Archive for October, 2007
Apparently there’s some controversey over some nooses that were used as Halloween decorations in various places around the country. Apparently some black Americans have complained about the decorations, claiming racism and “hate crimes” (I seriously don’t even begin to understand the concept of a hate crime, as I know of no crime committed against a person that is out of anything but hate).
Of course, this is the result of what Larry Elder would call the culture of “victicrats”- the subset of our population that is literally offended on a daily basis by any number of non-offensive everyday items. Lately, it’s the noose.
The noose in question doesn’t even hang to be placed for racist reasons at all…the intent can be completely harmless, yet that’s why these people are victicrats- they claim racism, offense, discrimination at every turn. It’s how their brains work on a daily basis.
One of the biggest categories of victicrats is the common American victicrat obsessed with race. Everything in their lives revolves around the color of their skin and the color of the skin of everyone around them. Joyce King is an example of the race-obsessed victicrat. We’ll come back to her shortly, but before we do…
Now, I realize Elder himself would probably narrow the term to just describe Americans who blame their problems on others and refuse to take personal responsibility for their lives and the lives of those around them…but, I would broaden it to contain those Americans who seem to think that there’s some imaginary evil around every turn just waiting to pounce. Blaming some imaginary widespread racist culture that doesn’t exist is the same as refusing to take responsibility for the state of your own people. Are 70% of black American fathers deadbeats because of racism or because they’re just plain deadbeats? Victicrats, and black Americans who idolize thugs like Sharpton and Jackson especially will never resolve any of their issues until they admit the root cause of their problems might not be out there but rooted from within.
CNN ran a segment on two Americans who hung dummies on nooses for Halloween as decorations, and there have been cries of hate crime and racism. Of course, neither the man who hung the zombie-looking fellow from the noose on his house or the woman who hung the bloodied body of a white man outside her bar had any evil intentions (as far as any reasonable person could tell from the dummies themselves, and the stories told by both of them.)
The CNN story on the Halloween decorations ran as part of a whole show on ‘the noose’, it seems, and then the host brought on author and journalist Joyce King. When asked about the nooses and what she thought- she said it brought out sadness in her. Why? Well, she seems to think the noose is symbolic of lynchings of black Americans in the past 100 years. I guess next she’ll accuse trees of being racist, as blacks were hung with nooses from trees. Point being- the noose has been used for a long time for much more than lynching. It’s been around much longer than even lynchings, so to say that every noose equals racism or lynchings is absurd and clearly wrong. She talked about going to an exhibit on nooses and the noose itself being so vile that it made her physically sick…so sick and distraught that she could barely stand up to give her speech after the exhibit was shown.
King sounds like your typical victicrat- downright crazy. It’s all about race and skin color to her. It’s all about some giant plot to get her and others like her. It’s all about the evil white man who just can’t let the poor black man get ahead in life. She certainly lives in a very different America than the rest of us. Thank goodness I live in the real America. Unlike King’s imaginary America, mine isn’t populated by evil whites lurking behind every corner, just hoping to kill a black for the sheer joy of it.
She wrote at least 1 book on racially themed issues- the Jasper, Texas beating and dragging death of James Byrd. From reading reviews of the book, it seems King is not only a perpetual victim who is terrorized by the mere thought of nooses and such, but worse- she wants to constantly bring herself into what are admittedly important stories of our time (it seems she spent parts of her book on Jasper talking about how terrible the whole thing was just to know about…so terrible it caused her stress to the point that she started to lose her hair and started wearing wigs to cover her baldness). Why this whiny little gal is writing books and a column for USA Today, only God could ever know…
To come together as a people, we need to confront people like Joyce King and let her know that her victim mentality just won’t fly in the USA. Some might see it as a non-issue, but these types of people affect the culture in a broad sense, and that’s something our culture just doesn’t need. ‘Victim mentality’ out, ‘land of opportunity for all’ in.
Let’s get our sense of humor back when it comes to silly decorations, and let’s tell the victicrats to shove their daily complaints where the son don’t shine. Let’s demand that we not be intimidated by whiners who will complain no matter what you do to try to appease them. Let’s tell the victicrats to get off their butts and stop blaming everyone else for their own problems.
I enjoyed this section from a story posted to site for THE HILL:
Officials said Tuesday the winds and high temperatures are expected to continue. But when the fires do stop, lawmakers likely will debate the cause of the fire.
“One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, stressing the need to pass the Democrats’ comprehensive energy package.
Moments later, when asked by a reporter if he really believed global warming caused the fires, he appeared to back away from his comments, saying there are many factors that contributed to the disaster.
What on earth does that even mean? I like the even increasing liberal knee-jerk reaction of bringing up global warming every ten seconds in regards to every issue on earth. I see many news outlets reporting that this was arson. Maybe global warming caused some idiot to go out, buy a lighter, and throw it into a field of dry brush?
The things these guys say sometimes just astounds me. Spend less time making stupid comments and more time doing the job your overpaid to do maybe?
Louise Ogborn was 18 when she was forced to strip naked in the back of the McDonald’s she was working at in Kentucky. A jury awarded her $6 million…basically for being a complete moron. Let me explain…
First off- I fail to see how on earth McDonald’s is responsible for the actions of a clueless dimwit assistant manager and her fiancee who told a female employee to strip after a prank caller called the restaurant posing as a police officer.
It’s a very complicated story that makes little sense at all. The assistant manager appeared on 20/20 claiming she thought it was an officer the whole time…it went on for hours, the young girl was forced to strip naked. The manager was asked if she was married, and she said she was engaged. She was told to have her fiancee come in and watch the girl while the manager worked the busy Friday night dinner rush. The caller, still posing as an officer, told the man to spank the teen. Which he did. The caller told the man to take the apron away from her body that she was holding to cover herself. Which he did. The caller told the man to force Louise Ogborn to perform oral sex on him. He did as told.
It goes on from there. The 20/20 story is available here.
The girl sued for $200 million. Sorry, but personally that makes me lose any sympathy for her. Greedy people trying to make a buck off of bad situations never get my sympathy. She was awarded $6 million. I’m not sure what price you can put on mental anguish or humiliation, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t $6 million. I’m also wondering how on earth McDonalds is responsible for this in any manner…the girl, from the MSNBC.com story, argued that McDonalds failed to warn her about this caller who had made similar calls to other establishments. I don’t think any company can spend hours going thru every possibility, and somehow be responsible for millions if they forget to mention every detail of every possible thing that could every possibly go wrong.
I guess McDonalds argued that the girl should have known this was a hoax and just left. Seems like a good idea, but maybe she’s just as stupid as her manager and the fiancee?
I’m sorry, but this girl was 18 at the time, and it seems to me she was a legal adult without a single brain cell in her skull. This is just beyond idiotic. It’s beyond insanity. This is the sort of thing that asks you what sort of inbreeding went on with all 3 of these people! Ogborn, when asked why she didn’t leave, by the 20/20 reporter said ‘well golly gee- I was nekkid. I couldn’t leave!’ Which makes sense. Except for the fact that her clothes were sitting right next to her!!! Why the hell didn’t she refuse to let an idiot manager strip her naked in the first place?! Why the hell did she let a man posing as an officer talk her into performing oral sex on a stranger? If this isn’t complete stupidity, nothing is.
I’m sorry, but I cannot imagine any sane person allowing this to happen. The manager, it turns out, also sued McDonalds and was awarded $1 million! If you ask me, I’d make all 3 of them PAY fines for being criminally idiotic. Excuse me while I pour hot coffee on my lap while pretending I had no idea that coffee is served hot and it’s probably a good idea to hold it between my legs in the car!
Okay. So, we know that Chris Matthews is out of his mind. Or- we should know this. Some people, I’m sure, sit gleefully in front of the TV when Hardball comes on, unaware that the guy is completely off his rocker insane.
So, Chris is chatting away with a guy from Newsweek, a woman from Salon.com, and Noah D. Oppenheim, the author of the new book, The Intellectual Devotional.
Chris claims Bush raised the stakes by “scaring” people into the thought of WWIII with Russia. The Newsweek guy went along with it, and the Salon.com lady went along- claiming that Bush somehow threatened “puty” (Putin). Noah Oppenheim, tho, actually made some sense (unlike the other 3 buffoons) and rightly said that Bush surely wasn’t picturing a nuclear war between Russia and the US. Obviously, he was saying that if Iran got nukes, it might lead to a global crisis which could rightfully be called World War III.
Matthews countered, (and I paraphrase), ‘look, I know what WWIII is Noah. I grew up with the prospect of WWIII. WWIII is a nuclear war involving ICBMs between the US and Russia.’…”dumping our silos” (that last part was an exact quote.)
I haven’t actually read any news in 2 days, so I checked the web for information on Bush’s speech to see what the facts were. Matthews, of course, is, as usual, out of his mind wrong (or more likely- just making shit up) once again. Bush never warned of a nuclear war between Russia and the US, and it was obvious he was speaking of nuclear war with Iran, and not the kind involving direct ICBM attacks from Iran on the US mainland. Rather, terrorist attacks involving nukes, nuclear strikes on Israel, etc. Situations that could easily lead to what could easily be labeled WWIII.
Matthews is becoming the sort of foaming at the mouth, liberal Bush-hater that Keith Olbemann has been all along. Maybe his ratings aren’t as stunning (and that’s as “stunning” as one can possibly get on low-rated MSNBC) than Olby, so he’s trying to ratchet the crazy up a notch or two?
By the way. Here’s what AFP (France) had to say about Bush’s warnings:
US President George W. Bush said Wednesday that he had warned world leaders they must prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons “if you’re interested in avoiding World War III.”
“We’ve got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel,” Bush said at a White House press conference after Russia cautioned against military action against Tehran’s supect atomic program.
“So I’ve told people that, if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,” said Bush.
Oddly enough, I don’t see any major news of a warning of nuclear ICBM attacks from Russia against the US mainland. Weird…
Blogged with Flock
I was talking to someone the other day about Don Imus and the “nappy-headed ho’s” comment he made a little less than a year ago on his radio show.
Of course, I think it was absurd he was fired. It was insanity, as the guy is a shock jock, and he’s paid to shock. That’s what he’s always done, and this was no different than any other day. The liberal attack group Media Matters started the frenzy, helped by racist scum like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Both of these men are cons. They’re thieves, liars, and racist to the bone- they’ve both made a living off of their own racism, doing their best to keep black Americans down, blaming any problem on racism to make sure they stay in business for years to come.
Back to Imus and his comment. What is so racist about what he said? Let’s look at the dictionary.com definition of “nappy”:
nap·py3 /ˈnæpi/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[nap-ee] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective, -pi·er, -pi·est. 1. covered with nap; downy.
2. (of hair) kinky.
American Heritage Dictionary – Cite This Source – Share This nap·py 1 (nāp’ē) Pronunciation Key
adj. nap·pi·er, nap·pi·est
Having a nap; fuzzy: a nappy carpet.
Often Offensive Tightly curled or coiled. Used of hair.
Often offensive, I see…but says who? If something is often offensive, does that make it racist? If something is often offensive, is that because our whiny culture has made nearly everything “offensive” to some group out there?
Are the women on the basketball team Imus was referring to in any way “nappy-headed”? One could certainly argue most of them, from looking at their pictures, could easily be factually labeled “nappy-headed.” Is that wrong to make a statement of fact? Is it somehow racist? Does a comment that someone saw as racist make the comment itself racist? Does it make Imus, himself, a racist? If we were talking about white women with tightly curled hair, could we refer to them as having “nappy” hair, and could that statement of fact (if it is fact) be racist? Is there a double standard in this regard?
Now, I’ve seen many people go on various shows and put forth their outrage over this issue. It seems that talk shows populate these segments with black Americans to attack Imus as a racist. This makes sense- we have taken the culture into an area where we somehow think that only a black American could possibly know what racism is. That’s a sad fact in itself, considering anyone can see racism, no matter what their skin tone. Is the outage necessary or justified?
Is there a double standard when men like Chris Rock (I’ve mentioned him before) can use a blatantly racist term like “cracker” in his act numerous times and no one is calling for boycotts against him or demanding no one air his comedy act? Of course there’s a double stanard in the US, especially on the issue of race. Jackson and Sharpton are proof of that double standard. If these men were white, they wouldn’t be invited onto any talk show, let alone allowed to run prominent organizations claiming to fight for civil rights. They certainly wouldn’t be labeled by any sane person as leaders of the black community or avengers of racism in the USA. No way on earth would this happen if they were white, so we know the double standard is here, and it’s almost definitely here to stay.
So, was Imus’ comment racist? Is it automatically racist to call someone who, we can argue, has nappy hair a “nappy-headed” ho? Is that sexist? If it’s obviously a joke told in the context of what I’m sure would be a self described “shock jock” radio show racist? If someone has tightly curled hair, is it racist to say their hair is nappy? If I see a woman who happens to have dark skin and tightly curled hair, and I say she has “nappy” hair, does that make me racist? If a black women describes her own hair or the hair of a black friend as “nappy”, is that suddenly okay because she, as a black woman, has sole authority over that word due to the fact that she has darker toned skin?
I’ve heard black women refer to their hair or hair of another black woman as “nappy”. Why no outcry? Is it, when a black woman says it, merely a statement of fact and nothing more? Is it, in any way, racist?
I don’t think Imus did anything wrong. I don’t care for racism, I think it’s disgusting (which is why I think we should tar and feather men like Sharpton and Jackson)- but is the hypersensitivity necessary? Is it possible that we have a situation in this country where many in a particular minority group think they’re owed something, and have a just reason to attack anyone they think is being racist, as long as the person supposedly being racist is white? Why do we allow the double standards to continue? Personally, I say we let Imus and Rock both say the things they say. If they were politicians speaking out against another racial group, I’d be all over it, demanding it stop…but, as they’re both in the business of comedy, I think calling for the ouster of either is beyond the pale absurd.
Can people say what they mean in this country? Can we make statements of fact, even if some are offended by what are, in the end, true statements? Sure, the women, from what we know, aren’t whores- but if we fired people for calling someone a “ho”, we’d have to fire 90% of those in the business. But, let’s say that we successfully argue that these women, or some of them, meet the dictionary definition of “nappy-headed”- doesn’t that mean what was said was factual? Can facts be racist?
I’ll repeat- I’m against racism. What I’m not against is manufactured outrage and hypocrisy. Let’s toss the whining aside and act like adults?
Ann Coulter, appearing on The Big Idea on CNBC, said that jews would be perfected if they were Christian.
Jewish groups are up in arms attacking this as hate speech and anti-semitism. Even some catholic group attacked it as “embarassing”.
Newsflash- according to the New Testament (ya know, where we met that guy named Jesus) ALL people would be ‘perfected’ (this is as good a term as any) if they become Christians. That’s sort of the whole entire point of the second half of the entire Bible! John 14:6 makes this all perfectly clear as Jesus talks to the disciples when they express worry over losing him and not knowing precisely where he is going after he is resurrected and lets them know that he cannot stay among them for very long…
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
My question then…does this make Jesus of Nazareth an anti-semite? Is the Bible anti-semitic?
Heck- Christ even makes it clear that we are cleansed and (in a manner of speaking) perfected through Him and ONLY Him. He repeatedly says that no man shall enter the kingdom but through HIM. So Coulter is spot on.
I seriously cannot imagine how anyone who is complaining about this comment can make an argument that Coulter is somehow spouting hate speech, unless they’re forced into saying the same thing about the Bible itself. You cannot have it both ways. It is beyond clear that this is exactly what the Bible tells us through the words of Jesus.
This attacking Coulter stuff for merely repeating the core message of the Bible is absurd. It’d behoove the attackers (especially the Christian groups) to re-read their Bibles to figure out that what she is saying is precisely what Christ demands of all men (not just Jews).
Blogged with Flock
From my reading of the Fair Housing Act and the ammendments added to it in the 1980′s- it seems that the act, itself, is unfair. It’s yet another example of government trying to do something good but then allowing idiots to ruin the peace for the rest of us. Lawsuit-happy Americans who want nothing more than to destroy any remaining freedoms we might have. At least, that’s how it all seems…
Private citizens who own apartments or homes to sell or rent aren’t allowed to mention local crime statistics. Why? I’m still looking for a reason behind this legal nonsense. Realtors are forbidden, by federal law, to mention that a church is nearby or that a home or aparment is great for families (wouldn’t want to “discriminate” against single people!), they’re not allowed to mention certain aspects of the house or aparments (for example, some states forbid landlords from mentioning the building is full of young people and might not be a good fit for a retiree who is looking for peace and quiet.)
It seems, from this NY Times article, that agents cannot even mention occupation when trying to show a house or apartment to a potential customer. Larger firms actually have staff whose job is to scrub advertisements of certain phrases such as “family-friendly” or “great for bachelor pad” or “great for students.” Free speech is free…except when you have an overlawyered culture as we do in the U.S. Somehow, I’m doubting that most of the stipulations in the law actually help anybody and no doubt hurt a lot of us. When it’s nearly impossible to get basic information on our possible housing due to stupid laws, you know we’re in trouble.
It’s the old issue that every law you add, you seem to erode freedoms somewhere else. Americans need to toughen up (that goes for citizens, the courts, and our lawmakers)- we need to drop this idea that we all somehow need a safety net, or worse- a nanny to protect us from ourselves or other supposed evils in this world.
Why did I start thinking about this? Well, I read a story on an “advocacy” group in Chicago (a group of lawyers in Chicago who fight civil rights infringement). They filed a lawsuit against Craigslist claiming that the language used in many ads posted to the site were illegal. Here are some of the comments they claimed were discriminatory
“Neighborhood is predominantly Caucasian, Polish and Hispanic.”
“All in a vibrant southwest Hispanic neighborhood offering great classical Mexican culture, restaurants and businesses.”
“Requirements: Clean Godly Christian Male.”
“Owner lives on the first floor, so tenant must be respectful of the situation, preferrably not 2 guys in their mid twenties who throw parties all the time.”
“The entire building is filled with interesting and fun people. Mostly Loyola Students. . . . . Church immediately across from building.”
“Accessible to transportation, church ST Margareth.”
“Catholic Church, and beautiful Buddhist Temple within one block.”
“Walk to shopping, restaurants, coffee shops, synagogue.”
“Perfect for 4 Med students.”
My first thought was- are these lawyers insane? Are they doing all they can to ensure that lawyers are some of the most despised people in the world? How on earth does one claim that listing a property as “Perfect for 4 Med students” is illegal or wrong/immoral in any manner whatsoever? Shouldn’t private citizens be allowed to demand that they be allowed to follow their religious beliefs by limiting their property to those who abide by the same beliefs/rules? What if having an atheist is somehow sinful? Are you not protected from choosing who to associate with? Worse- shouldn’t consumers have the right to know that the building is noisy due to the fact that most people who live there are college kids? You can’t list this in your ads, but then you have to waste your time, go to the building and find out for yourself what the landlord could have easily told you before you wasted that time if he were allowed to by law?
Craigslist argued that they can’t be held responsible for the listings of others that go thru their site. They’re apparently right, as the suit was tossed out of court. But, it seems they only tossed it out on that technicality. It’s unfortunate we can’t band together to rid ourselves of the absurd nature of these laws that limits advertising comments and such.
I should note- protecting people from being turned away from housing for racist or sexist reasons is a good idea. It’s sometimes necessary (unfortunately) for the government to step in and demand that certain people not have to be harassed just to find a place to live. Problem is- in 2007, I think that most people aren’t going to turn away someone because of their skin tone or their religious background. But, I also think that people who own businesses should be able to limit who they offer services to. Should a Christian landlord be forced to rent a property to anti-theists who spend their time badmouthing the landlord’s religious practices? Is there a law to protect the landlord in such a case?
Shouldn’t Americans be able to choose not too rent to a bunch of rowdy kids who are more likely to tear a place up? Is it fair that it’s legal to deny someone with bad credit, but that some people get bad credit due to serious illnesses? Is it somehow okay to label someone a lowlife (in a manner of speaking) because they lost their job?
Not all aspects of the law seem absurd, of course…but when layers are added to it, it’s most often the case that someone got a funny idea to “counter” some sort of perceived slight, thus- further restrictions built into the legal code.