Shorter Washington Times: those blacks are just looking out for their own.
Reader Interactions
64Comments
Comments are closed.
by John Cole| 64 Comments
This post is in: Assholes, Our Failed Media Experiment
Shorter Washington Times: those blacks are just looking out for their own.
Comments are closed.
Kryptik
But you’re the racist for pointing this out, John. Just saying.
And why haven’t we addressed the plight of the poor White American Christian Male? Don’t you understand that they’re the most oppressed majority ever?!
General Stuck
It all makes me long for a devil in a blue dress.
Kryptik
@General Stuck:
Don’t worry. One will be invented soon enough. And if not, I’m sure they’ll paint Michelle as one just in time for the election.
beltane
White people don’t look out for their own. Never.
As a white person, I would like to officially tell the teabaggers and their apologists to STFU. I am deeply ashamed to share any traits at all with these people. They are an embarrassment to our country.
beltane
August used to be the month for “racial incidents” in NYC when I was growing up. Are the wingnuts trying to revive this ancient tradition?
General Stuck
@Kryptik: More like finding an oily tainted birth certificate proving Michelle the love child of Bill Ayers and Angela Davis.
Allison W.
Eric Holder, you’ve arrived! both the Left and the Right don’t like you.
congratulations, sir.
Immanentize
This is what I wrote to Weigel this morning — the guy who seems to take it as a personal challenge (with Frum) to destroy anything good about the Daily Dish:
I have been reading David Weigel’s discussion of the NAACP resolution and the so-called back lash. When he says: “It’s just that they should know that calling out a group for “racism” is pointless — whoever’s been targeted will simply claim to have been attacked unfairly and had his free speech threatened.” this is the most priveleged accomodationist statement I can imagine. “They” for God’s sake! Only a priveleged white male could say this. It is of a piece with “women should never object to sexism because it will just be turned back on them,” “Jews should not support the ADL because they create more anti-semitic backlash,” and frankly “blacks have got to learn their place.” Identifying and condemning racism/sexism/anti-semitism is the responsibility of everyone. The NAACP did nothing more than what common decency requires of all humans. The fact that Weigel decides to privelege the backlash indicates what an entitled position he comes from: that priveleged place where equality and acts of observation are themselves evidence of inequality to the viewer.
Jeff Pokorak
freelancer
I’m not getting out of the boat.
Svensker
I know the WT is wingnutty, but they actually printed that Holder will not prosecute black-on-white crime? They printed that?
It’s time to give up and leave, folks. These people are not only nuts, but completely irresponsible.
Holy crap.
bobbo
Always trust the shorter! I’ve never so much as glanced at the Washington Times before this, but do they always write at a third grade level? And when did “racialist” replace “racist”?
Chyron HR
@Kryptik:
Hey, Terminator 4 wasn’t great, but he did pretty well in those Batman movies.
Immanentize
Here is what I wrote to David Weigel this morning…. It seems Weigel and Frum are committeed to undermining everything Sullivan says that makes the Daily Dish worth reading.
***
I have been reading David Weigel’s discussion of the NAACP resolution and the so-called backlash. When he says: “It’s just that they should know that calling out a group for “racism” is pointless — whoever’s been targeted will simply claim to have been attacked unfairly and had his free speech threatened.” this is the most priveleged accomodationist statements I can imagine. “They” for God’s sake! Only a priveleged white male could say this. It is of a piece with “women should never object to sexism because it will just be turned back on them,” “Jews should not support the ADL because they create more anti-semitic backlash,” and frankly “blacks have got to learn their place.” Identifying and condemning racism/sexism/anti-semitism is the responsibility of everyone. The NAACP did nothing more than what common decency requires of all humans. The fact that Weigel decides to privelege the backlash indicates what an entitled position he comes from: that priveleged place where equality and acts of observation are themselves evidence of inequality to the viewer.
***
… Maybe Backlash should be “black lash?”
Kryptik
@Chyron HR:
*groans*
Punnage aside, you do realize Bale isn’t American, right? :P
Midnight Marauder
Aaaaaannnnnddddd I think we are done here.
eemom
well, let’s look on the bright side — at least this renews my excuse for continuing to subscribe to the Washington Post.
Really, though, “racialist”?? This is some seriously creepy shit.
kindness
I have a logon over there & I’d comment over there, but every time I do the comment ‘mysteriously’ disapears. I wonder why?
Midnight Marauder
@Svensker:
The first sentence of the article:
In what world is this a real thing?
eemom
goshdangit. I got moderated for quoting the thing. : (
Paris
The Washington Times? I thought it closed.
beltane
@Paris: It is the zombie newspaper. Not quite alive yet not quite dead.
General Stuck
@Paris: I think just an online production now.
YellowJournalism
Just wait until they have the big derby at the end of the month and see what kind of bait they use then.
jl
What does this editorial contain other than accusations by a former Bush/Cheney DOJ official who has demonstrated a personal and professional interest in suppressing the minority vote?
I never heard of the supposed Nouxbee county scandal before, but the stuff on the New Black Panthers is BS. The editorial says the Adam’s case was dropped by the current administration. But I read that it was dropped by the Bush/Cheney administration also. Is that right?
So, the Washington Times provides a platform to an ex-Bush/Cheney administration hack with an agenda. Good fodder for Fox and Drudge I guess.
But no problem because racial prejudice is not a problem anymore, right? Right??
YellowJournalism
I should add that this stuff bothers me more than that ridiculous “colored people” letter because people are more likley to take a Times editorial as a serious discussion of facts rather than realize that it and it’s author are full of shit. Not really any better than Mark Williams since they seem to have a similar thinking process.
beltane
@jl: Any ex-Bush/Cheney DOJ official should be jumping for joy that he’s not in jail, not whining about imaginary persecution.
Allan
I avoid the Washington Times website because I’m convinced it will leave cooties on my computer and the next thing I know I’m being married to a Korean woman in a mass wedding.
Bob L
So now the Moony’s have cut the WT lose they looking for a buy out from Sturmfront or something?
kay
@jl:
It’s really bigger than that. This is a straight-out attack on Holder, because he’s black, so it’s crude, and calculated for November, and John’s July theory is solid, but there really is a basic split between liberals and conservatives on voting.
Conservatives focus on voter fraud. Liberals focus on voter access. One presumes denial of the franchise, the other presumes exercising the franchise.
There’s no middle ground, either.
I would fully expect the Bush DOJ to try to exclude, and I would fully expect the Obama DOJ to try to include.
It goes back to (IMO, but I think the state laws conservatives pass make this abundantly clear) that conservatives don’t really believe that voting is a fundamental right. They treat it as a privilege, legally, like driving is.
They can’t say that, it’s not mainstream, so they flip the liberal argument (disenfranchisement) on access, and claim that their votes are being diluted by access, and therefore they are disenfranchised.
In any event, I think it’s a fundamental liberal-conservative battle, and there’s not going to be a compromise. I’ve read on it for years, and I’m not budging. I don’t imagine Holder is either. We are not persuaded. Not a bit.
The fraud contingent gained a lot of ground in the years after 2000, which was the opposite of what I expected, after the Bush v Gore debacle. They passed a LOT of state law that went to fraud.
The fact is, the more barriers to voting you put up, the better conservatives do. They can’t expand their vote, so they work hard to limit the opposition’s vote.
Mark S.
@jl:
According to Media Matters, that one is bullshit as well.
scav
jesus wept. on the upside, I just love The Now Show as I only understand about half of the un-utterably dreary things about the current situation. It’s comforting to know we’re not alone somehow.
wasabi gasp
Why, after well over two hundred years of electing black presidents, can’t we get one that’s not racist?
Bubblegum Tate
@Midnight Marauder:
Greater Wingnuttia
lamh32
This whole NAACP/TPM/NBKP/DOJ bs going on this week, has got me to thinking, and I just too through. I’m just gonna steal from Ta-Nehisi:
Final Thoughts by Ta-Nehisi Coates
like one of TNC’s commenters said “I don’t know if I should clutch my pearls, or raise a Black Power fist!”
jl
I hope Cole is wrong that racist nonsense will be the summer campaign for the vicious and cynical manipulators who run the reactionary movement in the US. Even seeing short clips of rich entitled white doofus media tools whining and spinning this nonsense will be infuriating. Even seeing them on blogs and not clicking to watch them, but knowing this is happening, will be infuriating.
I thought the fashionable racism of the late 80s and early 90s was bad and infuriating, and sickening. I had hoped our society had started to move beyond it. But I am ever naive and overly hopeful. The election of Obama has provided a rationale for the reactionary manipulators to give it another try.
The teabaggers are a diverse group, from my personal experience, and what I read in the polls. Some are poor and lower middle class, unsuccessful, white folks who blame the federal government for all their woes.
Probably half are older, richer, more educated white folks who are really an interest group for federal programs that benefit them (mainly social security and Medicare), and ignorantly and selfishly, against their own interests, lash out at any change that they perceive as a threat to their welfare. The issue of racial prejudice inconveniently (or, conveniently for the racists among this group) intersects with their perceived self interest.
Then there are the corporate astroturf managers who have an agenda that is not to the long run benefit of any of these groups, and has nothing to do with racial equity or fairness or government size, or anything other than corporate welfare.
It is true that lower educated and lower skilled whites, and particularly white males, have been ground down economically over the last 30 years. They are lashing out, not realizing that they are the inevitable recruits for further sacrifice for the powerful and wealthy. It is sickening to see manipulators try to take advantage of their resentment to further policies that will grind them even more.
Zifnab
Holy crap, they are in full blown “Make whatever shit you want up” mode aren’t they? Virtually no quotes from opposing viewpoints, wild allegations based entirely on here-say, zero citation. And it’s all in an editorial written to look like the guy was engaging in actual journalism.
The best I could find on the case was this USA Today article.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-03-voting-lawsuit_x.htm
Which was actually pretty good, all things considered. USA Today isn’t a terrible newspaper once you get passed the giant graphics.
kay
@jl:
I feel as if the bar to felons voting really typifies the two approaches. I have no earthly idea why felons should be denied, at any stage of sentencing or punishment. I can’t grasp that. Voting isn’t earned, after all, and I don’t know why a felony matters in that context, at all. I read the justifications, and they just don’t make any sense to me. I understand why (violent) felons can’t be teachers, or nurses, because those are privileges, and there’s good and practical reasons why the state should deny a license.
Why “felons”? Why not people convicted of a misdemeanor, or traffic scofflaws, then? What does any of that have to do with voting?
jl
@Mark S.:
Thanks very much. Looks like the Nouxbee County ‘scandal’ is the classic Big Lie. Invert the truth, and yell loudly and often enough, and hope that enough people believe you.
kay
@lamh32:
Why does “good” have to come from it? Why can’t the NAACP just make a statement in opposition to another statement, like everyone else does?
They’re in direct opposition to the statements Tea Party members made. I don’t know how you do that without hurting their feelings.
ruemara
If you want to show him some love o the twitters-marktalkdotcom. I think he spelled it out just so there weren’t enough characters left for the cuss words.
Mnemosyne
@kay:
I can see it while actually undergoing punishment, with the argument being that since they broke the law, they should not have the power to change the law while they’re still being punished for that transgression. It may not be a big deal in some states, but it could be a big deal in states like California where you do have an opportunity to vote directly on laws and not just legislators. And that’s how it works in California — you can’t vote while you’re in prison or on parole, but you’re free to do so once your sentence is over.
I have no idea what the argument is supposed to be for not allowing people who have served their sentences to vote, but I will note that many of the states that did that are in the South.
Mark S.
@jl:
This pretty aptly describes the teabaggers I know. No, they aren’t in the Klan or anything, but they nod along with Rush’s racist dog whistles. The notion that the global economy broke down because Jimmy Carter made banks lend money to black people fits in perfectly with their preconceived notions.
Mark S.
@Mnemosyne:
I agree. Once you’ve served your sentence, you should be allowed to vote again.
maus
@Zifnab:
Uh, they’re the goddamned Moonies. They can do whatever they want.
Ash Can
That rag can’t go under fast enough.
AhabTRuler
@YellowJournalism:
Not in Washington, DC they won’t. They can’t even give that POS away outside of Metro stations.
No, the conservative hometown paper for the area is the WSJ.
jl
@Mark S.: My personal experience is that the older richer more educated teabaggers are the more racially prejudiced, in both word and deed. But they are from two different areas. The richer ones are East SF Bay San Ramon types, the poorer are what have been called ‘Reagan Democrats’ in the Central Valley.
Mike E
@maus:
Fix’t.
Shalimar
The Washington Times sees the opposite of the problem I suspect exists at Justice. It’s nice that Holder has gotten a few positive things done, but that doesn’t change the mischief potential on all of the mundane and little-noticed cases from hundreds of Bush-era burrowers who were hired specifically because of their ultra-conservative beliefs.
Thoughtcrime
@freelancer:
Or the car:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjuXP3aya00
“Never get out of the car. Mertz got out of the car. Then he got out of the car business…”
kay
@Mnemosyne:
It’s a good point, but I am of the opinion direct democracy is a disaster, and possibly the worst export California ever came up with.
If I see one more yahoo measure to change my state constitution by ballot initiative I am going to scream. The thing was beautiful, in it’s original form. A classically liberal document. Now it’s a mess. Ballot initiatives in my state are responsible for gay marriage banning, state EPA over-riding, and “gaming” interests buying a law. We had two competing measures one year: one written by tobacco interests and the other written by anti-tobacco interests. 4 and 5. People had no fucking idea what was going on with that.
If a legislature can’t write law, I would say vote them out.
I read the draft language for the latest ballot lunacy, which is banning “Obamacare”. I’m not sure, but I think it might bar child support collection. I didn’t sign up to be governed by a mob.
Paula
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME WITH THIS SHIT??
I get away from the poli-blogging for one blissful month w/ el Mundial, and I come back to this shite …
[shakes from withdrawal]
Thoughtcrime
@jl:
During the “Obamacare” debate, while on the way to dinner I had the displeasure of coming across these richer TeaBigots in Danville and Walnut Creek. I had a few choice words for them and demanded that they return their government handouts.
And speaking of East SF Bay racists, they’re organizing a rally in Walnut Creek for their hero, the recently convicted BART cop: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=67876
So are they supporting him for racism, or incompetence at his job? Must be one or the other.
Thoughtcrime
@kay:
I’ve lived in California my whole adult life and can say without reservation that the referendum system in California has been an absolute disaster. Especially when combined with the 2/3rd majority rule to increase taxes.
The bath water has reached state government’s nostrils.
kay
@Thoughtcrime:
I haven’t spent much time there, but I think California is beautiful.
HOWEVER. I may never forgive you-all for ballot initiatives.
One of the smoking measures, I can’t remember which, anti or pro, was a constitutional amendment.
Mnemosyne
@kay:
I’ve been here just over 20 years and I can’t disagree with you. I’ve gotten to the same point that Kevin Drum has where I just vote “no” on every ballot measure because I’ve been burned too many times by things that sound great but turn out to have poison pills in them.
Still, as I said, I can understand removing voting rights from people who are actually incarcerated or still on parole: they have some of their citizenship rights taken away as part of their punishment. But once that punishment is over, it should be over, and I just don’t get the whole idea that someone who once committed a crime should never be allowed full citizenship ever again.
Mike in NC
Having drinks with the neighbors this fine evening, we wondered why isn’t there a “Sons (or Daughters) of the KKK” group out there? Seems a natural, and people like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee would be clamoring to be honorary members.
shortstop
kay, you’re on fire this afternoon. Enjoying your posts.
Shalimar
@kay: You should see the Alabama constitution. Not initiatives, but pretty much the most mundane local issues like 1/2 percent sales tax increases for individual counties used to have to be put before the entire state in amendments to the 1901 Constitution. I’m pretty sure there was finally an amendment to change that 15-20 years ago, but only to the extent that amendments that affect local issues are only voted on locally now instead of state-wide. As a result of all of this bullshit, the constitution is now 357,157 words according to wikipedia. I wonder how all of the tea party all-laws-should-be-shorter-than-the-US-Constitution people feel about that?
There have been a number of drives for a new constitution over the years, but the current one is very friendly to the timber barons and insurance companies so it is never going to be changed. Those groups have enough money to insure that lots of ignorant people who would be helped by lower sales taxes and other inefficient methods of revenue collection will always be against change.
According to Wikipedia: “There is a growing movement for democratic reform of the Alabama constitution. It is spearheaded by the non-profit organization Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform (ACCR), which was formed out of a rally in Tuscaloosa in 2000.” I’m not sure the growing part is true. You could have said the same thing 40 years ago and at several points since then. Just because there are advocates doesn’t mean there will ever be change. Every decade or so someone important calls for reform and there is some support, but it never goes anywhere.
shortstop
This is an interesting resource on felon voting by state. It kind of cracks me up that the only two states to allow felons to vote while serving time are…Louisiana and Vermont. Hmmm.
CORRECTION: Bwa, that’s Maine and Vermont. I thought that Louisiana thing was beyond the realm of probability.
kay
@Shalimar:
This is what happened after the mob amended the state constitution to bar a certain group of people from marrying:
The legislature reworked the domestic violence statute, but I was of the opinion liberal reps should have said “you mean to tell me an angry bigoted mob passed a poorly drafted law? Tough shit. Amend it by referendum. Call a constitutional convention. Can’t help you. Sorry. “
kay
@shortstop:
I think what bothers me is the “felony”. There are a lot more felonies, for one thing. For another, there simply isn’t that much difference between a high-level misdemeanor and a low-level felony (same crime) ,if we’re talking about some moral measure, and it must be a moral measure. We’re denying them the franchise because they’re very, very bad, so it must be a moral sanction. So “stealing” is okay with “voting” but NOT if “stealing” exceeds a certain dollar amount.
I guess it meant something when the lines were clearer, but I don’t think it does anymore.
shortstop
kay, I suspect those lines are drawn by the same committee that decided that 3 oz. is the magic cutoff for death-producing liquids on airlines. Offering sops to the “Do something!” mob often means making indefensibly arbitrary choices. FWIW, I agree with you completely, but I thought the chart was interesting for purposes of comparing states — will see if I can’t find some historical comparisons when I get a minute (not tonight).
Mothra
My God, where is this heading? That’s an editorial in a newspaper. I know they are right wing, but that is unhinged.