Sunday, 01 March 2009

ACCEPTABLE RACIAL STEREOTYPES

Ken Berwitz

If there is one thing I've learned over recent years, it is that the left has a monopoly on criticism of racial stereotypes. 

Simply stated, if people on the right engage in this odious practice, they are despicable pigs.  They are outed immediately for what they've done, complete with calls for retribution. 

A recent example is the the New York Post, whose cartoonist appeared to compare Barack Obama to a chimp.  There have been daily protests at Post offices demanding an apology, and that the cartoonest (Sean Delonas) be fired.

But if people on the left do the same?  They're not attacked at all.  It was just clever commentary.  They didn't mean anything by it -- because, after all, they're the good guys, not like those despicable pigs on the other side.

If you doubt this for a minute, consider the reaction to what has been said about Bobby Jindal, the Indian-born Governor of Louisiana, who responded to President Obama's speech this past Tuesday.  It makes things crystal-clear.

From Brian Maloney at www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com:

BIGOTRY ON DISPLAY

Caught On Tape: Libtalk's Racist Anti-Jindal 'Humor'


*** EXCLUSIVE TO THE RADIO EQUALIZER ***

Continuing an alarming recent pattern of utilizing racism and overt bigotry to neutralize political opponents, two syndicated liberal radio personalities have been caught on tape disparaging Governor Bobby Jindal.

This time, the culprits are libtalker Mike Malloy and producer / wife Kathy Bay Malloy. During Wednesday's show, Kathy used a mocking impersonation of an East Indian to ridicule the Louisiana governor.

First, the transcript, followed by our exclusive, caught-on-tape clip of the incident:

KATHY BAY MALLOY (50:34) in mocking East Indian voice: Hello, my name is Bobby, how may I give you excellent customer service today, I hear you are having problems with hard drive. I am so very sorry this is happening to you, ma'am (Mike Malloy laughs throughout)

MIKE MALLOY (50:49) (Laughing): You're getting a bit racist in your middle years, aren't you?

And here's our clip:




Were this an isolated incident, it would still be disturbing, but combined with a peculiar pattern of liberal and Democratic Party racism aimed at East Asians, it calls into question their supposed "tolerance" of others.

In the past,
Democrats Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton have also ridiculed Asian immigrants, particularly those from India.

In fact, in recent days, other liberals have been caught using racism to disparage the GOP's rising star. Early Wednesday, for example, longtime liberal stalwart Helen Thomas of the White House Press Corps made an unfortunate "Slumdog Millionaire" reference.

MSNBC wacko Chris Matthews
also carelessly used the word "outsourcing" to describe Jindal's selection to deliver the Republican response, an obvious reference to the use of Indian labor by American corporations.

In addition,
Washington Post columnist Amy Argetsinger was caught comparing Jindal's eyes to that of Charles Manson, which if not racist is certainly a slimy personal attack.


Now that they've elected Barack Obama, white liberals apparently believe they've been immunized against future criticism, even when they resort to racism to attack opponents. But the very people who routinely make the same charges against conservatives are mistaken if they believe we won't hold them accountable for their bigoted and hypocritical antics.

If you care about racial stereotypes - their unfairness and the damage they do - this should make you sick to your stomach.

Yet where are our wonderful "neutral" media on this?  How come when the people crapping out this sickness are from the left, it is treated either as ok, or at least ok enough to be ignored? 

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


THE INCONVENIENCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Ken Berwitz

When President Bush (and other Republicans) held the presidency, human rights was a paramount issue.  Mr. Bush was subjected to countless attacks over his supposed indifference to the suffering of the oppressed and called pretty much every name in the book. 

Now, with Barack Obama in the oval office, one would think human rights to be a front and center issue.  Mr. Obama and his more liberal, thus more tolerant, cohorts would certainly show those obtuse, callous Republicans a thing or two about concern for oppressed people. 

Or..............

Please read the following column by Michael Barone of Human Events, and see the true story:

Liberals Turning Blind Eye to Human Rights
On the last day of her trip to East Asia, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke briefly of the place of human rights in American policy toward China. "Our pressing on those issues" -- issues she didn't identify any more fully -- "can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis."

Cries of dismay quickly came forth from Amnesty International USA, New Students for a Free Tibet and Freedom House. Has the United States given up on championing human rights and democracy altogether?

Now it can be said in defense of Clinton's remarks that previous administrations of both parties, from the time of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, have given human rights at best a subordinate place in their dealings with China. And that our past calls for China to observe human rights have been met for the most part with stony silence and acts of defiance. And that the stricken American economy at this point is in need of continued Chinese purchases of Treasury bonds.
 
Still, for anyone with knowledge of American foreign policy over the last four decades, Clinton's remarks were jarring. It is one thing not to press a tyranny very hard on human rights; it is another thing to come out and say you're not going to raise the issue at all. It is a kind of unilateral moral disarmament. One arrow in the quiver of American foreign policy has been our pressing -- sometimes sotto voce (as in the Helsinki Accords), sometimes in opera buffa ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!") -- tyrannical regimes to honor human rights. Hillary Clinton has put that arrow over her knee, broken it in two and thrown it away.

She is not the only one. On this as on other matters, she is following the lead of the man who beat her for the Democratic nomination. In his inaugural speech, Barack Obama made only the most passing mention of human rights. In his Feb. 26 speech to Congress, he devoted just 7 percent of his words to foreign and defense policy, and made just one mention of freedom.

He is reportedly poised to name as head of the National Intelligence Council a man who has endorsed China's 1989 suppression of pro-democracy students at Tiananmen Square. He has noted with cold indifference the success of the provincial elections in Iraq.

All of which brings to mind the report of a conservative blogger who watched George W. Bush's 2005 inaugural speech with a group of liberals. Every time Bush called for spreading freedom and democracy around the world, the crowd guffawed and groaned and jeered. For them, evidently, Bush was a figure of fun, and his calls for democracy and human rights laughable. The same people who decried his supposed authoritarian rule at home had nothing but contempt for his call for freedom and democracy abroad.

Beneath this stated contempt is, I think, something in the nature of secret guilt. Or rather, anger at the notion that Bush had stolen the issues of human rights and democracy from the liberals.

The desire to oppose the Iraq war root and branch, to denounce every aspect of it, imposed a duty to dismiss as laughable Bush's stated objective -- set out eloquently before the decision to take military action as well as after it -- of advancing democracy in the Middle East. A duty to side with those, like the National Intelligence Council nominee, who have long held that governance in the style of Saudi Arabia or Syria is the best that can be hoped for in that region, and the best for all concerned. A duty to dismiss with contempt, or simply to ignore, the rather remarkable strides of the Iraqis themselves made after enduring decades of brutal tyranny.

It's quite a turnaround. It was liberals who complained that the United States sided with too many tyrannies in the Cold War and who (in the person of Henry Jackson) insisted on holding up Soviet trade deals to aid those persecuted by the Soviet Union. It was Jimmy Carter who made human rights a plank in his campaign and made it his policy as president, even when it undermined U.S. allies.

Not even when the cause of human rights was taken up by Ronald Reagan, in the Philippines as well as against the Soviets, did liberals declare that we should be indifferent to the cause of expanding democracy and freedom in the world. But now they seem to have done so in the desire to repudiate root and branch every policy espoused by George W. Bush.

Perhaps someone should suggest that a stony indifference to the freedom of others is not a very liberal -- not a very generous, not a very attractive -- thing.

And, still, our wonderful "neutral" media look the other way. 

I picked this column up from Human Events, folks.  Not from the New York Times, or Washington Post or LA Times or the networks or the Today show or Time or Newsweek, or MSNBC, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Well, at least there is one place where human rights is still the overriding issue.  Mr. Obama, through Hillary Clinton, demands that Israel resupply those nice hamas terrorists in Gaza who, if well enough resupplied, can go back to trying to vaporize Israel and kill every Jew there.

Hey, who says the Obama administration is insensitive to human oppression?


THE OBAMA - BIDEN HYPOCRISY ON IRAQ

Ken Berwitz

Barack Obama is an inexperienced man with a terrific talent for public speaking. 

Now that he is President Mr. Obama  is in the process of taking credit for what President Bush accomplished in Iraq.  And there are plenty of suckers who will buy into his instant revision of history.

I've talked about this in previous blogs.  But the video that www.sweetness-light.com has on its web site right now really brings the truth home. So I'm posting it below:

How Obama And Biden Fought The Surge

February 28th, 2009

As we have often noted before (see the related articles links below), Messrs Obama and Biden fought our winning strategy in Iraq tooth and nail.

A fact you would never guess from Mr. Obamas remarks yesterday at Camp Lejeune.

But here is another gentle reminder about their prescience, via YouTube:

Obamas Hypocrisy On Iraq Success

Remember, we were supposed to ignore Mr. Obamas stunning lack of experience because he has such excellent judgment.

Well, he was wrong about the surge. And his choice of a Vice President was not too stellar either.

So when have we ever seen any evidence of this alleged sound judgment?

Thank you President Bush for having the guts to order this surge, knowing full well that you would be creamed for it by people like Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  Thank you for suffering the insults and attacks because you thought it was the right thing to do.  That is a level  of personal character few people will ever measure up to.

Oh, and thank you President Obama for being 100% against what President Bush did, but now taking credit for it going forward.  You really do speak beautifully.


PAUL HARVEY R.I.P.

Ken Berwitz

I rarely listened to Paul Harvey.  But there is no doubt that he was a great pioneer of radio, as well as its single longest lasting on-air personality. 

Mr. Harvey died in Phoenix, Arizona yesterday, at the age of 90.

Paul Harvey started in radio at station KVOO in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  The year was 1933 (that's not a typo). From 1951 until just a few months ago, he did national commentary on the ABC radio network.  His wife, Lynne, whose marriage lasted from 1940 until her death in 2008, was his long-time producer.  Both are in the radio hall of fame.

May they both rest in peace.


JAYWALKING TICKET REVERSED

Ken Berwitz

Three days ago I wrote, incredulously, about a Denver bus driver who, with a second man, tried to help two elderly women across the street during a snowstorm.  A truck came towards them and the driver was able to push the others to safety before being hit.  He wound up in the hospital with serious injuries.

Then, while dealing with those injuries, the Denver police department was nice enough to issue him a jaywalking ticket.

Well, there's a more or less happy ending to at least the jaywalking part of this story.  Here it is, courtesy of the Associated Press; the bold print is mine:

Colorado withdraws ticket issued to good Samaritan

DENVER The Colorado State Patrol has withdrawn the $22 jaywalking ticket issued to a good Samaritan who was seriously injured by a pickup after he pushed three people out of its path.

Bus driver Jim Moffett of Denver and another man were helping two elderly women cross a busy Denver street in a snowstorm when he was hit Feb. 20.

Moffett, 58, suffered bleeding in the brain, broken bones, a dislocated shoulder and a possible ruptured spleen. He remained hospitalized in serious condition Friday.

"He's doing better, but it's going to be a long, hard road for him," said his wife, Donna. "His knee is just completely destroyed, his shoulder was badly dislocated, he's got a lot of internal injuries."

The State Patrol said in a statement that it withdrew the citation "after examining the ... circumstances" and consulting with prosecutors. A patrol spokesman didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.

The patrol initially said that despite Moffett's intentions, jaywalking contributed to the accident.

The patrol also withdrew jaywalking citations against the other good Samaritan and one of the two women. The other woman wasn't cited because troopers said she wasn't directly involved.

A citation against the pickup driver for careless driving resulting in injury still stands.

The two women and the other good Samaritan were passengers on Moffett's Regional Transportation District bus.

"He told his son he'd do it again, which really upsets me because he almost lost his life," Donna Moffett said.

Ralph Waldo Emerson said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"  Although Mr. Emerson never lived to see a bus or truck, somehow I suspect this is the kind of behavior he had in mind.

Did the Denver police really need an investigation and a sit-down with prosecutors to figure out that maybe, under these circumstances, a jaywalking ticket wasn't a real great idea?   

My favorite part, though, is that one of the two women "wasn't cited because troopers said she wasn't directly involved".  The men were helping both women across the street!!!  One of them was involved and the other wasn't??????

Let's just say that this doesn't speak particularly well for Denver's law enforcement capabilities and leave it at that.


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!!