The DCCC is calling this the most racist republican ad. ever (that takes some doing)and they are calling on the leaders of the republiclown party to denounce the ad. Good luck with that....wait, I take that back; it seems that the ad. was denounced by the republican in this particular race.
“The Internet video in question is inappropriate, highly offensive and has no connection whatsoever to the Craig Huey campaign,” said Huey spokesman Jimmy Camp.
He said that the campaign doesn't know the makers, and described them as "very fringe."
OK, score one point for common decency. But where are the other republiclowns? Where are the black republiclowns who live under that "big tent" of theirs? Why the silence from them? Do they not find this stuff offensive?
"The DCCC calls it "offensive and sexist" but they're missing the entire racist dogwhistle aspect of the ad. It certainly is sexist and offensive, but the whole point of it is to activate race-based fears of black men who are out to get your white women ... and oh by the way, of Barack Obama ... and, by association, all the rest of those Democrats, too. This one makes the "Harold, call me" ad from 2008 look innocent.
Republicans intend to scare white people so much they'll check their brains at the door to the voting booth -- just forget everything else and vote your race.
Odious, ugly, despicable -- empty the dictionary on this one. Post-racial nation my ass, these people are just like cornered animals. They see their hold on authority slipping away and will do literally anything, no matter how vile, to hold on just a little longer." [Source]
My friend mooncat over at the Left In Alabama blog is outraged and rightfully so, but this is an uphill battle against the forces of wingnut evil. They are too content in their bigotry to care what a bunch of progressive bloggers think about them. They have no shame.Besides, they have a very powerful news network as a platform to show off their racism and ignorance. What could be better than that?
I will leave you with the words of Mark Karlin (a white man) from Buzzflash.com:
If some people wonder why racism still has such a strong appeal, remember that the poor and merchant-class whites of the Confederacy were as racist as the plantation owners. Having slaves to look down upon as sub-human creatures allowed even the poorest of white sharecroppers and indentured servants to feel a privileged psychological sense of social position in comparison to blacks." [Source]
I couldn't have said it better myself.
206 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 206 of 206UTS: "That "tree of liberty" bull$hit is just a euphemism for an overturning of the 14th Amendment and a reenactment of Jim Crow."
That is as idiotic as it is paranoid.
You are a fool who would trade freedom for chains, just as long as the white man wears chains too.
I want everyone to be free, even lunkheads like you.
I saw this ad over at think progress the other day and all I could think is that they are insane.
"Never mind the clear racism and sexism of this bigoted "Turn Right USA" ad. Just put that aside for moment, as difficult as that may be to ignore. The right wing calls a program that has had a successful part in reducing violence and crime "an insane effort". Tells you all you need to know." - me
As someone there said in reply to me: "And don't forget that it benefits black people." And we know these wingnuts have a problem with that, as well, for certain.
I kind of figured you would have something to say when you saw this ad, Wayne. Pretty sick shit on all levels. Way too transparent to even call it a dog-whistle.
Field, thanks for using the term "color-aroused" antagonism It's a lot easier to point to obviously color-aroused antagonistic behavior in one instance than to convict someone of being a "racist."
As a lawyer, you know that if the burden of proof is too high then there will be far less convictions. How much proof is enough to prove that someone "is a racist"? Clearly, one example of color-aroused behavior on their part is not enough, even if that example is shooting a person based on their skin color. That doesn't prove what they ARE. It only proves what they did.
That's why we don't convict people of being murderers. We convict them on committing ONE murder and then they are murderers by virtue of having been convicted of ONE act.
Unfortunately, we Black people have imposed on ourselves and publicized to others the notion that only a series of acts animated by "race" makes a person a "racist". Meanwhile, we ignore the fact that ONE act that is color-aroused can leave a Black man dead in the street with white police officers hovering over him as his soul escapes.
Do we REALLY want to have to prove a HISTORY of color-aroused behavior before we can raise our voices against ONE instance of blatantly antagonistic color-aroused and damaging or illegal behavior? We have NO NEED to prove that anyone has a long-term history of individual instances of color-aroused behavior, unless we impose that burden upon ourselves by calling someone "racist."
If a person mentions another person's skin color, that's enough to show that they were thinking about skin color when they said what they said. If Black people are up in arms across America, that's evidence that the remark was "antagonistic."
Why would we want to talk this "racism" "racist" crap that unnecessarily raises OUR burden of proof?
Whose side are we on, anyway, when we are the judges as part of the public and we tell the public that "is a racist" is the burden of proof that WE must be able to prove in order to object to a police officer screaming "you fucking Black bastard" while shooting someone in the head? "Is a 'racist' is NEVER the right burden of proof. It ALWAYS makes our political job close to impossible impossible.
"Is he a 'racist' ?" Well, how many times has he engaged in this behavior before? Maybe he was just having a bad day?
Is he color-aroused? Obviously! That's much easier to prove because his reference to color demonstrates his color-aroused ideation. His speech specifically mentions skin-color (as speech so often does in A-Merry-Ca, and was therefore the product of some skin-color-aroused ideation, and so the behavior that accompanied his speech is presumptively color-aroused.
People don't don't just go out and start hammering a nail with no thoughts or emotions that beget that behavior. All behavior has a cognitive and emotional component. If we borrowed some more understanding from cognitive behavioral psychology, we would get a lot further than we usually get when start confusing ourselves trying to figure out if someone "IS" a "racist."
As Amy Winehouse so aptly sings, "I fucked myself in the head with Stupid Man!" Let's continue to talk about "color-arousal" and "color-aroused" and let's stop fucking ourselves in the head with "racism" man!
Field, thanks for informing the public about "color-arousal" and "color-aroused."
As lawyers, you and I know that when you increase the burden of proof, you reduce the likelihood of a conviction. When we have to prove that a person "is a racist" before we can win remedial action, we set our burden of proof far too high, and much higher than white people set the burden of proof for convictions in general.
For example, imagine if instead of proving that a person committed a rape, you had to prove that he "is a rapist." Well, how many instances of rape individual instances of rape must be proved to prove that an individual "is a rapist?"
White people resolve this issue by charging people with having committed, in ONE instance, an action that is illegal. If the person is convicted of ONE act of murder, then he is a murderer by definition, and for all time.
So, why should we have to prove several or hundreds of acts of color-aroused antagonistic behavior in our efforts to prove that someone "is a racist".
Instead, we should be focusing on the question, "Did this person commit ONE physical or speech act that was color-aroused? If they did, then their act was color-aroused. If the act of speech or behavior was antagonistic, then the person is a color-aroused antagonist. The words are different, but it is much easier to prove.
Here's an analogy: Imagine a rape statute that says that rape is "involuntary penetration with pregnancy resulting." Most rapes could not be prosecuted under that statute. So, why would we increase the burden of proof by inserting "with pregnancy resulting" in the criminal statute?
When we try to prove that a person is a "racist," we have to prove a series of color-aroused antagonistic acts over an undefined period of time. That burden of proof is like the "with pregnancy resulting" burden of proof.
The question should always be, has the individual committed ONE or more acts of color-aroused antagonism in this particular instance?
How many rapes do you have to commit to be a rapist? Isn't a conviction on one rape count enough? In our system it is. If you are convicted of ONE rape then you are a "convicted rapist."
People who engage in one act of color-aroused antagonism deserve to be called out for that one act, without any discussion of "are they racist?" or even "are they color-aroused."
The question is, "Did they engage in one specific and identifiable act of color-aroused antagonism?
This is how our system of justice works in the United States. The question in criminal courts, except in complex cases, is "did the person commit each of the illegal elements of the crime" on ONE occasion?
Let's stop trying to figure who who is a "racist" and start asking ourselves, "Has Sam committed an act of color-aroused antagonism today?"
KOLKATA COLLEGE ESCORTS
KOLKATA INDEPENDENT MODEL ESCORTS
KOLKATA CALL GIRLS ESCORTS
KOLKATA CHEEP ESCORTS
KOLKATA CALL GIRLS NUMBER ESCORTS
KOLKATA HIGH PROFILE ESCORTS
KOLKATA AIRHOSTESS ESCORTS
KOLKATA PARK HOTEL ESCORTS
KOLKATA PARK HOTEL ESCORT
KOLKATA FIVE STAR ESCORT SERVICE
KOLKATA HOUSEWIFE ESCORT SERVICE
KOLKATA BOUDHI ESCORTS
INDEPENDNET ESCORT IN KOLKATA
KOLKATA ESCORT AGENCY
RUSSIAN ESCORT
RUSSIAN ESCORTS
RUSSIAN CALL GIRL
RUSSIAN CALL GIRLS
HOUSEWIFE ESCORT
HOUSEWIFE ESCORTS
HOUSEWIFE CALL GIRLS
HOUSEWIFE CALL GIRL
MODEL ESCORT
MODEL ESCORTS
COLLEGE CALL GIRL
COLLEGE CALL GIRLS
INDEPENDENT ESCORT SERVICE
INDEPENDENT ESCORTS SERVICE
INDEPENDENT ESCORTS SERVICES
INDEPENDENT CALL GIRL
INDEPENDENT CALL GIRLS
I want to share my testimony on how i got the blank ATM card. I was so wrecked that my company fired me simply because i did not obliged to their terms, so they hacked into my system and phone and makes it so difficult to get any other job, i did all i could but things kept getting worse by the day that i couldn’t afford my 3 kids fees and pay my bills. I owe so many people trying to borrow money to survive because my old company couldn’t allow me get another job and they did all they could to destroy my life just for declining to be among their evil deeds. haven’t given up i kept searching for job online when i came across the testimony of a lady called Judith regarding how she got the blank ATM card. Due to my present state, i had to get in touch with Hacker called OSCAR WHITE of oscarwhitehackersworld@gmail.com and he told me the procedures and along with the terms which i agreed to abide and i was told that the Blank card will be deliver to me without any further delay and i hold on to his words and to my greatest surprise, i received an ATM card worth $4.5 million USD , All Thanks to OSCAR WHITE , if you are facing any financial problem contact him asap email address is oscarwhitehackersworld@gmail.com or whats-app +1(323)-362-2310
Post a Comment