Wednesday, July 21, 2010

It's not so much that Mel Gibson and Shirley Sherrod are bigots

I just think we like to talk about Race. It makes us feel more virtuous about ourselves apparently. Mel Gibson's real crime in the past was that he said something against the Jews, don't go there. Shirley Sherrod was a great right-wing blogging topic until more came out. Samir Shabazz of the New Black Panthers is a racist psycho plain and simple and his type is the most dangerous not a drunken Mel or a heavily edited Sherrod is the way I see it. Might we expend our energy and our righteous rage on the folks who really matter? Jesse Jackson once infamously referred to New York City as Hymietown and while it was obviously anti-Semitic in nature I prefer to see it more in the nostalgic light of a brain fart. It's his liberal record that I'm against. Maybe an important part of a post-racialist America will be being able to laugh at race. Race is a quirky topic because it has been so heavily circumscribed by political correctness that we can't say much on it unless you're David Mamet. Sometimes I think we're better off not even discussing it. Fred Barnes is a racist? that's not even blogworthy in my book.

24 comments:

  1. The race card is just too easy to play, they'll never give it up!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I find myself somewhat becoming tired of the whole topic. You might say today's blog was inspired by another blog out there and I just think everyone oversimplifies the matter. The lefty bloggers are now saying that Andrew Breitbart played the race card something liberals have been doing all along. Sherrod's boss telling her to pull her car over and type up her resignation on her BlackBerry. What a dick, maybe he should be the one to resign.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Z-man wrote: "Samir Shabazz of the New Black Panthers is a racist psycho plain and simple and his type is the most dangerous not a drunken Mel or a heavily edited Sherrod is the way I see it. Might we expend our energy and our righteous rage on the folks who really matter?

    Sorry, Z-man, you make a statement about Shabazz without backing it up or explaining WHY he's more dangerous than a bigoted, woman-hating violent drunken Gibson is.

    Tell us WHY. Otherwise what you claim is an empty opinion. Plain and simple and to be dismissed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Shaw never answers question we pose to her, so why should Z-man answer her question?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Beth, this isn't a schoolyard.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Isn't it funny how the liberals can't find any fault in the way these racist bastards are running America.

    I'm just waiting for the time that we take America back from the Filthy Communist that is trying his best to bring the USA down to his Filthily level.

    This woman above and the rest of the clueless progressives can't even complete a sentence without an exhibit of her hypocrisy.
    These dimocraps follow the Marxist rule that the end justifies the means.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Shaw you didn't catch the part about killing those crackers and their babies? Why even stand up for this guy? he's well worth throwing overboard. Make a deal, we'll do the same with Breitbart.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Re Gibson it's now coming out that Oksana may be an extortionist. Point two: these things were said in private to her. It'd be like if you Shaw said something in your living room after having a few belts and we all blogged about it the next day after someone tipped us off. I'd be the first to come to your defense. Lastly as I've said Mel's real crime is that he's said things in the past against the Jews. I was rapping once with this Jamaican chef and he told me once the Jews are the most sensitive group out there and don't forgive these things easily if at all. It really ain't about Mad Mel using the N-word. Put another way Shirley Sherrod is more likely to forgive Andrew Breitbart than the ADL is to forgive Mel Gibson. It's just the way things are.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Z-man said...

    Shaw you didn't catch the part about killing those crackers and their babies? Why even stand up for this guy? he's well worth throwing overboard. Make a deal, we'll do the same with Breitbart.


    Oh she got it alright, but just like Our The Racist in Chief she chose to ignore it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "...these things were said in private to her. It'd be like if you Shaw said something in your living room after having a few belts and we all blogged about it the next day after someone tipped us off."

    You mean like what happened to Alec Baldwin when his wife made a nasty phone call to his daughter public? And the conservative media broadcast it for days exhilirated by Baldwin's embarrassment? You mean something like that?

    As to this Shabazz character. If it weren't for FAUX News and other conservative media outlets, no one would know who the hell he was. I never heard of the dude. He's an extremist, but without the same coverage on the net or cable teevee that people like Beck and Breitbart have. IOW, he's a nobody who shot his mouth off with provocative words, no worse than the lies, smears, libel and filthy racism broadcasted by Rush Limbaugh to millions and millions of listeners on a daily basis.

    To pretend that Shabazz is even close to a threat to our democracy as is the above-named demagogues is beyond reason and rationality.

    Spare us your indignation. When I see you or other conservatives clutch your pearls over threats to liberals--as Coulter suggested in a threat where she said that Justice Stevens should be poisoned, I'll take you seriously. So far, I don't. Your indignation is quite selective.

    Shabazz had no national platform until the conservative media played that pathetic vid over and over to scare white folks into believing he is a threat.

    You apparently fall for the very well constructed propaganda FAUX distributes everyday.

    As to your remark about Jewish people being "touchy."

    Yeah, Jewish people are a bit touchy about having slanderou, hate-filled things said about them. There was this guy, you know, a little house painter from Austria, who played on people's--Christians'-- prejudice and hatred toward the Jews, and Shazam! 6 million men, women, and children disappeared into smoke! Poof!

    Yeah. Touchy those Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Z-man, I did some reading about this jerk Shabazz and found this NBPP controversy something being pushed by the conservative media as though it were a threat to all white humanity:

    During the 2008 presidential election, poll watchers found two New Black Panther militia members outside of a polling place in Philadelphia.One of the two was a credentialed poll watcher, while the other was a New Black Panther member who had brought a police-style nightstick baton. Republican poll watcher Chris Hill stated that voters had been complaining about intimidation, while the District Attorney's office stated that they had not been contacted by any voters.[27] The New Black Panther with the nightstick was escorted away by the police.[28][29]

    On January 7, 2009, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a civil suit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 over the incident at the Philadelphia polling place. The suit accused members Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson of being outside a polling location wearing the uniform of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, and that Shabazz repeatedly brandished a police-style baton weapon.[30] The suit sought an injunction preventing further violations of the Voting Rights Act. After the defendants did not appear for court, a default judgment was entered. On May 29, 2009, the Department of Justice requested and received an injunction against the member who had carried the nightstick, but against the advice of prosecutors who had worked on the case, department superiors ordered the suit dropped against the remaining members. On July 6, 2010, J. Christian Adams, a former lawyer for the Justice Department, testified before the Commission on Civil Rights and alleged that the case was dropped because the Justice Department did not want to protect the civil rights of white people.[31]

    According to an April 23, 2010 press release from the New Black Panther Party, the Philadelphia member involved in the nightstick incident was suspended until January 2010. "The New Black Panther Party made it clear then and now we don't support voter intimidation...Correctly the charges against the entire organization and the chairman were dropped. The actions of one individual cannot be attributed to an entire organization any more than every act of any member of the Catholic Church be charged to the Vatican."[

    ReplyDelete
  12. Re Alec Baldwin, see the trouble you have with me is I'm excrutiatingly consistent. Now let me read your other comments...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Clearly you're making excuses for Shabazz which hey is your right so why can't people make excuses for Breitbart? Actually Breitbart's excuses are pretty thin but in your blog you say he's a vermin who should wind up in hell and a despicable human being but Shabazz is what exactly? less noxious 'cause you say he's a nobody? Breitbart is somehow worse than Shabazz? Breitbart ain't exactly a household name. Getting back to Baldwin I became tired in a hurry when Hannity kept going on about it on his radio show and for the record I still watch an occasional "30 Rock" and thought he was great in Glengarry Glen Ross.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well since I brought up the touchy subject of the Jews I think why many people get annoyed with them is they can't move beyond this stuff. Mel Gibson made some obviously offensive comments about Jews a few years back, we all remember them and he made the usual mea culpas so there comes a point in time when you have to MOVE ON already and not become some permanent file in Abe Foxman's drawer. So his files increase day by day with bona-fide examples of anti-Semitism and then gets crammed even further with crap like the latest Mad Mel outburst mostly Under the Influence anyway, so what do you do with all this stuff? You also have some Jews, I'd say they're in the minority but they sometimes treat their holocaust as somehow being more important than other holocausts in history when we should simply say no holocaust should ever happen again. Armenians, Bosnians, Jews, it's all about ethnic killing on a massive scale so anyway getting back to the FOX News what was so wrong with running the Shabazz voter intimidation story? I mean it happened didn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Z-man wrote: "Clearly you're making excuses for Shabazz which hey is your right..."

    Clearly, that is incorrect. Quote anything I wrote that makes an excuse. Shabazz is an extremist with no national platform to advance his wacko ideas. None. Until the conservative media gave him one. There is absolutely no comparison between this extremist and Breitbart whom mainstream GOPers listen to. Breitbart is a millionaire with several internet connections and is a Drudge wannabe. Shabazz doesn't come close to the audience Breitbart has.

    Z-man wrote: "...so why can't people make excuses for Breitbart?"

    Um, Shabazz acted like a jerk in an isolated polling place, and not one voter made a complaint. Not one. Breitbart slandered an African American woman by editing a video she made and placed it on the internet where MILLIONS of people saw it.

    It's not equivalency by any stretch of any sane person's imagination.

    Z-man wrote: "Actually Breitbart's excuses are pretty thin but in your blog you say he's a vermin who should wind up in hell..."

    No. I did say he is vermin, but I didn't say he should wind up in hell [but I do hope he does]. Do you conservatives ALWAYS lie about what we say? Really. Show me the EXACT quote where I say he should wind up in hell. Thanks.

    Z-man wrote: "...and a despicable human being but Shabazz is what exactly?"

    Shabazz is an extremist without the ability to access the millions of people that the scumbag Breitbart can. Shabazz is known now because of the conservative media. They made him famous.

    Z-man wrote: "...less noxious 'cause you say he's a nobody? Breitbart is somehow worse than Shabazz?"

    Z-man, Breitbart slandered a woman and got her fired. Get it? How would you like to be slandered and fired from your job. Shabazz acted like a jerk. Period. No one's reputation was smeared, and no conservative lost his/her job. There is no equivalency here, no matter how much conservatives try to make one.

    Breitbart is a scurrilous scumbag. He presented an edited video to impugn and slander a woman. Shabazz is a pathetic extremist who had no national platform to spew his hate until the conservative media gave him one.

    There is no equivalency between the two circumstances. If you continue to try to make one, you make yourself look foolish.

    Use the rational brain you were born with, for Darwin's sake.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "I think why many people get annoyed with them is they can't move beyond this stuff."--Z--man

    I'm guessing there's a bit of personal projection in that statement.

    I hope my Jewish friends and family NEVER stop reminding the world of how brutal, inhumane, and irrational an ideology can be and how it can lead otherwise sane people to commit insane acts.

    There's a reason for keeping the phrase "Never Forget" alive. We humans have the depressingly disgusting capacity to not learn from our most egregiously horrid past.

    I stand with my Jewish friends and family and will never forget. Never.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Of course this isn't a schoolyard, so why not act like a grown-up Shaw and admit you were wrong to give an opinion about a book you did not read?

    In response to your comments about who and who does not have the ability to reach millions of people, in this day and age Shaw and with You Tube that can be anyone!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Nobody denies Shaw, no sane rational human anyway, the documented horrors of history but too many Jewish groups are always acting the aggrieved minority, complaining and too easily offended. Jewish groups telling the Vatican who they can and cannot make a saint, I'm talking about Pope Pius XII of course, well that rankles many Catholics. You know ecumenism is a two-way street and while Catholics should listen to the Jews they in turn should listen to the Catholics. You have your NY Post, a Zionist newspaper whose writers sometimes condemn as anti-Semitism those who dare criticize Israel and her actions in the Middle East. Take the side of the Palestinians and you're ipso facto an anti-Semite. It's not denying the facts of history, it's seeing anti-Semitism in every shadow and lecturing the Church on her canonization process, things like that. Keep it on the level.

    ReplyDelete
  19. From your blog of July 21:

    Shaw: "There's a special place in hell for vermin like Breitbart"

    I was wrong and I apologize. You did not say he should wind up in hell, you already know theologically speaking that the devils have already reserved his slot. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

    Shabazz is worse, far worse than Breitbart. Breitbart never called for violence against another race.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Shaw: "Shabazz acted like a jerk"

    No, a jerk is somebody who flicks a booger on your windshield or who shits in the toilet at work and then doesn't clean the rim after stuffing brown paper towels down there. Shabazz called for violence against another race and FOX simply did what other media should have done if they were doing their job. I had one final thought on Mad Mel. I was thinking maybe we can take the rantings of somebody on LSD or angel dust and condemn them too. LSD is supposed to give you insight you know so there's your "in vino veritas" right there. When it comes to any of these substances, alcohol, acid, whatever I just think it's fairer and makes much more sense to condemn the Ahmadinejads of the world who say things while perfectly lucid. Yeah let's have files in the ADL office on all those who say whacked out things while on alcohol and drugs in which case you'd better go out to Staples and purchase another filing cabinet.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Z-man said...
    No, a jerk is somebody who flicks a booger on your windshield or who shits in the toilet at work and then doesn't clean the rim after stuffing brown paper towels down there..

    LMAO, Good one Z... You are right on target there.

    ReplyDelete
  22. A jerk is also somebody who reserves a library computer and in the middle of his session goes outside to take a 15 minute cig break. You see an empty chair and go sit down and he comes back and says "I'm using that" (true story). A jerk is also somebody who masturbates in public, somebody who shouts while talking right next to you, an overly sensitive boss who suspends everyone who doesn't show him the proper respect...IT IS NOT SOMEBODY WHO CALLS FOR THE DEATH OF WHITE CRACKERS AND THEIR BABIES.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It seems that EVERY thing that Shaw does not agree with is a lie.
    Perhaps Shaw is either very naive or stupid.
    And being naïve these days can have very terrible consequences.
    Especially what people tend to think when they're told the song and dance about rights and freedoms.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The best one is when she says that Breitbart is somehow more evil than Shabazz. Talk about your parabolic logic!

    ReplyDelete