Wednesday, 18 February 2009

THE NEW YORK POST'S RACIST CARTOON

Ken Berwitz

It isn't often that I agree with Sam Stein who writes for www.huffingtonpost.com and al sharpton, who I avidly dislike because I consider him a fraud and a race hustler.

But today is the day.

The New York Post has a cartoon in today's edition that clearly equates President Obama to the crazed chimpanzee that attacked its owner's friend yesterday and wound up being shot and killed by the police. 

Here is Mr. Stein's commentary, then the cartoon itself, then al sharpton's reaction to it:

New York Post Chimp Cartoon Compares Stimulus Author To Dead Primate

A cartoon likening the author of the stimulus bill, perhaps President Barack Obama, with a rabid chimpanzee graced the pages of the New York Post on Wednesday.

The drawing, from famed cartoonist Sean Delonas, is rife with violent imagery and racial undertones. In it, two befuddled-looking police officers holding guns look over the dead and bleeding chimpanzee that attacked a woman in Stamford, Connecticut.

"They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," reads the caption.

An email to Delonas and a call to the New York Post went unreturned. The cartoon appears both on the New York Post website and page 12 of the Wednesday paper.

At its most benign, the cartoon suggests that the stimulus bill was so bad, monkeys may as well have written it. Others believe it compares the president to a rabid chimp. Either way, the incorporation of violence and (on a darker level) race into politics is bound to be controversial. Perhaps that's what Delonas wanted.

2009-02-18-cartoon.jpg

UPDATE: Rev. Al Sharpton has weighed in on the cartoon in a statement:

"The cartoon in today's New York Post is troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys. One has to question whether the cartoonist is making a less than casual reference to this when in the cartoon they have police saying after shooting a chimpanzee that "Now they will have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill."


"Being that the stimulus bill has been the first legislative victory of President Barack Obama (the first African American president) and has become synonymous with him it is not a reach to wonder are they inferring that a monkey wrote the last bill?"

It's a racist cartoon.  It equates Barack Obama, who just signed the stimulus package into law, with a crazed chimp that had to be shot dead.  A blind man could see this.

Stein is almost 100% correct.  The only disagreement I have with his commentary is its suggestion that there conceivably might be a different explanation (not that he's buying it, just suggesting).  sharpton is being uncharacteristically diplomatic in his choice of words.  But his point - that the cartoon equates President Obama to a monkey (a chimpanzee, actually) - is spot on. The stereotype couldn't be clearer.

The Post is trying to rationalize this as something other than what it obviously is.  Fat chance.  That is the equivalent of claiming that a guy in a leprechaun suit, with a pug nose and an empty bottle of Bailey's in his hand isn't being stereotyped as an Irishman.

I don't give a damn that reid and pelosi were the ones who put this monstrosity together.  Barack Obama supported it and it was his smiling, Black face that I saw when it was signed. 

Things are what they are.  And the racial component of this cartoon is 100% clear.  Cartoonist Sean Delonas - and the New York Post - should be ashamed of themselves. 

BOBW DEAR KEN- 99% I AGREE WITH YOU- BUT IN THIS I DO NOT- IF IT WAS GEORGE BUSH WRITING THE PLAN -THEN IT WOULD BE OK I DO NOT THINK IT IS RACIAL AT ALL WHOMEVER SIGNED THE PLAN -BLACK, WHITE, YELLOW OR BRIGHT RED-WHOMEVER SIGNED THIS PLAN CAN BE COMPARED TO A CRAZED CHIMP IT SO HAPPENS THE CHIMP AND NO-BAMA LOOK ALIKE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE (02/18/09)


"A NATION OF COWARDS"

Ken Berwitz

Someone called the USA "...essentially a nation of cowards". 

Who would say that?  An al-qaeda terrorist?  hugo chavez?  fidel castro?

The answer is yes.  Every one of those detestable people would say it.  But that's not who did say it.

The person who said it is the United States Attorney General, eric holder.  The same eric holder who supported a pardon for marc rich.  The same eric holder who supported a pardon for 16 FALN terrorists.

Here is the entire AP article.  Read it and try figuring out what he's really saying:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Eric Holder described the United States Wednesday as a nation of cowards on matters of race, saying most Americans avoid discussing unresolved racial issues.

In a speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder said the workplace is largely integrated but Americans still self-segregate on the weekends and in their private lives.

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," said Holder, nation's first black attorney general.

Race issues continue to be a topic of political discussion, Holder said, but "we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race."

He urged people of all races to use Black History Month as a chance for frank talk about racial matters.

"It is an issue we have never been at ease with and, given our nation's history, this is in some ways understandable," Holder said. "If we are to make progress in this area, we must feel comfortable enough with one another and tolerant enough of each other to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us."

He told Justice Department employees they have a special responsibility to advance racial understanding.

Do you have any idea what holder is talking about?  He doesn't specify which race, or what part of our history, does he? 

Is he directing those comments more to one race or another?  You may think you know but, whatever your conclusions are, he didn't say it.  You are just guessing.

Is he directing those comments towards slavery?  Or towards the far higher crime rate among Blacks than Whites?  You may think you know but, whatever your conclusions are, he didn't say it.  You are just guessing.

So who is the coward who won't talk about race?

On that question, you don't have to guess at all.


THE NEW YORK TIMES NOSEDIVE

Ken Berwitz

Peter Roff, writing for Fox News, has put up a very interesting article about why the New York Times is nosediving so badly - even worse than other print media.

The entire piece is well worth reading (which is why I've provided the link above), even though it has an egregious word error; it mistakes  "auspicious" for "auspices" (hey, I write too and I know these things can happen). But here is the final segment, which wraps things up very well:

A larger problem is that the shrill invective coming from the likes of former theater critic Frank Rich, who now holds forth on global issues on the Times op-ed page, and others like him has reached the point of ridiculousness. Those who take the paper on a regular basis are, I suspect, increasingly tired of being told, with increasing vehemence, that they are stupid, greedy, racist, uncaring, unfeeling and wrong about almost everything they believe.

The New York Times, unlike the other daily newspapers in this nations largest city (two of which are owned by the parent company of FOX News) is not written for Joe Beergut from Bensonhurst. The Times, which still imagines itself to be Americas newspaper of record, is written for Larry and Lois Leisure of Larchmont and the Upper West Sides Walter and Wendy Welloff. Times readers are highly educated, well off, have opinions about local and national affairs and believe they are generally good, community-minded people who may or may not enjoy complicated crossword puzzles.

To The Times, every social problem America faces is the fault of its readers in one fashion or another. They are rich, upper and upper-middle class Americans who are responsible for all that is wrong with the world. They dont pay enough in taxes although you would have a hard time getting most of them to believe that. But to The Times, that makes them all Mephistopheles.

So while the papers senior management is trying to figure out how best to restore its flagging financial fortunes, it would do well to read the famous column penned for the National Review some years ago, about how the authors outlook on life got brighter and more cheerful the day after he decided to stop taking the paper.

Oliver Hazard Perry famously said "We have met the enemy and they are ours...".****

Walt Kelly (who gave us the seminal "Pogo" comic strip for so many years), used a play on that quote during the war in Vietnam:  "We have met the enemy and he is us"

If I were in the New York Times boardroom right now, I would be urging its "brain trust" to pay much more attention to the Walt Kelly version.

-------------------------------------------------------------

****FYI, Perry's entire quote, actually a communique to then General and eventually President William Henry Harrison, was "We have met the enemy and they are ours; two ships, two brigs, one schooner and one sloop".  I just researched the quote and found that out.  I certainly didn't know it before and - don't lie - you didn't either. Right?


PBS: OUR TAX MONEY FOR JEW-HATRED. (AGAIN)

Ken Berwitz

My son just e-mailed Robert J. Avrech's article to me and I am passing it along to you.  It comes from www.bighollywood.breitbart.com.

My viewership of PBS is sporadic and I was not aware of this programming.  But I certainly am aware that of PBS' rich history of crapping on Israel and Jews. 

Simply stated, crapping on Israel and Jews is all the rage among the hard left, and PBS is hard left.

Here is what I'm talking about:

Masterpiece Jew Haters

by Robert J. Avrech

I must have missed a few subtle literary points in college when I was taking a Charles Dickens seminar.

I missed the spot where Fagin, in Oliver Twist, is wearing a gigoondo yarmulke.

Also, blasting right by yours trulyalas, never the best of studentsis the part where Fagin abstains from eating pork chops because theyre not kosher.

Who knew that Fagin was an observant Jew?

And I must have skipped the part where Fagingoing all bi-polartalks to himself in fractured Hebrew and intones: Never trust the goyim.

char_lg_fagin.jpg
Timothy Spall as Fagin: Never trust
the goyim. Gotta check the Cliff notes.

Fagins thick as lard accentwhoops, forgot Fagin is religious, lets  make that syrupeastern European accent pegs him as an immigrant street rat, a dirty foreigner seducing and corrupting young British manhood.

Last night I was flipping through my 150 channelsyou can get obese watching all the cooking showswhen I stumbled on this new adaptation of Oliver Twist.

What a surprise, I didnt know I had access to Al Jazeera. It was kind of scary, I mean, I know the Arab world is a sewer of Jew-hatred, but this Fagin is pretty darn close to the image of the evil Jew pushed by the Nazi propaganda machine.

Hes not just the Jew, hes the devil.

This Fagin is such a leering, salivating monster that I wouldnt be surprised if, in next weeks exciting installment, he molests a few doe-eyed kids then slaughters them so he can use their blood to bake matzo.

The Blood Libel is alive and well in the Arab Muslim world and making headway, once again, in oh-so-civilized Europe.

Imagine my surprise when the station ID popped up and I discovered that this was not Al Jazeera, but PBS.

Okay, I really wasnt surprised.

Just as I wasnt surprised that this grotesquely anti-Semitic Oliver Twist is a British production. Most sane people recognize that Britain, in about 25 years, will be ruled by Sharia and cheerily Judenrein.

Say hello to the happy-go-lucky 7th century.

In truth, early editions of Oliver Twist were tainted by Jew hatred. But Dickens bravely confronted this bigotry and eliminated anti-Semitism from all subsequent editions. He knew it was wrong. He knew it was poison.

Not so for this BBC productions. They have departed from the standard text and and defaulted to the Jew-hatred that Dickens rejected.

Next PBS Jane Austen adaptation, be prepared for the slick, bad boy Jew who steals fortunes from unsuspecting fine ladies and seduces and abandons Christian virgins.

My fainting couch is positioned right in front of the TV.

European Jew-hatred is so common, so darn fashionable that Charles Dickens Oliver Twist is now part of the arsenal to make Jew-hatred acceptable.

Director Coky Giedroyc and writer Sarah Phelps are the chief criminals in this vile exercise in sophisticated Jew-hatred. They will, no doubt, argue that they are restoring a fresh perspective to Fagins Jewishness. This is the corrupt academic language of deconstruction, where texts have no real meaning, where all interpretations are equally valid.

Naturally, its a one-way deconstructionist street.

You can bet your bottom dollar that no Muslim would ever appear in such a dark light in a BBC production. Because the Islamists would issue a fatwa and Giedroyc and Phelps would be living under 24/7 protection.

No doubt, this dynamic Jew-hating duo would hunker down with The Koran and deconstruct it in order to prove that beheading is not terribly sporting.

Lotsa luck.

But its open season on Jews because, well, what are we going to do but protest in print, be dismissed as right wing nut jobs, or yknow, pushy Jooz.

Question: why does PBS exist?

Oh right, desperately needed government support for peopleand by people, I mean loserswho cant make a living in the business.

Your tax dollars at work.

I have put Mr. Avrech's most important point in bold print.  But he doesn't go far enough. 

PBS doesn't have any more guts to go after radical Islam than the BBC does. 

After all, if you crap on Jews you can sleep like a baby that night, but if you crap on radical Islam you never sleep well again. 

For people without journalistic integrity, this pretty much settles the issue.


SWEDISH LIES

Ken Berwitz

Sweden is in a tumultuous state.  This is due, in no small part, to a major influx of Muslims who have no interest in assimilating and are in the process of changing the country's culture.

Malmo, the third largest city in Sweden, is heavily populated by Muslims.  The crime rate is stratospheric there compared to the rest of the country and it is reported that neither ambulances nor firefighters will enter parts of the city without a police escort.  You can read about this for yourself by clicking here .

They are having an international tennis competition in Malmo from March 6 to 8.  Israel is one of the participating countries.

A decision has been made that Israel's team will only play in an empty stadium - no spectators allowed. 

Why do you suppose this is being done?  For fear that there will be action against who?  Got your answer in mind?  Ok.

Now read the AP account and be ready to shake your head in amazement:

No fans when Sweden hosts Israel for Davis Cup

2/18/2009 11:48:00 AM

MALMO, Sweden (AP) -Sweden and Israel will play their first-round Davis Cup match in an empty arena next month because of security concerns.

Several anti-Israeli demonstrations are planned during the best-of-five series, which will be played March 6-8 at the 4,000-seat Baltic Hall.

Malmo officials announced the decision after a vote on the issue in the city's recreational committee. The Swedish Social Democratic Party and the Left Party won the vote 5-4 after a long debate.

The committee said it could not guarantee security for the fans.

``It's a high-risk match,'' committee chairman Bengt Forsberg was quoted as saying by Swedish news agency TT.

Only officials, some sponsors and journalists will be allowed to enter the arena.

Carlos Gonzales Ramos, the committee's vice chairman, wanted to call off the match.

``But since it was not possible to do so, this was best result,'' he told TT.

This will be the second time a Davis Cup match will be played in an empty arena in Sweden. In 1975, two years after a military coup led by Augusto Pinochet against the elected Chilean government of Salvador Allende, Sweden played Chile in Bastad and no spectators were allowed.

The Malmo decision came after Israeli player Shahar Peer was denied a visa to play in this week's Dubai Tennis Championships.

Michael Klein, chairman of the Israel Tennis Federation, said it was a shame that political demonstrators could force Sweden to keep out fans.

``This means that they will not sell tickets to the general public because they are expecting provocation by troublemakers who have nothing to do with the sport,'' he said. ``It's terrible that they are trying to mix politics with sports, especially in an enlightened country like Sweden.

``I trust the Swedes to hold the game in the spirit of sports and not politics. It is not them but a group of troublemakers who want to get attention who are doing this.''

The FANS?  They're not selling tickets because the FANS are in danger?

Who do they think believes this utter BS?  Do they think we've all lost our cerebrums and can't find them?  Do they think we can't figure out that Sweden fears it is incapable of protecting Israelis from elements of Malmo's Muslim population?

If Sweden thinks there is danger, then the logical thing to do is MOVE THE MATCHES OUT OF MALMO.  But they won't do that.  Better to play in an empty stadium and lie about why.

Sadly, this is the Sweden of today.  And as long as they keep lying to us, and to themselves, it will continue to get worse.


TRANSPARENCY IN THE OBAMA ERA

Ken Berwitz

Throughout last year's election campaign, we continually heard about the transparency of a potential Obama administration. 

It is, of course, true that we hear about a lot of things during election campaigns that don't turn out the way we were led to believe.  But this came from Barack Obama.  Saint Barack.  The Obamessiah.  The demigod sent to us straight from the heavenly portals of Chicago's Democratic political machi .... er, forget that last part.

Since Mr. Obama has been the President for almost a month now, we are starting to get an idea of what transparency means to him.   One major inkling is the so-called "stimulus package" (or, as I call it, the stealfromus package).   

We were told that it had to pass it immediately, that there was not one second to waste.  That was Obama's rationale for making its contents available to congress at, I believe, 11PM the day before the vote - so no one could even read what they were voting on - and demanding an immediate vote anyway.

Because Democrats have the numbers in both houses of congress, it passed.  No one read it but they passed it.  It was ready for the President's signature on Friday.

So President Obama signed it that second, right?  I mean it was an emergency, wasn't it?  It had to be signed immediately.

Well, no. 

President Obama wanted to make a bit hit with this signing and get maximum publicity.  So he waited until he had a major event in Denver on Tuesday. 

That's right.  The bill - passed and ready for his signature - cooled its heels from Friday to Tuesday. 

Could a few of those days have been used to READ it?  Why no, it was an emergency, remember?  No time for that.  Only time for Barack Obama to schedule it for maximum political exploitation.

That, I am sorry to say, is what transparency is to the Obama administration.  And it is just one example. 

Want more?  Read these excerpts from an article by Josh Gerstein at www.politico.com:

The White House's missing documents

   
 

In his first weeks in office, President Barack Obama shut down his predecessors system for reviewing regulations, realigned and expanded two key White House policymaking bodies and extended economic sanctions against parties to the conflict in the African nation of Cote DIvoire.

Despite the intense scrutiny a president gets just after the inauguration, Obama managed to take all these actions with nary a mention from the White House press corps.

The moves escaped notice because they were never announced by the White House Press Office and were never placed on the White House web site.

They came to light only because the official paperwork was transmitted to the Federal Register, a dense daily compendium of regulatory actions and other formal notices prepared by the National Archives. They were published there several days after the fact.

A Politico review of Federal Register issuances since Obama took office found three executive orders, one presidential memorandum, one presidential notice, and one proclamation that went unannounced by the White House.

Two of Obama's actions on regulatory reform were spotted by bloggers, lobbying groups and trade publications after they emerged in the Federal Register.

There was no apparent rhyme or reason to the omissions. A proclamation Obama issued on February 2 for African-American History Month was e-mailed to the press and posted on the White House web site. But another presidential proclamation the same day for American Heart Month slipped by.

Such notices were routinely released by the White House press office during prior administrations making their omission all the more unusual given Obamas oft-repeated pledges of openness.

Let me say this plain:  If transparency of government is an indication of how the Obama administration operates, there is no reason for us to believe anything it says.  And since we have voted Democrats into complete domination of our government, there is no way to stop it.

We have two years of this before we can change things.  I hope it isn't too late.


THE NEW YORK TIMES STOCK PLUNGE

Ken Berwitz

Analyst Ed Elfenbein shows us the sad state of the New York Times - and gives us a great punch line that is both funny and sad:

February 17, 2009

New York Times Share Price Less Than Sunday Newspaper Price

Check out this very ugly chart:

image770.png

Shares of NYT (NYT) dropped 29 cents today to close at $3.77. The Sunday paper goes for $4 at the newsstand.

Maybe they could save costs by printing the paper on their stock certificates.

Maybe that's why they call him "Pinch" Sulzberger.  Because Times shareholders who look at this chart have to pinch themselves to be sure it isn't just some horrific nightmare.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!