Before I get started on this undoubtedly long rant, let me ask one question: Why the fuck were we arguing about sports? Peps, as always, was correct about the issue. So shut up. Christ.
Okay, here's what's going down: I read this editorial from this woman in the Hartford Courant the other day. While reading it, I couldn't believe that such a reputable paper would print such KKK propaganda. Now, just glancing at it, you obviously wouldn't be able to tell the woman was a filty racist. She's pointing out "facts" and proving liberals wrong. Usual editorial piece. However, if you read between the lines, you'll get what she's saying. So, I'm going to retype her entire article and respond to each thing. Enjoy.
No one has mastered the fine Yiddish art of chutzpah like the Rev. Jesse Jackson. (Points for the first sentence: "Hi there, I know the word chutzpah, so I can't be a bigot of any kind.") Having spent November and December stoking the fires of racial suspicion and hatred, he then places a call to President-elect Bush to offer his guidance on racial "healing."
Like all good Republicans, Bush took the call. He should not have. (Ahh, so you're saying he should have been a BAD Republican, then?) He should have told an aide to tell the reverend that he expected a public apology - after which he'd be delighted to meet personally with him to talk about reconciliation. (Wow, that's childish!)
But my guess is that Bush is like so many other Republicans - utterly naive about his opponents. He probably believes that once Jackson gets to know him, he'll realize what a fine fellow he really is and Jackson will understand how wrong he was to accuse Bush of all those terrible things. (Okay, so then all those things that Jackson said were true? The "tone" of your sentence suggest you are being facetious, lady.)
And they were terrible. Jackson compared so-called "voting irregularities" in Florida with hoses turned on civil-rights marchers during the 1950s. The word "Selma" has been on Jackson's lips almost daily since the elections. Without evidence, he has asserted that there was a "systematic plan to disenfranchise black voters." (Without evidence? Are you fucking dull? I think most anyone would agree that even if it were two people who didn't know one another living in seperate counties complained of the same, exact problem, THAT'S EVIDENCE ENOUGH! Let alone that it was thousands of people in many different counties. In order to not claim that as evidence would indicate you hold the opinion that all black people have some sort of agenda to take over the country which is... GASP!... racist!) Jackson also claimed to have found "a clear pattern of voter suppression" in Florida.
Now, if these charges were true (which they are), they would be clear violations of the Voting Rights Act, as well as a violation of the 14th Amendment. (Exactly! And you're sitting here denying the evidence because you have "white anger". Asshole!) Yet despite dozens of lawsuits filed in the aftermath of the election, there has been none alleging that blacks were turned away from the polls, or stopped by roadblocks or "suppressed" in any other fashion. (Uh, have you been living under a rock, lady? At least one of the suits filed was about black voter disenfranchisement.) (In fact, black voter turnout was up 65 percent since 1996. A higher percentage of blacks than whites voted on Nov. 7.) (Oooh, a fact!)
USA Today looked into the roadblock story and found that the one near Tallahassee was a routine check for faulty auto equipment (oh yeah, that's just so routine for the police to do, especially on ELECTION DAY), which resulted in police issuing citations or warnings to 18 drivers - six to minorities and 12 to whites. (Heavy! Obviously this means that it was a routine check, since more white people got tickets. Nobody would be smart enough to figure it out if the police intentionally gave white people tickets to cover a scam up!) The so-called "roadblock" near Tampa turned out to be a police attempt to catch a burglar who had victimized a black neighborhood. ("Hi, let me feign sympathy for the blacks by saying one of their neighborhoods was victimized!")
But Jackson charged ahead. He compared the Supreme Court's decision to Dred Scott, and offered that George W. Bush was becoming president through "Nazi tactics." (Actually, he never said that last part like that. He said W's tactic of appealing to stop the recounts was similar to how the Nazis kept the U.S. out of the war against them, hoping they would've won before we could intercede.)
These accusations have found fertile ground in the black community, where rumors are flying that blacks were turned away from polling places in droves. One caller to C-SPAN said President-elect Bush needs to investigate the plan she has heard about again and again to prevent all black people from voting in 2004. (Well, there probably are people out there who are plotting to do that. Whether or not they succeed is another matter.) Many black Americans are nearly apoplectic with rage over what they perceive to be a completely illegitimate election. (There's a good reason for that - because it was! Exactly how is it possible to win the popular vote but still lose the Electoral vote? I don't understand that!)
Much has been said and written about the cynical desire on the part of "civil rights" leaders like Jackson to keep alive the sense of victimization among black people. (That's because black people are still victims of racism today. You can't ignore the problem and assume it isn't there just because you only mutter "dumb nigger" to yourself!) But rarely has the tactic been on such obvious display.
What is almost equally dismaying, though, is the tendency on the part of Republicans to accept these "spokesmen" as legitimate. As Deroy Murdock (a humongous bigot, himself - he thinks bilingual education is wrong) has written in a brilliant piece for National Review Online, Republicans "always postulate the good intentions of our opponents while seeming secretly dubious about our own good will." (What good will? You're the one who said George W. should've been a bad Republican and not taken the Rev's call.)
In truth, Murdock argues, Republicans are actually "too nice." (How about just letting Mr. Murdock write your editorial for you?) Sen. John Ashcroft conceded defeat to a dead man rather than seem unkind to his widow, who will take the seat in January. Republicans, caricatured as skinflints who would take crusts of bread from the mouths of starving children (Shouldn't they, though? Since they've been "too nice" of late?) have fallen all over themselves to outspend Bill Clinton on health care, school-to-work programs and even the IRS. (And also eliminate a woman's right to an abortion, a homosexual's right to be in the military or the Boy Scouts, and many other things.)
The Miami Herald has reported that at least 455 felons voted on Election Day in Florida. Has any Republican uttered a peep about it? No, it might turn out that half of them were black and then Republicans would be accused of racism. (And thus reveals why she wrote her little editorial - someone must've been honest with her and said, "Wow, you're a terrible racist bitch!" And the Miami Herald is about as credible as the New York Post, by the way.)
Here's what Republicans need to understand - the left is not benevolent or well motivated. It does not accuse you of racism because it believes that to be true, but rather because that gives the left status and power. (Yes, even now, every time I call you a dirty fucking racist, I get a step closer to being our 44th President! MWA HA HA HAHA! I couldn't possibly want to end racism by exposing people who are so and having them publicly humiliated, no. I'm just concerned about my own advancement, not the fair and equal treatment of my fellow humans.) And when leading Republicans do things like take Jesse Jackson's calls after he has leveled scurrilous and utterly baseless charges, they enhance the power of demagogues and ensure that this corrupt process will never end.
So it's corrupt to reveal racists? It's funny how every racist person I know always prefaces something they say with some stupid little "fact" which suddenly makes what they're saying okay. Like, "I told this joke to my black coworker and he loved it..." Or, "The so-called "roadblock" near Tampa turned out to be a police attempt to catch a burglar who had victimized a black neighborhood." Here's a question? Has anyone ever seen a roadblock? Police wave people through and pull over anyone who fits a description. That means that if black voters complained of a roadblock which stopped them, it must've been a black burglar who victimized the neighborhood. They must've "fit the description". The suspect is a six-foot tall African American male, such-and-such features. And a five-foot tall African American woman gets pulled over. Hmm... But you know, as my asshole uncle would say, "Those monkeys all look alike anyway."
Her editorial is full of "white anger" - some white people get fed up hearing about the "plight of the black man" or some are angry that they didn't get a job at McDonalds because some black guy got hired even though they were supposedly more qualified. Well if you're more qualified, why not get another job, asshole? And how do you know you're more qualified? The fucking boss at McDonalds doesn't sit applicants down and say, "Here's who is more qualified." It's not like affirmative action laws say that an employer has to hire a minority. It's making sure the best man gets the job, cockholder. So you obviously WEREN'T more qualified!
Well, it's time for me to exit. Had to get my anger at that woman, Mona Charen, out. I feel much better now. I leave with only a pron for you wonderful folks. Goodnight.
