so on my way home tonight i stopped at borders on la cienega to pick up a book [and yes as a matter of fact it was a self-help book what's your fucking point], and paused on my way in to peruse the sale racks in the parking lot. as i browsed, i couldn't help but notice a pair of cute boys checking out the racks on the other side of the entrance to the store.
it was about this time that the doors to the store swung outward and this expensive blonde came striding out, swinging her borders bag--one of those gorgeous, anonymous wannabe-actress types you see all over the westside.
as she passed, one of the boys turned to the other and, in a voice i'm sure he figured wouldn't carry, muttered, "fuck, i'd hit that."
having heard this clearly from at least 20 feet away, i wasn't nearly as surprised as they were when the blonde stopped in her tracks, spun on her heel and froze them in mid-snicker with what had to be the stink-eye of all time, at which point the offending boy stammered, "no, no, no, you don't understand--it's ok, we're gay--i didn't mean it--i was just sayin' that 'cause you're hot."
at which point the girl's glare morphed into a brilliant smile and, thus validated by the ultimate arbiter of all things hot, she turned and strutted across the parking lot to her dented lime-green-metallic nouveau-beetle and drove away.
god, i love this city.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Monday, May 5, 2008
the whole black-white thing
an open letter to angry black people (and their white apologists):
as anybody who reads this blog knows, when it comes to this subject i am an angry white man. and tell you the truth, i don't know what offends me more--all the black people luxuriating in their victimhood, or all the white people falling all over themselves apologizing for things they had nothing to do with.
yeah, blacks are still on the low end of american society, but it's no longer whitey's fault, nor has it been for awhile--hell, these days we white folk are so cowed by political-correctness, all jesse jackson or al sharpton has to do is look at us cross-eyed and we reflexively drop to our knees and beg forgiveness for past sins while simultaneously pulling out our wallets--we're no challenge anymore.
no, here's the real problem: contemporary african-american culture is killing itself because it places no value on family stability, nor does it value education. and that's it--end of story, two factors, all you need to destroy a people.
and in response you can throw all the anecdotal evidence to the contrary you want at me, and i'll merely come back at you with the cold hard facts of (a) the billions of dollars that have been poured on the "problem" over the last 40 years, to little avail, (b) the skyrocketing black illegitimate birth-rate statistics over the same period, (c) black high-school drop-out numbers, and finally (d) black incarceration statistics which inevitably follow the unholy combination of (b) and (c). [are there other factors i haven't mentioned? of course, and that'll be fodder for future posts; however, this is the nut of the problem.]
at which point (if past experience is any indication, because i've gone through this so many times) you'll probably abandon rational argument and come back at me with something emotional like "well, what can you expect from us after all we've been through at your lily-white hands?"
and i'll come back with (a) it wasn't at my hands--i never owned a slave, and i'm done with apologizing for the sins of my forefathers--you ain't milking that cow anymore at my expense, and (b) the fact that pretty much everything legislative that can be done to level the playing field for african-americans has not only been done but, far as i'm concerned, done to death (institutionalized anti-white discrimination in the form of affirmative action, for instance).
and i'm tired of hearing about racism as being the source of all your problems--if big bad white america is so cruel to people who look and sound different, and if past trauma is a justification for present poor performance, how do you explain the fact that, within one generation of coming to this country with only the clothes on their backs and not even speaking the language, your typical asian families (even the ones from war-torn vietnam) own homes and businesses and their kids are excelling in college--how the hell could that possibly happen in evil racist america?
i'll tell you how: just like the jews (that american blacks love to demonize so much), the asians typically have a basic cultural ethos which has allowed them to not only survive but flourish no matter where they find themselves, and it goes something like this: (a) respect your elders, (b) establish a stable family before you start squeezing out kids, (c) education is the key to success in life, and (d) embrace and assimilate into the prevailing culture.
sadly, none of the foregoing elements play any part in mainstream african-american culture today, which, bottom line, is why you are where you are--and all the money and white guilt in the world isn't gonna change that fact; you're gonna have to change that within your own community if it's ever gonna happen.
if there's a bright side to this story, it's that more and more african-americans are getting it every day (even at the risk of being called oreos and uncle toms by the majority of their so-called peers who would still rather take the easy road of blaming whitey for their problems), and are joining the ranks of the middle-class in america at ever-increasing rates. i can only hope this trend will continue--that african-americans will quit whining, clean up their own backyard, quit living in the past and start living for today.
oh, and as for the reparations issue, it would be much more useful if you'd choose to look at it this way: by the very act of dragging your ancestors over here in chains, the slaveholders of old inadvertently paid reparations to present-day african-americans--because, had that not happened, where would you be today? you'd be back at home either (a) starving to death in somalia; (b) being hacked to pieces in rwanda; (c) slaving away in a diamond mine in south africa for a dollar a day, or (d) [insert african hellhole of your choice here].
in other words, had american slavery never happened, you'd be somewhere in africa desperately fighting with your last breath to get to where you are right now--here in america, land of the free and home of the brave. think about that a minute--think about the billions of people in this world who would kill to be where you are right now--and, instead of bitching about the past, thank your lucky stars for the present and make the most of where you are and what you have.
in summary, what i'm saying is, (a) to american blacks: make the hard choice--let go of the past and embrace your future here in what is still the most prosperous, forgiving and upwardly-mobile country on earth; and (b) to liberal self-hating whites: grow a spine and stfu.
[and thanks to reader joey7777 for the interesting back-and-forth in the comments section of this post that inspired me to pull this off the back burner, finish it up and publish it]
as anybody who reads this blog knows, when it comes to this subject i am an angry white man. and tell you the truth, i don't know what offends me more--all the black people luxuriating in their victimhood, or all the white people falling all over themselves apologizing for things they had nothing to do with.
yeah, blacks are still on the low end of american society, but it's no longer whitey's fault, nor has it been for awhile--hell, these days we white folk are so cowed by political-correctness, all jesse jackson or al sharpton has to do is look at us cross-eyed and we reflexively drop to our knees and beg forgiveness for past sins while simultaneously pulling out our wallets--we're no challenge anymore.
no, here's the real problem: contemporary african-american culture is killing itself because it places no value on family stability, nor does it value education. and that's it--end of story, two factors, all you need to destroy a people.
and in response you can throw all the anecdotal evidence to the contrary you want at me, and i'll merely come back at you with the cold hard facts of (a) the billions of dollars that have been poured on the "problem" over the last 40 years, to little avail, (b) the skyrocketing black illegitimate birth-rate statistics over the same period, (c) black high-school drop-out numbers, and finally (d) black incarceration statistics which inevitably follow the unholy combination of (b) and (c). [are there other factors i haven't mentioned? of course, and that'll be fodder for future posts; however, this is the nut of the problem.]
at which point (if past experience is any indication, because i've gone through this so many times) you'll probably abandon rational argument and come back at me with something emotional like "well, what can you expect from us after all we've been through at your lily-white hands?"
and i'll come back with (a) it wasn't at my hands--i never owned a slave, and i'm done with apologizing for the sins of my forefathers--you ain't milking that cow anymore at my expense, and (b) the fact that pretty much everything legislative that can be done to level the playing field for african-americans has not only been done but, far as i'm concerned, done to death (institutionalized anti-white discrimination in the form of affirmative action, for instance).
and i'm tired of hearing about racism as being the source of all your problems--if big bad white america is so cruel to people who look and sound different, and if past trauma is a justification for present poor performance, how do you explain the fact that, within one generation of coming to this country with only the clothes on their backs and not even speaking the language, your typical asian families (even the ones from war-torn vietnam) own homes and businesses and their kids are excelling in college--how the hell could that possibly happen in evil racist america?
i'll tell you how: just like the jews (that american blacks love to demonize so much), the asians typically have a basic cultural ethos which has allowed them to not only survive but flourish no matter where they find themselves, and it goes something like this: (a) respect your elders, (b) establish a stable family before you start squeezing out kids, (c) education is the key to success in life, and (d) embrace and assimilate into the prevailing culture.
sadly, none of the foregoing elements play any part in mainstream african-american culture today, which, bottom line, is why you are where you are--and all the money and white guilt in the world isn't gonna change that fact; you're gonna have to change that within your own community if it's ever gonna happen.
if there's a bright side to this story, it's that more and more african-americans are getting it every day (even at the risk of being called oreos and uncle toms by the majority of their so-called peers who would still rather take the easy road of blaming whitey for their problems), and are joining the ranks of the middle-class in america at ever-increasing rates. i can only hope this trend will continue--that african-americans will quit whining, clean up their own backyard, quit living in the past and start living for today.
oh, and as for the reparations issue, it would be much more useful if you'd choose to look at it this way: by the very act of dragging your ancestors over here in chains, the slaveholders of old inadvertently paid reparations to present-day african-americans--because, had that not happened, where would you be today? you'd be back at home either (a) starving to death in somalia; (b) being hacked to pieces in rwanda; (c) slaving away in a diamond mine in south africa for a dollar a day, or (d) [insert african hellhole of your choice here].
in other words, had american slavery never happened, you'd be somewhere in africa desperately fighting with your last breath to get to where you are right now--here in america, land of the free and home of the brave. think about that a minute--think about the billions of people in this world who would kill to be where you are right now--and, instead of bitching about the past, thank your lucky stars for the present and make the most of where you are and what you have.
in summary, what i'm saying is, (a) to american blacks: make the hard choice--let go of the past and embrace your future here in what is still the most prosperous, forgiving and upwardly-mobile country on earth; and (b) to liberal self-hating whites: grow a spine and stfu.
[and thanks to reader joey7777 for the interesting back-and-forth in the comments section of this post that inspired me to pull this off the back burner, finish it up and publish it]
Sunday, May 4, 2008
you really wanna understand the utopia this country will become when the democrats get control? fine--come spend some time with me in california
in response to my previous post, reader hubbard provided me with a link to a wsj article which, in its own way, sums up what can go wrong when the dems get their hands on unchecked power, and i wanna talk about that a minute--and you should read it whether you live here or not, because it's instructive in terms of what can happen when any one faction gets outta hand.
and yeah, yeah, yeah, i know--the republicans have made such a fucking mess of things nationally that it's really tempting to think that if we achieve our goal of "hope" and "change" this november, we can start to clean up everything that's wrong with america--but lemme tell you, with congress and the executive being controlled by democrats, we're basically just gonna be trading one set of problems for another.
how do i know this? i'll tell you how: because i live in a state that's been controlled by democrats for as long as i can remember, that's why. even though california as a whole really isn't that liberal (reflected by the fact that we elect a fair share of republican governors), the majority of our legislative districts are gerrymandered in such a way as to ensure that the democrats cannot lose--and they never do; seriously, there is virtually never any turnover from democrat to republican (or, in those relatively few districts that republicans control, vice versa) from election to election.
hell, the democrats in this state are so powerful that, when arnold schwarzenegger took 'em on in a special election shortly after he became governor, he got his balls cut off and handed to him--seriously, every proposition he put forth to correct the balance of power and control spending in this state (all of which were eminently sensible, btw) was, due to the overwhelming power of the democrats' negative ads, defeated--and he's basically given up any hope of reform and done their bidding ever since (governator, my ass; he's proven himself to be an approval-hungry, pussy-ass girlyman, and he should be ashamed--but, of course, he's too busy basking in the glow of his new-found reputation as global-warming visionary to be bothered by such petty concerns as the fact that he sold out the constituency who put him into office).
so basically, we have us some brazen-ass democrats running this state who, unhindered by such petty concerns as having to answer to their constituents at election time, have pretty much led us down the road to economic ruin.
consider: since 2000--due to the insane appreciation of california real estate (and its concomitant effect on property taxes)--our state has enjoyed an enormous influx of revenue, unprecedented in the state's history; i'm talking increases outta all proportion to what anybody could have expected. we should be rolling in cash, folks. and yet, here in 2008, not only has our legislature spent it all, we're facing a $10 billion budget deficit this year--because, in response to this huge influx of cash, our lovely legislators grew the government with the assumption that all that money would just keep coming in forever.
then the real-estate bubble burst, and property-tax income increases came to a screeching halt.
our legislature's response: decrease spending, maybe? adjust the budget so that it doesn't automatically increase each year? hell, no--now they're looking for ways to tax us more so they can keep spending. in the midst of a recession, yet.
now, in any normal situation, we'd be able to vote the bums out, restore some sanity--but not in california. the dems can't lose, and they know it. so, arrogant and unrepentant, they push on with their vast social and government programs, even though their policies are destroying the economic viability of what once was the greatest state in the union.
seriously, folks--businesses are fleeing california for more favorable climates, as are the middle-class taxpayers who make all this spending possible. and soon, all that's gonna be left here are the very rich who can afford all the taxation, and a vast pool of the very poor; i.e., welcome to the third world, california.
and you know what? for years, i thought that the dems were merely deluded, that they didn't realize they were killing the goose that laid the golden egg. until i realized the truth: dems fucking love poor people--the more the better. because it's the poor, looking to the dems to grab from the rich for their benefit, who keep 'em in office, and--fuck what happens to the state--because the way their districts are drawn, they'll still have their office, their prestige and their salary, guaranteed.
and when you look at it that way, all of a sudden what's happening in california--decreased revenues, increased taxes, floods of poor illegals--makes so much more sense.
and, as has been said more than once, and proven over and over: as goes california, so--sooner or later--goes america.
[and yes, this is a slightly-drunken post, but it doesn't make it any less true, goddammit]
and yeah, yeah, yeah, i know--the republicans have made such a fucking mess of things nationally that it's really tempting to think that if we achieve our goal of "hope" and "change" this november, we can start to clean up everything that's wrong with america--but lemme tell you, with congress and the executive being controlled by democrats, we're basically just gonna be trading one set of problems for another.
how do i know this? i'll tell you how: because i live in a state that's been controlled by democrats for as long as i can remember, that's why. even though california as a whole really isn't that liberal (reflected by the fact that we elect a fair share of republican governors), the majority of our legislative districts are gerrymandered in such a way as to ensure that the democrats cannot lose--and they never do; seriously, there is virtually never any turnover from democrat to republican (or, in those relatively few districts that republicans control, vice versa) from election to election.
hell, the democrats in this state are so powerful that, when arnold schwarzenegger took 'em on in a special election shortly after he became governor, he got his balls cut off and handed to him--seriously, every proposition he put forth to correct the balance of power and control spending in this state (all of which were eminently sensible, btw) was, due to the overwhelming power of the democrats' negative ads, defeated--and he's basically given up any hope of reform and done their bidding ever since (governator, my ass; he's proven himself to be an approval-hungry, pussy-ass girlyman, and he should be ashamed--but, of course, he's too busy basking in the glow of his new-found reputation as global-warming visionary to be bothered by such petty concerns as the fact that he sold out the constituency who put him into office).
so basically, we have us some brazen-ass democrats running this state who, unhindered by such petty concerns as having to answer to their constituents at election time, have pretty much led us down the road to economic ruin.
consider: since 2000--due to the insane appreciation of california real estate (and its concomitant effect on property taxes)--our state has enjoyed an enormous influx of revenue, unprecedented in the state's history; i'm talking increases outta all proportion to what anybody could have expected. we should be rolling in cash, folks. and yet, here in 2008, not only has our legislature spent it all, we're facing a $10 billion budget deficit this year--because, in response to this huge influx of cash, our lovely legislators grew the government with the assumption that all that money would just keep coming in forever.
then the real-estate bubble burst, and property-tax income increases came to a screeching halt.
our legislature's response: decrease spending, maybe? adjust the budget so that it doesn't automatically increase each year? hell, no--now they're looking for ways to tax us more so they can keep spending. in the midst of a recession, yet.
now, in any normal situation, we'd be able to vote the bums out, restore some sanity--but not in california. the dems can't lose, and they know it. so, arrogant and unrepentant, they push on with their vast social and government programs, even though their policies are destroying the economic viability of what once was the greatest state in the union.
seriously, folks--businesses are fleeing california for more favorable climates, as are the middle-class taxpayers who make all this spending possible. and soon, all that's gonna be left here are the very rich who can afford all the taxation, and a vast pool of the very poor; i.e., welcome to the third world, california.
and you know what? for years, i thought that the dems were merely deluded, that they didn't realize they were killing the goose that laid the golden egg. until i realized the truth: dems fucking love poor people--the more the better. because it's the poor, looking to the dems to grab from the rich for their benefit, who keep 'em in office, and--fuck what happens to the state--because the way their districts are drawn, they'll still have their office, their prestige and their salary, guaranteed.
and when you look at it that way, all of a sudden what's happening in california--decreased revenues, increased taxes, floods of poor illegals--makes so much more sense.
and, as has been said more than once, and proven over and over: as goes california, so--sooner or later--goes america.
[and yes, this is a slightly-drunken post, but it doesn't make it any less true, goddammit]
Friday, May 2, 2008
ok, time to rag on some white people
first, arnold schwarzenegger.this
on his jet.
yes, folks, since no one in their right minds could possibly expect maria and the kids to give up life in brentwood, our governor commutes from los angeles to sacramento and back every single working day via private jet--but don't worry, he buys "carbon offsets," so that makes it all ok, right?
yeah, right. i swear to god, these global-warming hypocrites just make me wanna claw my brain outta my skull everytime i see one of 'em blathering on about "sacrifice" and "saving the planet." i mean, i can only dream of ever having as lavish a carbon footprint as fucking al gore with his mansion with its $1,500-per-month utility bills (yeah, yeah, he installed some solar panels when news of his excess hit the wires--big fuckin deal).
my point is, if even the most pseudo-passionate of global-warming proponents aren't willing to walk their talk, how can they ever expect joe everyman to do it? seriously--from now on, unless you're ed begley who pedals a stationery bike for half an hour each morning in order to generate sufficient electricity to make his breakfast toast, then get outta my face already about doing my part to combat global fucking warming. because i can almost guarantee you that anybody on tv wagging their finger at me to conserve is using at least 10x our fragile planet's resources that i am.
and now, on to george w. bushso the other day i see this headline: "white house admits fault on 'mission accomplished banner''
and i think, "well, it's about time--it's not a big one, but at least these assholes are gonna finally own up to something."
but no, we're talking about the bush administration.
what they're "admitting" is that, yeah, they did pay for the banner--but they're still insisting that
". . . the 'Mission Accomplished' phrase referred to the carrier's crew completing its 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq.
"President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said 'mission accomplished' for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday.
remember--it took 'em five years to come up with this lame-ass bullshit. up to now, of course, they had denied any involvement in the banner, and now they're telling us they whipped it up and posed bush strategically in front of it after having him symbolically land on the carrier while posing as an actual fighting man in order to congratulate the carrier crew on the completion of its mission? i mean, good god, how stupid do they really think people are?
never mind--that was a stupid question.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
rev. wright to blacks: shut up and keep shufflin'
he's been a busy boy lately, our reverend wright--so much so that i, focused as i was on his national press club appearance, completely missed sunday night's naacp performance. thankfully, reader judi was more observant than i, and she and her commenters had some interesting things to say about it--so interesting, in fact, that it's taken me all goddam day to muster a proper response.
a complete transcript of reverend wright's words can be found here, but the highlight of the evening (for judi and me, anyway) was when the good reverend attempted to use the research of a certain dr. janice hale to explain away the scholastic-achievement gap between black and white students here in america. for brevity's sake, allow me to paraphrase (and again, if you're incredulous and don't trust my interpretation, please feel free to click on the link provided above and read for yourself, draw your own conclusions): euro-american (white) and afro-american (black) children have two completely different learning modes--i.e., white kids learn in a left-brain, cognitive (logical/analytical) style, while black kids learn in a completely-incompatible right-brain (creative/intuitive) style.
or, as reverend wright puts it, "[we] learn from a subject, not an object. tell me a story."
[and of course his audience was cheering him on, because god knows black folk love it when other black folk tell 'em how special and apart they they are--when that suits their purposes, anyway (reserving the right, of course, to be "just like everybody else" when that suits their purposes).]
and then he goes on to say, "different does not mean deficient."
yeah, right--as long as you're hunting antelope on the veldt and not crunching numbers on wall street.
i look at this shit and i laugh and cry at the same time--the good reverend wright is doing the work of white-racist america for them, because you know damn well that by next wednesday every half-wit white-supremacist in america will be quoting him verbatim as complete, justifiable verification for their hate.
seriously--imagine if this theory had been posited by, say, david duke: white people learn best by reading books written by other white people, while black people learn best by squatting around a campfire and telling each other stories, thus neatly explaining why most white people live in houses with electricity and running water, while most black people live in mud huts in africa.
can you even in your wildest dreams imagine some white educator coming out and saying, "black children require special education here in america because their ability to perform at a caucasian level is limited due to the constraints imposed by their racial origins."
hell, let's take it to the logical next step: "since blacks' ideal mode of learning is so completely different from that of whites, perhaps, in order to provide them with the optimal education, we should give them their own specialized, separate (but equal) schools." is that what you want, reverend white--to go back to pre-1954?
i mean, i've heard some lame-ass explanations for the performance gap between white and black students in this country, but this one takes the cake. i dunno about you, but i can't imagine anything as inherently limiting and ultimately destructive to young black minds as to feed them this crap--telling 'em, "don't even bother; you can't hope to compete in a white man's world because your brain isn't wired the right way."
yeah, you black folk just go on entertaining us white folk with your (creative/left-brain) singing, dancing and athletic feats, and we'll continue to do the (analytical/right-brain) heavy intellectual lifting.
as a white boy who spent the better part of his youth having the dogma of "we're all the same under the skin" pounded into his lily-white brain, may i reserve the right to hereby and respectfully say
"what the fuck?"
a complete transcript of reverend wright's words can be found here, but the highlight of the evening (for judi and me, anyway) was when the good reverend attempted to use the research of a certain dr. janice hale to explain away the scholastic-achievement gap between black and white students here in america. for brevity's sake, allow me to paraphrase (and again, if you're incredulous and don't trust my interpretation, please feel free to click on the link provided above and read for yourself, draw your own conclusions): euro-american (white) and afro-american (black) children have two completely different learning modes--i.e., white kids learn in a left-brain, cognitive (logical/analytical) style, while black kids learn in a completely-incompatible right-brain (creative/intuitive) style.
or, as reverend wright puts it, "[we] learn from a subject, not an object. tell me a story."
[and of course his audience was cheering him on, because god knows black folk love it when other black folk tell 'em how special and apart they they are--when that suits their purposes, anyway (reserving the right, of course, to be "just like everybody else" when that suits their purposes).]
and then he goes on to say, "different does not mean deficient."
yeah, right--as long as you're hunting antelope on the veldt and not crunching numbers on wall street.
i look at this shit and i laugh and cry at the same time--the good reverend wright is doing the work of white-racist america for them, because you know damn well that by next wednesday every half-wit white-supremacist in america will be quoting him verbatim as complete, justifiable verification for their hate.
seriously--imagine if this theory had been posited by, say, david duke: white people learn best by reading books written by other white people, while black people learn best by squatting around a campfire and telling each other stories, thus neatly explaining why most white people live in houses with electricity and running water, while most black people live in mud huts in africa.
can you even in your wildest dreams imagine some white educator coming out and saying, "black children require special education here in america because their ability to perform at a caucasian level is limited due to the constraints imposed by their racial origins."
hell, let's take it to the logical next step: "since blacks' ideal mode of learning is so completely different from that of whites, perhaps, in order to provide them with the optimal education, we should give them their own specialized, separate (but equal) schools." is that what you want, reverend white--to go back to pre-1954?
i mean, i've heard some lame-ass explanations for the performance gap between white and black students in this country, but this one takes the cake. i dunno about you, but i can't imagine anything as inherently limiting and ultimately destructive to young black minds as to feed them this crap--telling 'em, "don't even bother; you can't hope to compete in a white man's world because your brain isn't wired the right way."
yeah, you black folk just go on entertaining us white folk with your (creative/left-brain) singing, dancing and athletic feats, and we'll continue to do the (analytical/right-brain) heavy intellectual lifting.
as a white boy who spent the better part of his youth having the dogma of "we're all the same under the skin" pounded into his lily-white brain, may i reserve the right to hereby and respectfully say
"what the fuck?"
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
i'm beginning to think that hillary's smarter than all of us
there's been all kinds of speculation these last few months as to why hillary refuses to wake up, smell the coffee and get out. some see it as selfish arrogance, others as denial, and still others think she's playing a machiavellian game to so weaken obama as to ensure his loss to mccain, thus setting her up for another run in 2012.
me? i'm starting to think that she's hung in there because she knew damn well what's happening to the obama campaign as we speak was bound to happen.
because, lemme tell you, barack's in a world of shit right now.
first, his new and more strenuous repudiation of rev. wright isn't holding water with anybody. i mean, seriously, he can say shit like "the person i saw yesterday was not the person i had come to know over 20 years,'' but all that really tells us is either (a) he's a credulous, unobservant, easily-deluded fool; or, more likely, (b) he's a liar--i.e., he has eyes and ears just like the rest of us, and what he's really upset about is that wright couldn't keep his mouth shut until after he was safely ensconsed in the white house.
either way, he's fucked with white middle-america.
oh, and he's starting to catch heat from black america too--or he will be soon, if al sharpton has anything to say about it. see, al's upset with barack's outrageous call for a nonviolent response from blacks in the wake of the sean bell verdict, characterizing his craven, chickenshit position as "grandstanding for white people."
so, lemme see: he's too scary for white people, and too white for black people--talk about a rock and a hard place; barack just can't win these days.
or, for that matter, in november.
and hillary knew it all along; she's just hoping the rest of her party will see it as well before it's too late.
me? i'm starting to think that she's hung in there because she knew damn well what's happening to the obama campaign as we speak was bound to happen.
because, lemme tell you, barack's in a world of shit right now.
first, his new and more strenuous repudiation of rev. wright isn't holding water with anybody. i mean, seriously, he can say shit like "the person i saw yesterday was not the person i had come to know over 20 years,'' but all that really tells us is either (a) he's a credulous, unobservant, easily-deluded fool; or, more likely, (b) he's a liar--i.e., he has eyes and ears just like the rest of us, and what he's really upset about is that wright couldn't keep his mouth shut until after he was safely ensconsed in the white house.
either way, he's fucked with white middle-america.
oh, and he's starting to catch heat from black america too--or he will be soon, if al sharpton has anything to say about it. see, al's upset with barack's outrageous call for a nonviolent response from blacks in the wake of the sean bell verdict, characterizing his craven, chickenshit position as "grandstanding for white people."
so, lemme see: he's too scary for white people, and too white for black people--talk about a rock and a hard place; barack just can't win these days.
or, for that matter, in november.
and hillary knew it all along; she's just hoping the rest of her party will see it as well before it's too late.
Monday, April 28, 2008
jeremiah wright: the gift that keeps on giving
from dana milbank's column in the washington post:
and then he went on to imply that, his public protestations to the contrary, obama secretly agrees with him.
and there's lots of other good stuff, too--i encourage you to read the piece.
but there's more--lots more.
not content to sing the praises of farrakhan, reverend wright then goes on to rhapsodize about his good friend james cole, a guy who makes farrakhan look like martin luther king by comparison.
haven't heard of mr. cole? well, lemme just tell you that he's a leading proponent of a school of thought known as "black liberation theology." these folks believe that blacks are the "chosen people," white people are "the devil," and that all white people are collectively responsible for all white oppression that's ever happened. cone has written, “what we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.”
want more? cone “refuses to accept a god who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. if god is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him."
to reverend wright: thank you, you racist self-aggrandizing loon, for not knowing when to shut up. and please, keep talking--america needs to hear what you and your friends have to say.
Should it become necessary in the months from now to identify the moment that doomed Obama's presidential aspirations, attention is likely to focus on the hour between nine and ten this morning at the National Press Club. It was then that Wright, Obama's longtime pastor, reignited a controversy about race from which Obama had only recently recovered - and added lighter fuel.
Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks ("God damn America") and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.
In front of 30 television cameras, Wright's audience cheered him on as the minister mocked the media and, at one point, did a little victory dance on the podium. It seemed as if Wright, jokingly offering himself as Obama's vice president, was actually trying to doom Obama; a member of the head table, American Urban Radio's April Ryan, confirmed that Wright's security was provided by bodyguards from Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.
and then he went on to imply that, his public protestations to the contrary, obama secretly agrees with him.
and there's lots of other good stuff, too--i encourage you to read the piece.
but there's more--lots more.
not content to sing the praises of farrakhan, reverend wright then goes on to rhapsodize about his good friend james cole, a guy who makes farrakhan look like martin luther king by comparison.
haven't heard of mr. cole? well, lemme just tell you that he's a leading proponent of a school of thought known as "black liberation theology." these folks believe that blacks are the "chosen people," white people are "the devil," and that all white people are collectively responsible for all white oppression that's ever happened. cone has written, “what we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.”
want more? cone “refuses to accept a god who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. if god is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him."
to reverend wright: thank you, you racist self-aggrandizing loon, for not knowing when to shut up. and please, keep talking--america needs to hear what you and your friends have to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
