Archive for the ‘Fear of a Brown Planet’ Category
I’ve generally given up posting about Greg Gutfeld’s (ugh) “Gregologues,” in part because they mostly conform to a link-oneliner-plug format that doesn’t leave a lot of room for discussion, and in part because he’s the one member of Big Hollywood‘s sub-Caroline-in-the-City comedy team who at least tries to crack jokes instead of acting like creepy, seething, passive-aggression is comedy. Maybe he’s only tolerable relative to the likes of Crowder, Jena, or Hudnall, but I’ve developed a bit of a soft spot for the big lug.
It must also be said, in the interest of giving credit where credit’s due, that Gutfeld is generally judicious when singling out figures or initiatives or soundbites from the left that are worthy of mockery. My usual reaction to his column goes something like, “Wow, it’s a little sad that Greg is 35 and still pining for the ol’ frat days, but yeah, that was a silly thing Obama said, there.”
Today, though he’s getting his smirk on because there’s a harmless GOTV video where Obama doesn’t pander enough to “middle-aged white dudes”:
So, for this upcoming November election, here’s an idea to help restore American strength and prosperity. White middle-aged men must band together and throw the idiots out.
That’s all there is to it.
At least, if I follow President Obama’s lead. For, in his mind, his victory requires splitting the populace apart – and only these folks matter: young people, African Americans, Latinos, and women.
I like how Gutfeld acts like “white middle-aged men must band together and throw the idiots out” hasn’t been his employer’s plan since, oh, I don’t know, Tax Day ’09. But that shit aside, the video Gutfeld links to is completely harmless. Obama talks about engaging and energizing people who didn’t normally vote before 2008, who came out specifically for him, and who are now in danger of slipping back into apathy.
Yes, that largely means women, black, Latinos, and young people. Now, it may surprise Gutfeld to learn that women alone account for over 50% of the population. Shocking! I did a quick-and-dirty calculation based on census data, and those groups combined account for about 72% of the US population.
But Obama actually spent two minutes directly addressing the majority of Americans, while not addressing its most privileged sub-sub-sub-group, “middle-aged white dudes,” so clearly he’s a racist.
Acknowledging that people other than “middle-aged white dudes” exist is not the same as excluding them! Is Gutfeld so used to seeing “middle-aged white dudes” pandered to that he can’t see the difference? Guys, he works for Fox.
100 Years of Slavery Followed by 100 Years of Institutionalized Oppression is Exactly the Same Thing as that Time Some Guy Hurt Cam Cannon’s Widdle Fewings
The hit parade continues with this gem from Cam Cannon, some wannabe-screenwriter who apparently writes under a gay-club DJ name, and who has been giving John Romano a run for his money in the “Missing the Point Entirely” category of late.
Me and my racially group [sic] of friends had these same kind of conversations, except that we weren’t racially mixed, we were a bunch of young dumb white guys. But I had black friends confirm our findings: there’s not really a racial epithet you can sling a white person’s way that carries the venom that a word used over-and-over-again by rappers carries for African-Americans. But my thinking has evolved.
There is a word you can call a white person that carries with it all sorts of horrible implications, and that word my friends is RACIST.
Yeah, dude. Calling a black person “nigger” as an epithet, in the same way white people did when they fucking beat them, treated them like cattle, murdered them, terrorized them, raped them, and devised various legal apparati to justify themselves, yeah, that’s exactly the same thing as someone pointing it out when you’re being a dick about race. It sucks to make a mistake and be accused of racism, sure, but fuck, man, get a little perspective.
But lo! What has brought Mr. Cannon around to this way of thinking? A black guy was nice to him once 13 years ago. No, really.
As always, I must take you back. To 1996. I was a newlywed working two jobs, and I became pretty good friends with one of my African-American co-workers at job number one. We were both fans of hip hop music, and used to swap mixed tapes. He turned me on to Jay-Z, and I passionately argued that the Beastie Boys were not to be trifled with. One day, we got into a discussion about the Source Magazine, and it’s response to the Tommy Hilfiger rumor. You remember, Hilfiger supposedly said that he didn’t like black people wearing his clothes. Hilfiger of course denied the veracity of the supposed quote, and it’s been debunked about a million times, but at the time, Source was shall we say, skeptical. For their writer, the surfacing of this rumor only confirmed what they had secretly suspected for a long time: Tommy was an R-word.
I of course found this absurd. I don’t know Tommy, but I was pretty sure that the color he cared about was green, as in Lorne. I mean, as in money.
But then my friend dropped the bombshell on me, explaining that he too suspected every white person he met was probably a racist. To his credit, he admitted that when I first started, he suspected that I was an R-word.
While I remained friends with him, I couldn’t help but feel hurt. I’d never been called a racist before – and I guess I still hadn’t, but the mere fact that someone hadn’t ruled it out got to me. So, I organized a protest, made plans to shoot a documentary about it, and contacted the best-dressed attorney I could find… Seriously, what I did was I brought it up to him later.
In discussing it with my buddy, I explained that, in essence, upon meeting me, he found me no different than Sheriff Ray Stuckey in “Mississippi Burning.” For all he knew, I was like Sheriff Ray Stuckey, he said. But when I met him, I thought, hey, there’s a black dude. I’m not so high and mighty as to say I don’t notice race – but when I saw him I certainly didn’t think, oh my Lord, it’s O-Dog from “Menace II Society!”
He saw my point, and I never did think that he was a bad guy for thinking the way he did.
Am I, like, the only one who doesn’t see the problem here? Dude was like, “When I first met you, I thought you’d be like all the other racist assholes around here, but hey, you’re cool!” And Cannon is hurt by this? To the point that he’s bringing it up in public web posting 13 years later? What the hell? The guy didn’t even actually call him a racist. Also worth noting here is the enormous difference between doing some reflexive stereotyping in your head and using a racial slur out loud to a person’s face.
This is Cannon’s big experience with Race in America? Racist, please.
As my friend Miles would say, Olbermann can blowj a ween for all I care, but watch this video, and witness the glory of Steven Crowder literally arguing with himself. He makes up loaded questions, then berates himself for asking loading questions. We are like, one-more-state -legalizing-gay-marriage away from getting to witness a full-on psychotic break, here.
I’m just going to keep doing this until Romano starts implementing basic intellectual rigor into his posts. So I might be at this a long time.
In part one, our hero took a DHS report to task for using “immigrants” instead of “illegal immigrants,” when in fact that report used the latter phrase a solid half-dozen times, and the former once, clearly for brevity’s sake, in a footnote. From this it was clear that, not only had John Romano not read the report he was bitching about, but that he hadn’t even bothered to click over to the second page of the Washington Times pearl-clutcher he was using as a source.
I want clarification as to why she [Sonia Sotomayor] feels that being a Latina woman makes her inherently wiser than a “white male.”
Romano is referring to Sotomayor’s now-infamous remark from a 2001 lecture:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Romano wants clarification! Happy to be of service! That is one sentence from a 4,000-word speech Sotomayor gave in 2001, specifically about her Latina identity. You can read it in its entirety here. Here is the very next sentence:
Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
Of course, Romano would know this already if he actually read the things he complains about, instead of just getting all red-in-the-face about random pull quotes he heard while listening to Morning Joe through the door while he was a taking a dump, or however he gets his news.
In case 4,000 words isn’t enough clarification for Romano, though, there’s always the FUCKING CONFIRMATION HEARINGS. That is what they are for, dude.
What’s funny to me about this whole shitstorm over an 8 year-old pull-quote, though, is that just a few days ago, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Big Hollywood, etc, were all complaining that the media was only discussing Sotomayor’s race and not her record. Then they did their research, realized that her record is actually quite moderate, (especially when you consider that she’s replacing Souter) and decided to make their opposition to her appointment all about race.
Let’s be real here. Conservative opposition to Sotomayor’s appointment is about three things: 1) Abortion, 2) Tribal opposition that would greet any Obama nominee, and 3) Abortion. Let’s have a discussion about those things instead of manufactured controversy! That would be awesome!
I am seriously going to laugh my ass off if conservatives end up blocking the appointment of a politically moderate Hispanic woman, only to have Obama end up appointing some white dude who is the dirtiest of hippies.
I’m only going to do this once more, because I’m sure James Hudnall’s piece characterizing the Sotomayor nomination as an affirmative action hire is just the first of many. He claims
When you favor someone because of their race over others who are equally or more qualified, that’s racism.
without offering any evidence that this is in fact the case with Sotomayor. So go ahead, name me a liberal white male judge more qualified than Sotomayor.
Identity politics is racist, sexist, tribalist, classist nonsense. If our society is to ever truly grow up, we need to kill it off with extreme prejudice.
You’re the one playing at identity politics, and you’re the one being racist, when any time a person of color (and especially a woman of color) is hired, you immediately cry “AFFIRMATIVE ACTION” without any evidence. The argument isn’t just “People of color shouldn’t be hired over better qualified white people,” it’s also “If a person of color was hired, there must have been a more qualified white person who was passed over.”
Name me one.
As has been my custom of late, I’m going to quote today’s Greg Gutfeld piece in full, so you can really savor the whininess:
So President Barack Obama just named federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nominee for the next Supreme Court Justice.
So what do we know about her?
Well, she’s Hispanic.
Also, she’s Puerto Rican.
Plus, she’s Puerto Rican.
That’s the joy of racial politics and the media that swallows it– all you need to know about a person is their racial makeup – and in the words of the cop grimly taping off the bedroom in my vacation condo, there’s “nothing more to see here.”
So far, every single headline I’ve seen mentions the woman’s race – which, as you know, is by design. It’s a terrific strategy, this vaccine against scrutiny. Simply make sure you nominate anyone who is the “first” of anything and you create an impenetrable cone of immunity around the nominee (protecting mainly against the media, and of course, conservatives). You could say this strategy worked with great success during the last presidential election – that if Barack wasn’t black, he would have just been another white policy wonk – a less persuasive version of John Edwards, without the wayward weenie.
Granted, I don’t know the first thing about Sotomayor (I’m sure she’s a nice lady!) other than she’s Hispanic, and an “inspiring woman” who grew up in “poor surroundings,” etc… But it all sounds a bit familiar in an unnerving way. The bottom line is, when a person’s “story” is the story, it’s purely a diversionary tactic to take you off the ideological ball.
It’s a clue to everyone – especially the media – that this time you should do more than order the commemorative plates.
I love how he admits that he knows absolutely nothing about Sotomayor, but he still whines that her nomination MUST be a race-card tactic. And then blames the media for his failure to educate himself. How dare the media report that the first Hispanic woman on the court will be the first Hispanic woman on the court! Because clearly that’s not newsworthy!
And besides that, there actually has been a lot of discussion about Sotomayor in the press relative to other potential nominees. There was that now-infamous New Republic hit piece and the controversy that ensued.
Perhaps the real problem is that by “the media” Gutfeld clearly means “the cable news networks” and by “articles” he means “Fox and Friends segments I watched online while getting drunk.”