not going to be the case. No, they're just going to be able to claim that a greeting card about graduation and the solar system is racist and it's going to be removed from all stores. Wait. What?
Welcome to Culver City, California where we learn from Channel 7 that a "...graduation card sold at local stores has been pulled from shelves after a civil rights group...claims the card's micro-speaker plays a greeting that's racist." Huh. It's a Hallmark card, too. I'm not really seeing Hallmark as a "racist" company that would produce "racist" greeting cards. But let's just see what all of the fuss is over, shall we? Then let's all beat our collective heads against a wall as we chant in unison, "We're doomed."
The card features greeting card regulars Hoops and Yoyo. I don't know which one is which, but I don't think that it matters. What matters is what the little critters say to the new graduate. Hoops and Yoyo are on the card and inside, there are references to the planets amongst them. It's a space-planetary sort of theme (with kind of bunny-like-ish caricatures as well). The front of the card states harmlessly (to those who are not morons) "You're graduating? Well, then, it's time to let the world know what's coming." Seems harmless enough, right? Not so fast. It gets stupider worse.
You open up the card (which appears to be the size of a billboard, as the thing is massive) and it states, "But not only the world, NOOOO! We're talking the entire solar system!" Then underneath that it says, "The world is yours, grad." And it also says, "Watch out, Saturn, this grad is going to run rings around you!" Get it? Rings? 'Cause Saturn has rings? See? How it's funny? Yeah, OK. Moving right along.
It's clearly a space theme. It's about the graduate being able to take over the world with all of their new found (and extremely expensive) knowledge that they've just been acknowledged as having appropriately completed. Remember that. A space theme. So when the card's annoying little microchip plays the greeting, either Hoops or Yoyo (it's unclear as to who is responsible for this atrocity) says, "Hey world, we are officially putting you on notice." And the other one responds with a childish, "Yeaaahhhh!" Then the first one says, "And you black holes, you are soooo ominous." Meanwhile, the other one, who appears to have inhaled a great deal of helium, cackles, "Hahahaha!" Then the first one pipes up again with, "And you planets? Watch your back." See? Racist.
Wait. What now? Racist? Correct. Racist. See, the dimwits over there at the Los Angeles division of the NAACP claim that the card "...was very demeaning to African American women." It was. Um...de...demeaning? To African American women? Are you sure? Oh, they're sure! It's right there where "...it made reference to African American women as whores". It did?? When? When it said "black holes", that is correct.
Wait a minute. Are you dry shaving me? Yes, they are claiming that the card says "black whores". One woman, a one Minnie Hatley of the aforementioned Los Angeles NAACP, claims, "You hear the 'r' in there. 'Whores,' not, 'holes.' The 'r' is in there." Um, no, you don't and no, it's not. Another moron claimed, "It sounds like a group of children laughing and joking about blackness, again." Again?! When were they doing it before? You folks don't seem to understand something. It's not that we don't like you because you're black. It's that we don't like you because you're ridiculous. I couldn't care less what color you are, but I certainly care if you're a moron. Good Lord, people....
Now, Hallmark sent the news station a transcript of what the card said. That wasn't enough. No, they were still adamant that it said "whores" and not "holes". Even though both you and I and everyone else with half of a brain can hear that it says "holes". Never the less, what do you think Hallmark is going to do about it? If you guessed the answer that I most wanted to hear, that being absolutely nothing, then you'd be sadly mistaken. Hallmark is a weak and cowardly company and has bowed to the NAACP and their ludicrous claim that this card is racist. Hallmark is "...now notifying all of its stores to pull the card. Walgreens and CVS are doing the same." Oh, and did I mention that the card has been out for three years? Yeah, it has. But NOW they're going to pull it because it is suddenly racist? Doomed, I tell you. Doomed.
Well, those are three companies that I have no need to purchase goods from in the future. I'm so sick of any one person or any one group coming up with the most outrageous claims about something and having the company cave in to their ridiculous outrage. Seriously now. Because it would make perfect sense that a graduation card would mention black whores, right? That seems like a reasonable message to have in a graduation card that's been sold for the past three years. "Hey, black whores! You're not so ominous!" Sure, that makes perfect sense that it would say that. Oh, wait. No, it wouldn't! Because it didn't. UN-believable. The link to this ridiculousness is here. Good luck not wanting your life to immediately end after viewing it.
It would seem that a one James Earl Carter, the man who served at the 39th President of the United States, is spending his golden years with his brain encompassed in a cloudy haze which causes him to become highly delusional, possibly pre-senile and most likely schizophrenic. It's difficult to say (mainly because I'm making most of this up) what caused this condition, but it seems most likely that his body is ridden with syphilis and that probably has something to do with it. However, whatever the cause and whatever the cure, just put him somewhere so that when he start spouting nonsense and igniting an issue that is largely not present, no one will have to hear him. It will also save some from being highly irritated throughout their entire Wednesday, a day that had otherwise proved to have the potential to be quite lovely....until we all were called racists by Jimmy Carter.
Look, I'll try to put this in as simple terms as is humanly possible. Just because someone is white, it doesn't make them a racist. That's it. White does not equal racist. That seems to be a difficult concept for some folks to effectively grasp. It's as if they don't know how they would have to be if people acted or reacted based upon the merits and/or the facts of a situation rather than acting based upon some bias that was influenced by the color of someone's skin. And one other thing that I will put in equally simple terms: White people are getting awfully sick of being called racist when there is absolutely no indication, no justification, no validation for others to do so. It's beginning to make some folks outwardly angry at those crying "Racist!" But that's not because of the color of their skin, it's because they're morons.
Here's the deal with ol' Peanut Head that caused a bit of an uproar on Tuesday. He was discussing Joe Wilson's shouting out "You lie!" during President Barry's little chat with Congress last week. According to CNN, Jimmy Carter told NBC Nightly News, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American. I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans." Oh, for hell's sake.
First of all, I'd like to thank former President Carter for clarifying when he said "he's a black man" by immediately following it up with "that he's African American". Yeah, we were pretty confused as to what you meant by "he is a black man", but once you threw in that "he's African American" then it was crystal clear!
Second, are you kidding me?! ALL Joe Wilson yelled out was, "You lie!" From a holler of "You lie!" Jimmy Carter was able to deduce that Joe Wilson is a racist?! How does that work? Joe Wilson was quite upset with President Barry saying that his health care reform bill would not extend benefits to those from a foreign land who are in this country illegally, thus the shout out that he gave him. Now, the shouting was rude. It was inappropriate. It was disrespectful. It was a whole lot of things (and not many of them good, either), but the one thing that it was not was racist.
Now, James Earl Carter made this erroneous character judgment on Tuesday. I had totally assumed that he would have to retract that statement on Wednesday. I was totally wrong. Not only did he not retract it, he said it again AND he elaborated on it! He started out by expressing his dislike for the near limitlessness of free speech when he told a group of students at Emory University, "When a radical fringe element of demonstrators and others begin to attack the president of the United States as an animal or as a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler or when they wave signs in the air that said we should have buried Obama with Kennedy, those kinds of things are beyond the bounds." He then reiterated the "all white people are racist" angle that he has taken up by saying, "I think people who are guilty of that kind of personal attack against Obama have been influenced to a major degree by a belief that he should not be president because he happens to be African American." And he concludes by reiterating AGAIN about all of the racism that is fueling people's anger by saying, "It's a racist attitude, and my hope is and my expectation is that in the future both Democratic leaders and Republican leaders will take the initiative in condemning that kind of unprecedented attack on the president of the United States."
Man, all of that, every single word of it makes me angry. But I'm angry at Jimmy Carter and I'm white, so does that make me a racist? Probably, if you're asking him. He cites no examples of how people are being racist because they don't like a President who happens to be black. Maybe that's because he's not ALL black! He's half white, you know! And when did he become ALL black, anyway? Because if you'll remember, during the campaign, there were questions in some circles of idiots as to whether he was "black enough". So if that was the case during the campaign, how did we get to where we are today where he's clearly "too black"? I don't know, but I'm guessing that pinheads like Jimmy Carter who are spewing their vapid notions to college students have a lot to do with it.
Allow me, however, to dispel the very basis for which he made his claim to the Emory students. Here is a photo from a protest when George W. Bush was President. Behold!
Here's another photo, again GW Bush. Behold!
More signs during a protest . Signs that reflect my general sentiment about both issues there.
I don't have unlimited time to find every photo that there is, so I don't have a one of Bush being portrayed as an animal. I do have one of George Bush appearing to eat a very cute kitten, however. Behold!
Here's a sign that is short and to the point about what they're going to do to President Bush. It says they're going to kill him. Wait. I thought Mr. Carter said that was unprecedented or something. Fueled by racism? If that were the case, why would someone have that sign with that message for Bush on it? Bush wasn't black (still isn't from what I've heard). All of those things that Mr. Carter attributed as being unique to President Barry simply are not.
And by calling Joe Wilson a racist, Jimmy Carter has effectively (hopefully not very effectively) in essence made it near impossible to disagree with President Barry without the point of contention labeled as being due to racism. If Carter can deduce that Joe Wilson is a racist from two, two-letter words ("You lie!") then I'd have to say that anything that was in disagreement with President Barry would be grounds for being a racist if you're going by Jimmy Carter's absurd standard. Great. That helps. (It really doesn't. At all. It just makes people more angry.)
And while I can sit and listen to Jimmy Carter say that Joe Wilson is a racist for what he said, I didn't hear (and I never do when this topic comes up) what it would look like if Joe Wilson disagreed with President Barry and was not a racist. Jimmy Carter also didn't get into any rationale as to why someone couldn't simply agree with President Barry based upon principle and not upon race. Why can't it be because Joe Wilson didn't agree with what President Barry said and thought it to be dishonest as the reason he yelled "You lie!"? Why isn't that an option? Why is "He's a racist" the only option?
Now I'm not saying that this country is 100% not racist. There are some incredibly racist sections of this country. And former President Carter was right when he said that there are portions of the South that are still in the throes of racism. Good Lord, are there ever. But to deem everyone a racist because they disagree with a black guy? How much sense does that make? Not much. What makes even less sense is that CNN felt the need to include in their account of this incident "Actor and comedian Bill Cosby, who is black, said Wednesday in a written statement that he agrees with Carter." (Wait. Bill Cosby is black?! Are you sure?!) And this is their example that Bill Cosby agrees with Jimmy Carter that it was racism that prompted the "You lie!" shout. Ready? "During President Obama's speech on the status of health care reform, some members of Congress engaged in a public display of disrespect. While one representative hurled the now infamous 'you lie' insult at the president, others made their lack of interest known by exhibiting rude behavior such as deliberately yawning and sending text messages." What the hell does that have to do with anything?! Now if we're white and we yawn or text (which is how a lot of us spend the majority of our days) that makes us racist too?! What the hell, CNN?
All of this makes even less sense if you consider that Carter doesn't seem to think that it works the other way. Carter was speaking at the "...28th annual town hall meeting at Emory, where he has been a professor since 1982" when the Kanye West issue came up. Carter voiced that he " thought it was completely uncalled for and his punishment was to appear on the new Jay Leno show." Really? Tell me if that was a black woman picking up her award and a white guy ran up there and gave the same rant that Kanye gave, tell me that wouldn't have been labeled as racism. It SO would have! Joe Wilson yells "You lie!" and gets "You're a racist." Kanye West pulls his stunt at the VMAs and he gets "It was uncalled for." Uncalled for? Come on! How come Kanye's stunt doesn't make HIM a racist?! Kanye West doesn't care about white singers!
Maybe there wouldn't be such an issue about racism if people would stop reacting to every little thing as if it IS racism when it clearly is not. You can disagree with someone if one of you is white and one of you is black and have it be about something other than your race. I swear you can! But unless people like Jimmy Carter stop spewing their racist accusations against someone who is guilty of nothing more than being white, then perhaps maybe everything will HAVE to be assumed to be based on race. If you're going to drag race into everything, especially into things where it clearly has NO role at all, you're certainly not doing anything to empower either the black people or the white people. You could end up with the black people never taking responsibility for themselves and blaming the slightest thing on race and you could also have the white people ending up not interacting due to the automatically generated label that says that they're a racist.
None of that sounds very good. What say Jimmy Carter and Kanye West go hang out on some island together and discuss their racist theories with each other. Heck, what say we send Bill Cosby along with them. That'd quiet things down a bit. Finally.
I can go on and on (and I have) about how the media sucks. But this is not a case of the media sucking. This is a case of the media lying. And just because something isn't said out loud it doesn't mean that it is not a lie. IN the case of the media, if you are "reporting" and you are editing, altering, omitting or in any other fashion misrepresenting the facts of anything, then you are lying. And the folks over there at MSNBC are reprehensible "journalists" and liars. (Please note that "liars" is not in quotes.)
The other day a one MSNBC newshole, Contessa Brewer, was doing a story with her cohorts, a one Dylan Ratigan and a one Toure. (That's his name. Toure. That's it. Like Prince. Or Cher. Only he's on MSNBC. What does that tell you? We're doomed, that is correct.) It started out going in one direction and ended up in a completely different direction. Perhaps all of the misdirecting was due to someone having their head up their arse. (Quite difficult to accurately navigate from that position I'm told.) I thought it was going to be on the Second Amendment issue, as there have been folks showing up to places where President Barry is speaking and they have had guns in holsters strapped to their legs or strapped over their shoulders. My first thought upon hearing this was that the folks who were toting arms were way out of line. Upon further consideration, I realized that we can't just trample all over the Constitution of this fine land because something makes us a little uncomfortable or uneasy. I'm a huge fan of the right to bear arms (and to arm bears). Regardless, I thought it was going to be about that.
Turns out, it wasn't about that AT ALL. Here's what Contessa Brewer opened with: "Yesterday...A man at a pro-health care reform rally just outside, wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip....And if the scene looks familiar, that’s because it should, last week a guy stood outside Obama’s health care town hall in Portsmouth, New Hampshire with a gun strapped to his leg and police arrested a 62-year-old before that New Hampshire event for carrying unlicensed loaded gun. And the reason we’re talking about this, a lot of talk here, Dylan, because people feel like, yes, there are Second Amendment rights for sure but also there are questions about whether this has racial overtones. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists or to their legs." Um, what now? I'm sorry, I mean, WTF?!
Racial overtones?! Racial? Overtones?! So just because there was a white guy carrying a gun outside of where Obama was speaking, THAT implies that there are "racial overtones" to the story? What?
What's that?
Who wasn't?
Who wasn't white? The guy with the gun? Well, that wouldn't make any sense! How could the guy with the gun not be white?! She specifically mentioned that particular guy. And though she didn't say he was a white guy, when she got to her shpiel about the "racial overtones" she didn't NEED to! Everyone thought that the reason that there were "racial overtones" is because she told us that there was a white guy wearing a gun at a town hall meeting where the half-white president was speaking. How can he NOT be white?!
Oh. Well....his shirt was white.
What. The. Hell.
Not only did the trio of false reporting idiots fail to make the viewers aware of the fact that the man with the rifle slung over his arm was a black guy, they also failed to make the viewers consciously aware that they had edited the tape of this particular individual so that you could not tell that he was black.
Now, just because you can't tell that he's black doesn't mean that you wouldn't have been able to tell if he were white, either. IN what I would assume was the only unintentional part of the editing process, you do see the arm of a white guy in such a fashion that you don't consciously think about it, but the arm kind of looks like it could go to the guy with the guy. But that wasn't intentional. I'm positive of it. What WAS intentional was to take the footage which clearly shows that this was a black guy and edit it so that you couldn't tell what the race of the person was and so that newshole Contessa Brewer and her faithful sidekicks, Dylan and Toure, can make this issue about race instead of the Second Amendment. Nice job, newsholes.
What was the purpose in that? Why did they feel the need to MAKE it about race? WHY couldn't it be about the Second Amendment? Was Toure not up on his pop-culture 2nd Amendment references? I've never even heard of that guy until I learned of this atrocity, but he angers me. It wasn't enough for him to back up newshole Contessa Brewer and her reasoning that people were bringing guns to places where President Barry was speaking was because they were angry that there was a black President. No, he had to go just a bit more and suggest that: "I’m not going to be surprised if we see somebody get a chance and take a chance and really try to hurt him or really-You know, and I mean it’s up to the Secret Service to make sure that it doesn’t actually become history, but, you know, I think we’re going to see somebody, you know, some sort of Squeaky Fromme, some sort of Mark Hinckley figure, because there’s so much anger in the country about him, about what’s going on with government."
:::: sigh :::: (He's pretty skinny looking. I think I could take him.)
First of all, it's John Hinckley. Perhaps he was thinking of Mark David Chapman, the tool who gunned down John Lennon. John Hinckley was the one who shot President Reagan. Squeaky Fromme was a delusional follower of Charles Manson. Is he suggesting that another Helter Skelter awaits us, but this time, at the White House? (Yes, I know she tried to shoot President Ford.) In all of these cases however, there is a common theme. The first one being that they are idiotic comparisons to what is being talked about. The second one is that I don't believe that any of those people had a valid permit for their weapon. But really, neither one of those is the point. The point is that IT'S NOT THE SAME!
Contessa the Newshole EVEN specifically made it a point to make this story about race by asking Toure "...do you think if Barack Obama were white, though...let’s say if it were Bill Clinton – you would not see people showing up with weapons strapped to their legs?" (Does Hillary count for the evaluation of that question? I'm quite certain that after MonicaGate, she probably DID have something strapped to her leg for a while. She probably strapped something to Bill's leg as well, but I don't think it was a gun.) His eventual reply, after Dylan suggested that it was unknowable, was "...that’s hard to say. It is unknowable. But you do see a rise in hate group activity throughout the country."
Oh. My. God.
In a state where you CAN carry a gun out in the open like that, if you have a permit, how does that constitute "hate group activity"? How does that NOT constitute exercising your rights under the Second Amendment? How? Where did they find this guy? 1961?I have no idea what the point of this stunt was, other than to ignore, disregard and blatantly dismiss every single rule of reporting that there could be in order to fabricate (yes, LIE) a story to fit a particular narrative that you have in mind. They simply created their own truths by taking the truth and making it into a lie.
I'm not one to go around and suggest that folks boycott something. Do you know how many successful boycotts of things there has actually been? Ever? Not many. The Montgomery bus boycott is the only one that comes to mind at the moment. Calls for a boycott are generally useless. (Most people have the attention span of a gnat is why they're not more successful.) And I'm not usually one to go around advocating for people to be fired. These folks and anyone else who was involved in the production of that segment should be fired.
This isn't a "I don't like what they said" issue. They're not Don Imus (who, by the way, shouldn't have been fired. He shouldn't have said what he said, but he shouldn't have been fired.). They lied. They purposefully and willfully misled the viewer into believing something that wasn't true AT ALL. It's more than just irresponsible journalism. It's rogue reporting. The media is supposed to be neutral. They are supposed to be presenting the facts without a slant so that people can know what's going on without having to sort through someone's opinion to get to what the issue is about. For some reason, Contessa Brewer and Toure (poor Dylan pretty much just sat there, but it's not like he wasn't aware of the situation) wanted to make the issue of people bringing LEGAL firearms to a public event an issue about racism. Personally, I'd like to know why. I'd like to know why they felt that it was imperative that they not only go that direction with the issue, but do so in a deceptive manner. I'd like to know the answer the that and then I'd love it if they were fired.
Look, when you hire someone for your business, you want to make sure that the person you have in whatever position can do the job. If they can't do the job, are you going to keep them at your business? I don't think that's likely. What if they were lying to you while doing their job? Would you keep them then? I think that's even less likely. Contessa Brewer and the Newsholes (which isn't that bad of a name for a band)cannot do the job that they were hired to do AND they lied to us. If they can't do the job, which they obviously can't, they should be fired.
And if I thought that was going to actually happen, I probably wouldn't have mentioned it until it did happen. But I don't think that's the case. The good folks over there at Politico contacted MSNBC about this issue and they responded that the claim was "utterly ridiculous" and that "Contessa was speaking generally and not about that specific person with the automatic weapon." Yeah. That's why the cropped footage. That's why the not mentioning that there were black people with weapons also. That's why not mentioning that the guy with the gun strapped to his side shown in the cropped footage was black. That's why only mentioning that white people were coming to these public meetings wearing firearms. Yeah, she was speaking generally.
The footage of Contessa and the Newsholes is below. And it frustrates the hell out of me.
What we have here is what I would call the height of irresponsibility for a couple of members of Congress. Apparently, yesterday there were Congressional hearings about the whole Trayvon Martin ordeal. I'm not quite sure why they were holding hearings when all of the facts aren't exactly in or known. And some facts may never be known. But hey, let's hold hearings anyway and say things that are wildly irresponsible.
Ms. Wilson had to say today about a subject that I cannot imagine she has some sort of secret knowledge about. "Mister Speaker, this is Trayvon Martin. Trayvon Martin's murderer is still at large. I want America to see this sweet, young boy who was hunted down like a dog." Well, then.
But have you seen this?
Or how about this one? Nice grill:
You know what else I don't appreciate? Representative Hank Johnson, for one. Here's what he said about this: "He was executed for WWB in a GC. Walking while black in a gated community." Oh, for cryin' out loud. First of all, it's my understanding that he was in the gated community because his dad lived there. So black people in that community isn't a surprise. Second, it's also my understanding that Trayvon didn't live with his dad (and was only there because he was suspended from school) and therefore, wasn't known in that neighborhood. Again, I'm not saying that the kid should have been shot. I'm just saying that claiming that he was "executed" for being black is awfully disingenuous. (By the way, if the name Hank Johnson sounds familiar to you, this is the same guy who thought that Guam, an island, might one day tip over. And while that doesn't excuse his comments, it does explain a little bit. He ain't all that bright in some areas.)
Why do so many of these black folks that are speaking out think that every white person is a racist? It's like they have some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy that they really want to be true. And then they pull stuff like this and wonder why people get all upset and then attribute that to racism either. We don't not like you because you're black! No, we don't like you because you think every white person is a racist! And we're tired of it. Things happen! Horrible things, sometimes. But it doesn't mean that they're ALL because of racism or racists. So I'd really appreciate it if people would just pipe down until everything is known. Please, pipe down.
Sphere: Related Content
