A Veiled “Racist” Smear

July 21, 2010 by

Has David Chalian, of PBS’s The News Hour, been taking his marching orders from Spencer Ackerman? That’s the “Journolist” member who wrote “call them racists” in reference to conservatives.

On the July 21 News Hour, Chalian smeared Tea Party activists when he said – paraphrasing – “BigGovernment.com is saying hey, it’s not just elements in the Tea Party who are racists, it’s Sherrod who’s racist too…”

Either it’s a deliberate smear by Chalian, or he’s so out of it as to think that the folks at BigGovernment.com actually think that elements of the Tea Party are racists. Hasn’t he heard of BigGovernment.com’s standing offer of $100,000 to anyone who can produce evidence of the Democratic congressman’s smear that racial epithets were hurled at a rally? Probably not, since it’s doubtful he ever reads anything but left-leaning media outlets (which undoubtedly don’t report on BigGovernment.com’s $100,000 challenge).

Note to David Chalian: if you’re so sure that the Tea Party is racist, here’s your chance to make an easy $100,000.

 

Filed Under: Media Bias, NPR/PBS, Racial Issues Tagged With: , , Leave a Comment

Abandoning Their Principles for a Larger Prize

January 12, 2010 by

Is it racist to say that someone who has dark brown skin and an accent that’s common among African Americans could never win the U.S. presidency?

It could either mean that the utterer of those words (1) thinks someone is inferior due to the color of his or her skin and accent, and therefore should never be president, or (2) doesn’t think someone is inferior due to the color of his or her skin and accent, but thinks that too many other people do think so, and therefore he or she doesn’t have a good chance at winning the presidency.

As someone who doesn’t think that racism in America is near as prevalent as most leftists would have you believe, I would give the utterer of those words the benefit of the doubt and ascribe to him or her No. 2.

But most people on the left do think that racism is very prevalent in America – even among other leftists (who allegedly can exhibit “unconscious” racism in addition to the overt kind). They’re far more likely not to give someone the benefit of that doubt, and would ascribe to him or her No. 1. I’m sure if you did an experiment, you’d get those results.

Now we have a Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, who (by saying Barack Obama could win the presidency thanks in part to his “light-skinned” appearance and lack of a “Negro dialect”) indicated that he thinks someone with dark brown skin and an accent that’s common among African Americans could never win the presidency.

Given that most on the left would reflexively consider that a racist remark (even if uttered by a fellow leftist), it’s hypocritical for them not to call for Harry Reid’s resignation.

I guess they’re just salivating too much at the thought of socialized healthcare, and in this instance are willing to let their principles go down the tubes.

Hey Andrew Sullivan – you certainly seem like the type who would think Reid’s remark is racist. When Trent Lott said “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years” if Strom Thurmond were elected president (to which Lott could have been referring to any number of things, but probably they were just empty words aimed at trying to flatter Thurmond at his birthday celebration), you didn’t give Lott the benefit of the doubt at all and reflexively thought his remark was nefarious. You proceeded to take the lead in the blogosphere in taking down Lott.

Why the silence now Andrew, vis-a-vis Reid?

Filed Under: Racial Issues Tagged With: , , , , , Leave a Comment

Smear Alert! Another “If You Oppose Obamacare You Must Be Racist” Canard

January 10, 2010 by


Some folks’ bias is so strong, minds are so narrow, and economic illiteracy are so profound that they’re totally incapable of understanding why other folks don’t view Obamacare as a good thing. A big explanation, they surmise, must be racism.

The latest smear comes from an article in today’s Washington Post, written by a Kate Julian, which touts a “study” in which people sorted “stereotypically ‘black’ and ‘white’ words and names (Tyrone and Shaniqua vs. Brett and Jane) into positive and negative categories.” More “black” words in negative categories implied racism. By this logic, the fact that most white people don’t choose “black” names for the kids means that most white people must be racist.

What about the names Matilda or Gertrude or Vladimir? (No offense to anyone named that.) If those are mainly in a research participant’s negative categories, does that make the participant racist against whites?

Hey Kate, I don’t know what race you are or whether you have kids, but if you’re white and you do have kids, are they named Tyrone or Shaniqua or something along those lines? If not, does that make you a racist? (Of course no, but yes if you take Kate’s premise to its logical conclusion.)

The “study” found that people alleged to be racists were more likely to oppose Obamacare. But that can’t hold because the original premise – based on the misleading sorting exercise – was faulty.

What if, say, RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who is black, proposed Steelecare where healthcare is reformed along more free-market lines. What if the alleged “racists” were more likely to support Steelecare? Would that mean support for Steelecare is based on racism?

While I can’t rule out that there isn’t someone, somewhere in the U.S.A. who opposes Obamacare because he or she is genuinely racist, I am confident that at least 99.999 percent of those who oppose Obamacare do so because of legitimate concerns with this monstrosity of a plan.

Filed Under: Obamacare, Racial Issues Tagged With: , , , , , Leave a Comment