Barack Obama with his spiritual mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright

In March of 2008, the Jeremiah Wright tapes hit the news, nearly derailing Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.  Obama’s spiritual advisor, the pastor of the church the Obama family had attended for 20 years, was seen on videotape cursing America, among other unsavory things.  But the liberal press quickly circled the wagons and declared it a non-issue.  Nothing to see here!  Move along, folks!

Obama dealt with the issue as he deals with all issues: a scripted speech read from teleprompters.  In that speech, he downplayed the fact that his own campaign had accused his rival, Hillary Clinton and her husband former President Bill Clinton of “playing the Race Card,” when in fact his campaign had taken their comments completely out of context and fed it to the press, thereby playing the Race Card themselves while accusing the Clintons of doing so.

Somewhere in this situation, the phrase “a national conversation about race” was put into our national psyche.  Actually, it was President Bill Clinton who had called for “a national conversation on race” back in 1997.  I guess that phrase was spoken or inferred by somebody during the Obama/Wright flap, because it seems to have become part of that event, but I’ve just spent an hour Googling variations on that phrase and the name Obama, and I can’t find a direct quote of Obama using that phrase.  Interesting.

At any rate, plenty of people, including our best pundits, ran with that phrase after the Rev. Wright dust-up, and it was something everybody was talking about for about a month, during which time it seems the press decided Obama was the nominee and that Hillary was a racist for not conceding.

Like any cunning politician, Obama himself has not personally played the Race Card in an overt and direct way that could be perceived by the general public.  He has not personally called anyone a racist outright.  But his hordes of rabid devotees have certainly played it, and the press has played it, and his campaign has played it.  We’ve all been called racists, those of us who dislike his policies, his actions, or the sound of his voice.  Criticize his clothing, his choice of words, or his taste in salad greens, and you’re a racist.  We know that ridiculous accusation all too well.  I reckon I’m a racist if I call attention to that bump on his nose.

I think most of this comes from white progressives, but clearly many African-Americans make the claims too.  What I don’t hear anyone saying is that people who accuse others of being racists seem way too focused on race, so it seems to me that they are the racists.  It’s kind of like that old frat fart riposte: he who smelt it dealt it.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I often remember those famous words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., his dream that someday people “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”  I believe in those words.  That’s why I believe my judgments of Obama, which are based on the content of his character and not the color of his skin, are not racist at all.  In fact, they’re just what the Dr. ordered.

Seems we never succeeded in having that great national conversation about race, which I suppose was intended for us all to completely understand, sympathize, empathize, and love one another as spirit souls, to rise above all racial prejudices, to become colorblind, and all that other hippie-dippie new age pipe-dreaming.  Yawn.  Been there, done that, got the headband.

There is racism in every race.  It’s not just a white-on-black thing.  There are as many forms of racism as there are ethnic groups and languages to express them.  It’s all tribal at its root.  It was racism in the Bible when the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians, and again when the Jews warred with the Philistines (the ancestors of the Palestinians), and they’re still at it some 3,000 years later.  And you think 10 years in Afghanistan is a long war?

Sometimes racism is too subtle to be perceived by races that are further removed.  For example, my maternal grandfather, an Irish Catholic, was often terrorized by the English Protestants during the 20^th century right here in Kansas.  But they’re all white people from Great Britain, right?  Well, we all know that the red-haired Irishmen are hell-raising alcoholics.  And it’s a fact that most Englishmen have puffy eyes and bad teeth.  That’s race distinction.  It was racism when the English-Americans put up signs telling the Irish-Americans they won’t be hired, and won’t be served food or rented rooms.

I’m not implying that the racism my Irish forefathers experienced is on the same level as the racism black folks have had to endure.  I’m just saying that many ethnic groups have been victims of racism.

Almost every war that’s ever been fought involved racism, often in the form of nationalism, but almost always there is some form of tribalism at its root, and tribalism is racism.  All those tiny countries in Europe can tell you how the people in the country next door are different from them in physical ways, which is racial distinction.  There’s nothing wrong with recognizing racial distinctions.  It’s only wrong when there is racial hatred.

But we are now told that the only racism that matters is when whites discriminate against blacks.  The basis of this exclusive relationship is the fact that once upon a time in America, some whites owned black slaves.  Nearly all societies in past ages allowed slavery in one form or another, so it wasn’t a unique situation, but that doesn’t make it excusable.  When one race or tribe conquered another, prisoners were taken, and they were usually put to hard labor, or sold.  In fact, most of the African slaves that were brought to America were purchased in Africa from black or Arab slave traders, like Obama’s Kenyan ancestors.

No doubt about it, white slave owners and those who enabled slavery and kept it legal were very misguided and sometimes cruel.  Our revered Founding Fathers made it legal and some took part in it.  It’s a sad and sick chapter in our history.  But those people have been dead for over 150 years.  I know for a fact than none of my ancestors were slave owners, so I have absolutely no guilt about that whole deal.

Legal, forced segregation was another sad and sick period in our history, and it went on for a hundred years after the Emancipation.  It’s shocking and disgusting that it lasted so long.  It started out as sort of a transitional time, when former slaves were suddenly free to make their own way, but white people still viewed them as second class citizens, or worse.  It was an awful and ugly thing.

Although it’s no longer legal to force segregation, all ethnicities seem to willfully engage in self-segregation.  People of all ethnicities live in their own little enclaves of their own kind, and for the most part, we seem to be happy in our sameness with our neighbors.  Racism and xenophobia exist in all cultures, and we all seem to feel safest amongst our own kind.  That’s not racism.  That’s just nature.

Yes, racism is a horrible and ugly thing.  Most of us know real racists.  We may have grown up with them, in our families or among our friends.  We may still have to endure racist employers or neighbors.  If you know real racists, you know whether or not you are like those people.  I know I’m not like them at all, and I feel no “white guilt” for myself, just because there are so many white racists.

That’s not to say I have no sympathy for blacks, especially the descendants of American slaves.  The indignations they have had to face are unimaginable to the rest of us.  The discrimination they still sometimes face, through no fault of their own, is still a shame upon our culture, in America and abroad.  But just as we should not punish all blacks for the bad behavior of a few, all whites should not be punished for the bad behavior of a few.  The small portion of our white ancestors who were slave owners many generations ago should not be relevant for the vast majority of white people today.

Personally, I’ve have lots of black friends, Indian friends, Mexican friends, and a variety of mutts.  None of it really mattered to me, for the most part, but we all knew full well how different we were from each other.  We weren’t blind or stupid.  Sometimes race became an issue, but I don’t remember it ever ending a friendship.

Sometimes I have instinctive or gut feelings that make me uncomfortable, a little racist I guess.  But those feelings aren’t because I dislike black people.  It’s because I’ve been victimized by young black men, in ways that no other racial or demographic group has ever victimized me or people dear to me.  These incidents include some really bad stuff, including two friends murdered in separate incidents, both by young black men.  I’ve personally been badly beaten by groups of young black men on two occasions, and I’ve had my home and office burglarized by young black men.  So yeah, young black men do scare me, especially if they seem to embrace the “gansta” lifestyle, or if I encounter a group of them in an isolated place. Does that make me a racist?  I don’t think so.  I think it’s a logical reaction to having been a victim of racism.  I feel these things happened because those young men hated white people.  They were racists, plain and simple.

If all the bad experiences you’ve ever had with dogs have been with German Shepherds, you are bound to develop a fear of the German Shepherd breed.  It’s only natural.  Your hair would start to stand on end at the sight of one, as surely as Pavlov’s dogs salivated at the sound of a bell.

So when some naïve progressive Democrat white fool calls me a racist for campaigning against Obama, I resent it.  They don’t know about the many times I’ve argued against racism to my racist friends, family members, and strangers in public.  They don’t know how I bite my tongue in anger when people use the N word at work, where I am powerless to do anything about it.  They don’t know that I felt I was a part of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, before most of them were born.  They don’t know that I employed many young black men and trusted them completely during the many years I owned a business.

I know there is not a thing I can say to enlighten these idiots, so I just try to ignore it or laugh it off.  If I tried to explain it to them, I’d just get all frustrated and angry.

So I just try to silently meditate on those words of wisdom that sum it up so well:  he who smelt it dealt it.

Update below the fold.

Of Obama campaigning. Yes, he has already started for his re-election. Blech. Oh, he just happened to show up at the Lincoln Memorial after the 11th hour agreement on the budget vote, running around, glad handing, acting like he was the one who wrote the damn thing:

Never mind that he was kicking and screaming throughout the whole process, threatening to veto an extension bill that would fund the Pentagon, thus the military, should there be a government shutdown. And never mind that the REASON we were on the verge of a government shutdown was the Democrats refusal to pass a damn budget last year when they controlled all three houses. Gee – can’t imagine why they decided not to do that, and that decision was made pretty early in the year.

And now Obama is prancing around like he did this single-handedly? Please.

It is only going to get worse from here on out. This is only the beginning of his re-election bid, which he curiously decided to launch in the midst of a boatload of serious issues facing the nation and the world (Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iran, the budget, gas prices that have doubled – DOUBLED -under Obama, and on and on).

Just as a reminder, these are some of the “highlights” toward which I imagine we can look forward, and the mature responses of his followers:

Or this:

Or how about this memorable comment:

Here’s some campaign advice for Mr. Obama, free of charge: when you are in the middle of a campaign, and you choose to go out to be among the people, including eating in a diner, when someone dares ask you a question, answer it. That’s why you are there, right? If you want an uninterrupted waffle-eating breakfast (and was that waffle ever an indicator of things to come from Obama), stay in your hotel room. I’m just saying – you might not want to get all snappy with the people you want to vote for you when you deign to mingle among them.

That is just the beginning. That doesn’t even begin to touch the ways in which Obama takes credit for actions that were not his (the list is way too long, but think back to the last election when he claimed to be on committees he wasn’t on, or bills on which he didn’t work, etc., etc.). How much worse is it going to get now that he actually got into the White House? Geez, I shudder to think.

I wonder if, maybe the second time around, the media might actually do more of its job, and ask him some real questions, like about Rezko, for instance. Or his connections to Big Oil. Yeah, I didn’t think so…

I don’t know that I can take another 1 1/2 of Obama campaigning. The last time was one time too many, if you ask me. I think I’m going to have to spend more time watching videos like this instead of watching Obama lie like a rug, calling people racists if they disagree with him, or tilting his chin up at people in the most arrogant manner possible:

Uh, yeah. This is much better, don’t you think?

**Update** My aunt mentioned to me today that Obama had been complaining about his loss of privacy. Was he ever. I knew he had complained about this before, but wow, want a little whine with that cheese, Mr. Obama? Good grief. I guess he didn’t believe Bush when he said being president was “hard work.” Hmm – I wonder if people will give Obama as hard of a time for saying this:

“I just miss – I miss being anonymous,” he said. “I miss Saturday morning, rolling out of bed, not shaving, getting into my car with my girls, driving to the supermarket, squeezing the fruit, getting my car washed, taking walks. I can’t take a walk.”

His dream, he said, was to “go through Central Park and watch folks passing by … spend the day watching people – I miss that”.

Faced with simmering criticism for playing more golf than most previous occupants of the White House, he explained that the sport was simply the best way of getting away from it all.

“It’s the only excuse I have to get outside for four hours at a stretch,” he told Hearst magazines. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, freakin’ spare me. After he pulled every dirty trick in the book to get INTO the White House, from caucus fraud to vote-stealing, he’s complaining (again)? That just takes the cake…

I think this calls for another horse video, this time with a cat (this one reminds me of my Jordan playing with a teeny tiny little kitten, letting him play with his tail and everything – so cute):

See, I ask because I remember not too long ago, your party, under your leadership, did a pretty fair job of warring on women, too. You, personally, supported a far, far less qualified, experienced man for the highest office in the land over the far, far more qualified, experienced, smarter woman.

Who could forget this exchange between then-Speaker Pelosi and Greta van Susteren after the Democrats, especially Pelosi, managed to drum Clinton right out of the race? I know I can’t forget it:

[snip] VAN SUSTEREN: Let me first focus for a second on Senator Clinton. She is back on the Hill today, and many people email me and say that she is the victim of sexism–not all, but many. Did sexism play a role in this election for her, number one? And number two, I know this morning you were quoting as saying that you, sometimes, have encountered sexism.

PELOSI: I think every woman who is making progress in gaining power is probably a victim of sexism. I can’t document what happened in the presidential campaign as I am too busy being Speaker of the House and running my own races for Congress to retain and grow our Democratic majority in the House.(Emphasis mine.)

But I do not think that there is any question that there is some evidence that there was sexism in the campaign, but I can’t tell you if that is the reason why Senator Clinton won or lost.

She made a great showing. She advanced to the cause of women enormously. We were thrilled with her candidacy, not just because she is a woman, but because she is a woman with great intellect, great dedication, great stamina, that she proved she could be president of the United States.

But there was an election, and I think that Senator Clinton benefited greatly by the enthusiasm of women, there is no question about that. And I do not know what the impact of the sexism and was. I know it is a sign of insecurity on those who exercise it. I do not know what the political impact of it was. [snip]

Well, former Speaker Pelosi, let me just remind you of the scope of sexism then-Senator Clinton received, and other women, as well:

So, yeah – there was just a bit of a war against women in 2008, one perpetrated by the very ones now decrying a “war against women.” Pelosi herself contributed to it by her very actions toward Hillary Clinton, and her very support for the man who ran a sexist campaign against Hillary Clinton.

Are the Republicans above being sexist? Of course not. But they should also not be singled out for a “war against women.” Democrats share plenty to blame in that regard. Using the whole issue of choice as a constant stick to keep women in line while the top Democrat, Obama, invites members of the then-outlawed, Sharia-law demanding, “Modesty police” directing Muslim Brotherhood, while attacking OTHERS is just a bit of a stretch. At least it is for me.

How about you?

Robert Kennedy announced this tragedy in one of the most eloquent, moving statements I have ever heard from anyone, politician or poet, minister or teacher. Here is his announcement of this event:

I cannot add anything more to Kennedy’s announcement, and his exhortation.

Except to say this, on this day, as we remember Martin Luther King, Jr., his life, his tremendous achievements, and his death, let us remember the purpose of his life, his desire for peace, equality, and love.

In memory of the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr., I offer this piece:

Yes, it is time, it is time, it is time…

When these same MINOs (Men In Name Only) belittle women it is most often an effort to impress the “mean girls” they want to be liked by.

A guy can punch one of these comic heads in the chest and they will shrug it off. If a woman slaps them in the face they can try to lower their shame level by calling the woman an ugly dyke, but they can’t get over the fact that the men watching are not going to consider them “cool” anymore. Kirstie Alley put Lopez in diapers when she refused to accept his half-baked apology for calling her a pig. Georgie, you are NOT funny.

The power of scorn from women is a force that can bring these boys down and out of public life. That full power needs to be plowed over these a-holes.

The preceding two paragraphs was disputed by one of NQ’s prominent female writers during a recent writers’ group session. Writes Linda:

The true measure of courage is when we confront those in our own group. From the outside a complaint has the taint of a whine. From the inside a complaint has the ring of truth. And the punch is not just to discipline the bad guy, but to signal to the audience that a line has indeed been crossed and the laughs are not appropriate.

So, OK Linda.. from one MAN to a MINO:

LoMa (Lopez, Maher, et al) You are a Dick. You crossed the line. Not only are you a dick, you are a limp dick.

New rule for turkey neck Bill. Cast no stone before.. Oh. I forgot. You are too damn skinny and puny to even pick up a stone. But, you know what? That’s OK. At least your physical stature towers over your faux intellect.

Now, That’s funny. Loco Lopez you are fat (I mean, really. Nobody is begging to see you in a speedo.) AND when you wake up tomorrow you will still be ugly too. Next time you use the words honkey and pig in your skit don’t be surprised to hear the women in the audience yell hey stick it spick dick.

That’s crude. Not sorry. If TBS and HBO think it is just fine for Lopez and Maher to swirl around in that level of slime then they can stick it too.

These MINOs never could stand up without putting someone down. They are not Red Skeltons or even a Foxworthy. This is not new behavior for these asswipes.

UnderCoverBlackMan wrote about Lopez in 2009.
George Lopez has problems.

Deeper still, George Lopez seems to be revealing more and more of his fucked-up emotional state onstage. The man is filled with contempt. Just seething with it.

I know all comedy is hostile. But the art of standup is in disguising the hostility… or at least turning it in surprising directions.

. . His relentless mockery of white people is tiresome and unfunny. (Come on, George. At least give white folks credit for inventing transplant surgery, you kidneyless bastard.)

And this is not new for Maher, either. From a discussion at the Democratic Underground in 2007:

Bill Maher is a misogynist assbag

Misogynist comedians, and their blogular admirers, will denigrate us whether we comply with the prescribed female scripts (concern for our looks and weight, being more emotionally expressive, wanting “the ring” etc.) or we deviate from them. Imagine if all of a sudden, masses of women became steely-eyed stoics who acted indifferent to the men in their lives, ignored our appearance, stopped caring about the cleanliness of our surroundings, and belched and farted indiscriminately. You bet your ass that Bill Maher would be doing monologues about what callous disgusting unfeminine bitches women have become. You know, as opposed to the vapid, neurotic, and annoyingly clingy nitwits we are now. As it is, he probably dates the most stereotypically fembot-ish women he can find so that he constantly reinforces the ideas upon which he bases his self image.

That’s it. MINOs are limp dicks. Period.

But let me put this into context. He made this comment in the midst of a Senate discussion. Here’s more from this Post and Courier article:

Robert Ford, a Charleston Democrat, is under fire for making a comment about the work ethic of South Carolina blacks.

“Brothers won’t work hard like Mexicans will so we need to make sure enough Mexicans are here,” Ford is quoted as saying, according to a posting by Sen. Tom Davis, R-Beauford. Ford’s comments came during a Senate committee meeting on immigration legislation.

Ford told The Post and Courier his comments were directed at all Americans — not any specific ethnic groups. He said new immigrants, illegal or otherwise, work at hard labor job such as construction. Americans whose families have been in the country for generations work as doctors or lawyers or school teachers, he said.

“I was talking about the building of America and how every generation of Americans did the hard work,” Ford said. “Americans are not going to do real hard work. Everybody in America knows that.”

You just cannot make this shit up.

And before you start to think, “wow, this guy is a major racist,” this is Sen. Robert Ford:
Yep, that would be the esteemed senator. Wowie zowie, are people a bit perturbed with him. This is the response by one of the head Republicans in the area:

Joel Sawyer, executive director of the state Republican Party, said Ford should apologize.

“It’s disgusting and abhorrent that any elected official would say something that offensive,” Sawyer said. “He needs to apologize immediately and hopefully the condemnation of his comments will be equally as loud from both sides of the political aisle.”(Photo by O’Neal Compton)

To which did Senator Ford responded:

Ford said he does not mind apologizing, but in this case he said he does not know why anyone would be offended by his comments.

“What am I apologizing for? I made a lot of jokes in my presentation like I always do,” Ford said.

Ford said people who don’t have a sense of humor “need to get a life. I am not going to stop bringing a sense a humor.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yeah, lighten the hell up, people! What’s the big deal? It’s just a joke. Sheesh! Ahem.

The fact that he is now trying to pass this off as just being a joke, while still claiming that Americans won’t work hard, pretty much says it all about the good senator. Wowie zowie.

Evidently, Senator Ford doesn’t know people like our brick mason, who was here until after 10:00pm the night of the Super Bowl. He worked for hours on end in an attempt to finish our foundation before the rains came again. He did finish, by the way, and did a very nice job indeed.

So, what do you think about what Senator Ford said? Should he apologize for his comments? Should people get a sense of humor already?Let’s hear it!

In the aftermath of the shooting of 19 people in an attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., Countdown’s Keith Olbermann reminds Americans that “violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our democracy.”

This is the man who wanted “a super delegate to take Hillary into a room and only he comes out.”

As Rev. Amy, Larry Johnson and Bronwyn’s Harbor have all noted, the current media feeding frenzy has little to do with a realistic dissection of events. Mr. Olbermann also ignores the years of violent rhetoric and spin that have been aimed at women and the devastating effect that has on all of us as a society. His outrage on behalf of a woman, namely Congresswoman Giffords, is only present because he can demonize another woman in the process, namely Sarah Palin.

While I am sensitive to violent rhetoric, having seen first hand how verbal abuse of women can lead to physical violence, before Mr. Olbermann aims more vitriol at his current favorite bogeymen, Palin and the Tea Party movement, he must first absolve himself of his own sins. He cannot do so. Surely many others of his ilk cannot either. Taking a senseless tragedy such as Saturday’s horrific shootings in Tucson and using it to obliquely further the ends of one political party over another is abhorrent.

As Howard Kurtz of The Daily Beast noted, the rhetoric of violence is regularly part of our political and “journalistic” discourse: having someone in the “crosshairs,” “targeting” a vulnerable incumbent, “lock and load,” President Obama making comments such as “if they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun,” referring to his political opponents as “enemies”…This is nothing new. And as for Palin’s map of targeted districts in the 2010 midterms, it was a map she co-opted from democrats, who used the same technique years earlier. Politico just offered an article whereby a Democratic operative admitted to a concerted effort to blame the Tea Party for Saturday’s shootings. Even Mr. Kurtz admitted it was a ridiculous stretch to lay these horrible events at Palin’s doorstep.

Passion, protest or violence is not the province of any one group or party.

In 2008, Governor Palin was hung in effigy in my city and the mayor refused to have it taken down, defending the action by saying it was on private property even though the life-sized model hanging by a noose was clearly visible from the street. The Secret Service had to get involved in order to put an end to it. There were realistic images of Palin being tackled by a 280 lb. linebacker, other violent images featured Palin’s teeth getting knocked out. She was threatened by Sandra Bernhardt with gang rape if she dared step foot into Manhattan. The list goes on.

And what of Hillary Clinton? I remember seeing a blog post on a lefty website that called for “slitting her throat, throwing her into the trunk of a car, and dumping her body in the river.” Professor Kathleen Jamieson reported in her 2007 interview with Bill Moyers of PBS that Facebook sites with enormous followings depicted Hillary being violated by animals. She was accused of everything from the “murder of “Vince Foster” to wishing assassination upon Barack Obama. She, like Palin, was called every filthy name imaginable. Her supporters were as well. The tactic of insulting, physically threatening and calling innocent campaigners racist would seem to have “no place in our democracy” either.

Where was Mr. Olbermann’s outrage at the rhetoric of violence then? Since most of the vile behavior and commentary was coming from the Left – and even Olbermann himself – it is easy to understand why he remained silent.

I, too, believe that violent rhetoric is troubling and has no place in our discourse. But can it not be argued that the misogyny exhibited toward women day in and year out creates an atmosphere whereby a whacko like J. Loughner can go on a shooting spree – targeting a woman for assassination? Perhaps that seem like a stretch. But how is that any more of stretch than Democratic operatives looking to pin this tragedy on tea party members – although all evidence says that this disturbed loner was a Marxist. This young man had nothing to do with any group it seems, and for the media to jump to dangerous conclusions using half-baked information can only create the very atmosphere of violence they pretend they are wishing to assuage.

Both parties, along with the media, use irresponsible verbiage. It is sensationalistic, designed to sell copy and has been going on for years. According to an exclusive interview in Mother Jones today, the shooter had an obsession with Rep. Giffords and was possessed of his own violent fantasies and agenda. How was he following any one person’s political rhetoric in coming to the decision to do what he did? Further, while he may have targeted Rep. Giffords, he came loaded with several magazines for his semi-automatic weapon, clearly ready to execute as many people as he could, perhaps going out in a blaze of glory.

It would behoove the media to instead focus on an atmosphere that allowed a mentally unstable man to wander through life without proper medical attention while being given legal access to a semi-automatic weapon and ammunition.

The atmosphere of hate that Olbermann decries should upset him – he is one of the people who created it. It is disgraceful for any members of the fourth estate to sensationalize such a horrific event or worse, to use Ms. Gifford as a political football in order to ensnare and defeat others with whom they do not agree.

Does Pakistan suffer today because of his death? Yes. Does it change anything on the ground? No. 

He was slain because he called the notorious blasphemy law as black law. He stood up for a Christian woman who was accused of blasphemy and was sentenced to death by a local court. Taseer wanted his government to repeal the blasphemy law that was incorporated in the 1980s by the military dictator General Ziaul Haq. It was a legitimate demand. In his own words, “these are man made laws and men can correct this”. 

These black laws will now be repealed or not? This does not change anything on the ground either. 

Nothing will change on the ground because nothing changed a decade ago when a Christian cricket player on the national team was allegedly forced to convert. Nothing changed when pop singers one after another started denouncing their own careers and joined the elite mullah ranks. Not a thing changed when two boys were lynched publicly just last year. These were the obvious symptoms of a society turning intolerant, self-righteous, and violent. A society without the respect for law and order. 

It changed nothing back then, it will not change anything now. Hence, the events that followed Salmaan Taseer’s gruesome murder are disturbing. These events have nothing to do with a religion, or its preaching, but everything to do with the mindset that has been developed over the years. Evidently, this mindset is irrespective of class. The jubilant response on Facebook and YouTube was not by the uneducated and madrassa clan. A Pakistani blogger summed it up well: “If you go through the profiles of Qadri supporters on Facebook, you’d think Justin Bieber was the cause of extremism in Pakistan.” 

The killer’s overwhelming welcome at the courts by men who know how and why a law is made demonstrates that the liberals – a minority in Pakistan – have been reduced to an endangered species.  

And that is what has changed. And that is what matters today on the ground in Pakistan. 

Do a little math. The killer is a 26 year old man and hails from a semi-urban area. He joined the Elite force in 2003 which means he was 18 then. General Musharraf toppled a democratic government in 1999, and the killer must have been 14. And this is the age group that’s using the Internet, Facebook, YouTube and blogs more aggressively. This is the age group that went through a whole “moderate enlightenment” phase fully sponsored by Pervez Musharraf and shamelessly supported by George Bush for almost over a decade. And this is the group that has the street power in Pakistan. This is the group that is the future of Pakistan. Its mind has been infiltrated by private television, launched during Musharraf’s era. Instead of promoting freedom of speech, it promoted violence, illiteracy and conspiracy theories. It produced the “I-know-more-than-you-know-coz-I-like-that-anchor-and-you-dont-watch-that-show” minds, whereas before young men from the same age group used to extract influence from their family heads. 

The dual game of the military government ten years ago, fully supported and encouraged by the US government, produced a whole generation that detests its own constitution and Western freedom of speech values. This generation is the raw material available to and exploited by religious groups, ready to kill and get killed. My philanthropist friend Manzur Ejaz believes that the right wing in Pakistan is organized and has ideological strength. It has been supported by the State machinery through an education system and infested state institutions, while its opposition lacks committed people, organization and a cause. 

This sorry state of Pakistan is pretty much an example of Martin Niemoller’s ‘First They Came.’ 

They came first for the Communists,

and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.



Then they came for me

and by that time no one was left to speak up.

This existing situation has nothing to do with the drone attacks carried out today or the policy changed in favor of Pakistan. The ruling party was once considered a liberal group, but now its own members and sitting ministers publicly announced that they will shoot a blasphemer themselves. They align themselves with so-called “moderate” Muslim politicians like Imran Khan who have practiced Western values but sympathise with the Taliban. 

This indicates that now the dominant political philosophies are right, center to right and very right groups. It has men that have a soft heart for fundamentalists. The absence of a left–because the representative parties or groups were systematically dismantled by military dictators–will bring more extremism. 

Persons with liberal thoughts need protection, which requires some strategy as well as strength. It has to organize itself and build an anti-mullah manpower. It’s a war now, and decisions taken today will reflect the systems adopted in the future. And that will change everything on the ground.

–
Crosspost: ThePakistanUpdate.com

Oopsie daisy – sounds like another faction unhappy with Dear Leader. The African American community has been one of the most stalwart groups in supporting Obama in the polls, so this could be a troubling change for Obama. Those days may be coming to an end, at least for some in the community, and with good reason:

[snip]Since Obama has taken office African Americans have faced a number of disproportionate “highs,” few of them good, such as an exceptionally high unemployment rate, a high foreclosure rate, and a high number of African-American political figures deprived of the president’s support or dismissed from his administration (such as former White House social secretary Desiree Rogers, former Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod, South Carolina Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Alvin Greene, former green energy czar Van Jones, Democratic Illinois Sen. Roland Burris, Democratic New York Gov. David Patterson, would-be Democratic New York Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr., and Democratic Reps. Charlie Rangel of New York, Maxine Waters of California and Kendrick Meek of Florida).

Dr. Cornel West, professor of African American Studies at Princeton University, is one African-American leader who has been far from pleased with Obama’s neglect of African-American issues. West told The Daily Caller that he has been extremely frustrated with the president’s relative disinterest in civil rights
issues.

“He can take the black base for granted because he assumes we have nowhere else to go,” West said. “But we just won’t put up with it. He has got to respect us.”

West is not the only black leader who feels this way. Behind the scenes, West says, many African-American leaders are not happy with Obama’s failure to address issues important to the black community, especially considering the support the community gave the president during the 2008 election. But, according to West, many of those dissatisfied leaders are hesitant to step forward.

“There hasn’t been a lot of talk about it because I think most black spokespeople, at the moment, are scared of the Obama machine,” West said. “A lot of us are trying to put the pressure on him without aiding and abetting the right wing.” [snip]

I just have to say, as someone living in SC, surely no one really expects Obama or ANY Democrat, for that matter, to support Alvin Greene. For heavens sake, the man was just indicted on two counts of showing pornography a couple of weeks ago. He was kicked out of a SC restaurant on Tuesday. Originally, it was a campaign stop – until those pesky little indictments came down. The organizers canceled the meeting, but Greene came anyway. He, and a companion, were, um, ushered out of the establishment. Heck, even I don’t blame Obama, or ANYONE, for steering clear of this guy. Just saying.

As for my former professor, Cornell West, it is a bit surprising that he, and others, like Dr. Leon, are speaking out already. Now, West was a Hillary supporter, just to be clear, prior to Obama’s being given the nomination by the rule-breaking DNC. But that does not mean he wouldn’t have some real expectations about what Obama might do for the African American community in this country.

Shelby Steele from the Hoover Institute, has some thoughts on the matter, as well:

[snip] Steele pointed out that Obama does not owe the black community as much as they believe he does due to the fact that whites were the ones who elected him — specifically by throwing their support to him during the Iowa caucus. Initially, the African-American community was significantly supporting Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

“Once blacks began to see that whites were with Obama they didn’t want to be left standing at the station so they jumped on board,” he said. “They were not his base anyway. So he is not confused about that. That said, blacks will continue to vote for him. They vote for every Democratic candidate at a rate of 90% so Obama can absolutely take them for granted and will.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

This raises a couple of points for me. One, not only are whites the ones who elected Obama, they are also the ones who REARED Obama. It is remarkable to me how completely and fully both Obama’s mother and grandmother have been wiped from history. They are the ones responsible for rearing him. That is to say, he was not raised in a traditional African American community. To pretend otherwise has been one of the most glaring manipulations of the entire election.

Two, yes, many in the African American community were breaking for Hillary Clinton. My first rally in Charleston was easily, easily 1/2 African American, if not more. But, when Obama and his campaign played the race card against Hillary Clinton in SC, employing that turncoat, backstabber, Jim Clyburn, that many in the African-American community turned away from her. She, along with her husband, were characterized as racists by Obama, and for some reason I still cannot fathom, the community, the COUNTRY, bought that, despite their long, long history standing in stark defiance of that claim. But they believed Obama.

Instead of a hard-working Hillary Clinton in the White House, who would indeed have worked on behalf of the African American community, and ALL Americans, who would not be taking vacation after vacation after vacation while the Home sales worsen, more jobs are lost, and the DOW tanks, they got Obama. Even if he IS vacationing in the “historically black section of Martha’s Vineyard” at a gazillion dollars a week, I might add.

Still – it begs the question: just what did the African American community think Obama was going to do specifically for them? Oh, wait – I remember:

Wow. That is still hard to believe, that anyone thought that would happen if Obama became president. But someone clearly spread that word – she was not the only one who seemed to think that was the case.

Anyway, I think Leon sums the issue up perfectly:

[snip] “My take on that is, you have to treat him the same way you would treat any other president,” Leon explained. “Especially since he is not giving you any reason to treat him otherwise. And it is going to be very difficult, whether it is 2012 and he is not reelected or it is 2016 and we’re dealing with a new president — who most likely will not be African American — it is going to be very difficult to hold that new president to a different standard.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

There’s a concept – treat Obama like every other president. That would be a change, wouldn’t it? Holding Obama to all the same standards as every other president or presidential candidate? What a novel idea. It’s too late for the latter now, but 2012 is not that far away (it just feels like it is).

I guess we will just see how this continues to play out, and if the dissatisfaction with Obama trickles throughout the African American community, not just the leaders and intellectuals. Time will tell…

And what does it mean for our foundational rights as a country?

Recently, J. Christian Adams, former DOJ attorney, made some serious accusations about how the DOJ is doing business under Obama. Adams’ initial comments had to do with the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) about which I wrote recently, and the refusal of the DOJ to pursue a case against the NBPP despite irrefutable evidence of voter intimidation. Those charged with this issue flat out refused to even read the memoranda on the NBPP’s actions. Consequently, for this and other reasons related to this case, Adams resigned his position at the DOJ.

Here is Mr. Adams describing the situation at the DOJ to Megyn Kelly, also an attorney:

But wait, there is more. Mr. Adams is no longer holding back, and has exposed another issue related to the DMV and Voter Registration law at the DOJ in this piece:

This is beyond the pale.

So, let me see. NBPP 1, Voters 0. Dead People voting 1, fair elections, 0. Lawlessness in the DOJ 1, true justice, 0.

Mr. Adams testified before the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights about this very issue this past week, stating:

“We abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens,” he later testified.

That is a staggering claim. Just think about that for a few minutes. This is the DOJ, after all.

One more quote from this article should also give you pause (and thanks to Ani for highlighting this):

But as the investigation unfolded, he said he discovered “indications” that the Black Panther Party was doing the “same thing” to supporters of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary season in early 2008. He urged the commission to pursue testimony from other Justice officials to corroborate his story.

We knew that, of course, but now we have a DOJ whistleblower confirming it. Wow.

That Obama, fulfilling his campaign promise of bringing change to America. He surely is, just not good change. Now, despite the protests by the NBPP to the contrary, voter intimidation is permitted by the DOJ, depending on who is doing it, of course.

This is a sad, sad time in our country, when voter intimidation is not just allowed, but protected, by the Department of Justice. When the DOJ states it won’t be bothered with enforcement of the law against voter rolls being padded with the names of dead people, and those who are ineligible to vote.

This is our fundamental right as Americans, the right to vote, free of intimidation and threats. It is our duty to have our votes counted, and to have the process as clean as possible. It is clear that Obama’s DOJ has zero interest in making that happen.

And that cannot stand.

I think the headline says it all, but just so you understand, it wasn’t his fault he lost. It’s all those damn Uncle Toms and racists to blame:

State Sen. Robert Ford said “Uncle Tom” is part of the reason he lost his bid for governor.

Ford, a black civil rights crusader who has served Charleston in the Senate since 1993, told The Post and Courier on Friday that his fellow Legislative Black Caucus members turned their backs on him and instead supported his white opponent, Vincent Sheheen.

“Uncle Tom was alive and well before, during and after the Negro and African-American struggle in this country, and obviously he is still alive today,” Ford wrote in a June 10 letter addressed to his “beloved Legislative Black Caucus members.”

Uncle Tom is a term used in contempt of blacks who are regarded as slaves to whites. It comes from the 1852 book “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”

Ford acknowledged that he is “bitter,” but he said that does not change the situation. He accused Sheheen, a state senator from Camden, of not supporting diversity because, Ford said, Sheheen does not have any black men or women employed at his law office.

“The reason I am hurting right now is not because I lost,” Ford said. “It’s because they supported a candidate who doesn’t practice diversity.”

Sheheen’s campaign on Friday had no comment on the letter or Ford’s comments.

Wow. Well, good for Sheheen for not ratcheting up this claim with a response. Though honestly, any attempt at a response automatically puts Sheheen on the defensive. But Sheheen didn’t have to respond:

State Sen. Darrell Jackson, a Hopkins Democrat who is black, said Ford is wrong about Sheheen.

“Robert is one of my dearest friends,” Jackson said. “He is absolutely wrong and off basis with this. And I think he knows that. I think right now Robert is hurt and he said he is bitter.”

Jackson said Ford and Sheheen have chosen to share an office in the Senate office building. If Ford’s claims about Sheheen were true, the two wouldn’t share their workspace, Jackson said.

He also noted that Ford and Sheheen have a black administrative assistant. Sheheen also has selected a consulting firm run by a black man to work for his gubernatorial campaign, Jackson said. Also, Jackson said, Sheheen told him that he does not do the hiring at his law firm.

Jackson also said that every major piece of legislation that influences minorities in the state has Sheheen’s support.

“It’s not fair to Vincent,” Jackson said. “I love Robert, but I really have to speak up.”

Despite his hurt feelings, Ford said he “loves” Sheheen and believes he is a “good person.”

“I am going to work like hell to see to it that he wins,” Ford said.

Ford’s accusations come as South Carolina grapples with another racially charged situation.

Sen. Jake Knotts, R-West Columbia, called GOP front-runner Nikki Haley a “raghead,” a slur against her Indian-American decent. The Lexington Republican Party met Thursday night and voted to censure Knotts and ask him to resign.

Haley, a state representative from Lexington, faces U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett in a runoff for the Republican gubernatorial nomination June 22.

Sheheen won the Democratic nomination for governor Tuesday with 59 percent of the vote. Ford garnered 18 percent and ran on a controversial platform of bringing back video poker and building a casino in Myrtle Beach.

The third Democratic candidate, Jim Rex, state superintendent of education, took 23 percent of the vote. (Reach Yvonne Wenger at ywenger@postandcourier.com.)

Damn right it isn’t fair to Sheheen to be labeled this way because Ford has “hurt feelings.” Lucky for Sheheen he has an African-American office mate and colleague who is willing to speak up against this charge. Otherwise, it would be a label hung on Sheheen’s neck he did nothing to deserve except beat Ford in a political race.

I respect what Ford did in his past, the work he did on behalf of Civil Rights. That is no small thing. When someone who has no experience, no qualifications, did no campaigning, and has little more of a platform than, “Get South Carolinians Back to Work,” as in Alvin Greene, beat out a white guy who has been in office, it is hard to use the race card (as noted by a commenter). Ford came in dead last. That means the voters didn’t really buy what he was selling.

Grow up, Ford – take your hits like an adult already. You ran, you lost. Now try and be a role model for graciousness in losing, not modeling the petulance and dirty tricks of the Whiner in Chief. It is beyond tiresome and unbecoming. It is just sad.

I’d like to address the objections.

Protest is the American way. The health care bill, a massive piece of legislation, had many elements which some could find objectionable. Mandates are worrying, as is the fear that premiums could go up. There are genuine concerns that the “reform” could turn out to be a souped-up version of COBRA, making insurance obligatory but unaffordable, ultimately benefitting only the insurance companies. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably. That’s one of the great aspects of living in a democracy.

What is not reasonable, however, is circulating pictures of the President disguised as a witch doctor, or spitting on and hurling racial and other epithets at Congressmen (or anyone else), or sending images of nooses, or issuing death threats. This form of “protest” has nothing to do with TARP or health care or anything else. Anyone who defends such behavior should hang their head in shame. Indeed, such acts should be vehemently discouraged and the perpetrators shunned from civilized society.

The Tea Party’s message of smaller government and fiscal responsibility is being drowned out by the movement’s most extreme elements. In this the movement is comparable to A.N.S.W.E.R, a group begun to oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which then degraded into an umbrella group for every embittered leftist with an ax to grind, from PETA to the Free Mumia crowd to the pro-Palestinian folks. Ultimately the anti-war message was diluted and A.N.S.W.E.R turned into a joke.

Another group that found itself in the trashbin of history was the loosely formed anti-World Bank/WTO/IMF crowd, whose members had no problem protesting the worthy cause of international debt reduction by rampaging in the streets and committing acts of vandalism while filming all the exciting anti-globalist fervor with video cameras and cell phones imported from Asia. Any sympathy they may have generated went up in smoke as the public watched the violence and mayhem.

During campaign 2008, left-wing blogs turned into cesspools of misinformation and ad hominem attacks on the Clintons, going so far as to resurrect the “Vince Foster Was Murdered” canard. The outrageous sexism of the blogosphere and the media was harshly and justifiably criticized on this blog. To ignore the extreme elements of the Tea Party is to do an injustice to those decent people who want to have their voices heard, but do not want to be associated with the ugliness of the extremes.

ACORN, the embattled community activist group, says it is disbanding.

The group, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, claims it will close its affiliates and field offices by April 1st. But some of its critics think the move is really an April fool’s switch. They claim ACORN actually isn’t going anywhere, just rebranding under different local organizations with new names but with the same mission.

ACORN has faced a variety of allegations over the past two years, from voter registration fraud to Republican charges that it uses public funds for liberal political purposes. ACORN workers have gone to jail, and undercover tapes of ACORN workers seemingly giving advice on how to skirt the law especially made the group a lightning rod for criticism.

ACORN has denied the charges, pointing to its own commissioned investigation that found allegations against it baseless.

“ACORN has faced a series of well-orchestrated, relentless, well-funded right wing attacks that are unprecedented since the McCarthy era,” claims ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis. In a statement she said in part, “Our effective work empowering African-Americans and low-income voters made us a target.”

You know, I am so tired of being called a racist for calling people on their actions, and this is no exception. It has NOTHING to do with who ACORN helps, but HOW it helps them:

But critics say ACORN’s undoing is entirely its own fault.

“I don’t think we are done with this,” Iowa Republican Congressman Steve King, a noted ACORN critic, told Fox News. “This is a big step in the right direction because I believe they are a corrupt, criminal enterprise.”

King calls the move “a downsize of ACORN,” but believes its operations will be shifted to state organizations that “may well grow.” He says “tigers don’t change their stripes and neither to people who are operating in a corrupt fashion.”

Critics point to a variety of new local organizations that are springing up to apparently take ACORN’s place. In Brooklyn, New York the ACORN office now has a new sign: “New York Communities for Change,” and in Massachusetts the president of the new group, “New England United for Justice” is listed as Maude Hurd, the president of ACORN, in its articles of Organization.

There are a growing number of such local groups replacing ACORN, according to Matthew Vadum, of the Capital Research Center. He says ACORN Housing has changed its name to Affordable Housing Centers of America, Inc., and that other ACORN connected groups include: Arkansas Community Organizations, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, and Missourians Organizing for Reform Empowerment.

“This is a trick, a public relations trick,” says Vadum, calling the move an attempt “to dupe Congress and the American people to think they have gone away and they have not.” He says “the same people are running the new chapters that have sprung up and in some cases, out of the same offices.”

Yep, that’s pretty much what I think, too, that this is more smoke and mirrors from the group for whom our Smoke and Mirrors President did his internship.

As a reminder of why ACORN’s funds were cut:

The moves in Congress to cut ACORN’s funding came after the shocking undercover video-tapes made by conservative activists James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles who posed as a pimp and a prostitute trying to secure ACORN’s help to open a supposed brothel using underage girls. A federal Judge has since declared the Congressional move unconstitutional, but the financial damage may have been done. Several federal agencies have cut their ACORN funding and ACORN even tried to use the example of the tapes for fundraising purposes.

Giles has not returned a request for comment on ACORN’s announcement, and O’Keefe told me he cannot comment because of the on-going investigation of another of his video projects. He and three others have been charged with trying to “manipulate” the phone system of Democratic Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu. O’Keefe says he was engaged in a journalistic endeavor, going undercover to try and show that there was no problem with the Senator’s phone system during the run-up to the health care vote.

Another article goes into a little more detail from ACORN’s perspective:

ACORN to Shut Down in Wake of Scandal

The once mighty community activist group ACORN announced Monday it is folding amid falling revenues — six months after video footage emerged showing some of its workers giving tax tips to conservative activists posing as a pimp and prostitute.

“It’s really declining revenue in the face of a series of attacks from partisan operatives and right-wing activists that have taken away our ability to raise the resources we need,” ACORN spokesman Kevin Whelan said.

Again, it apparently has NOTHING to do with this organization engaging in voter registration fraud, voter fraud, and counseling in ways to subvert the tax system, among other issues. Yeah, it’s all “partisan.” Way to take any accountability there. What else is new??

But are they really disbanding? Like I said, I don’t think so. An ACORN by any other name is still ACORN:

Several of its largest affiliates, including ACORN New York and ACORN California, broke away this year and changed their names in a bid to ditch the tarnished image of their parent organization and restore revenue that ran dry in the wake of the video scandal.

ACORN’s financial situation and reputation went into free fall within days of the videos’ release in September. Congress reacted by yanking ACORN’s federal funding, private donors held back cash and scores of ACORN offices closed.

Earlier this month, a U.S. judge reiterated an earlier ruling that the federal law blacklisting ACORN and groups allied with it was unconstitutional because it singled them out. But that didn’t mean any money would be automatically be restored.

Bertha Lewis, the CEO of ACORN, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, alluded to financial hardships in a weekend statement as the group’s board prepared to deliberate by phone.

“ACORN has faced a series of well-orchestrated, relentless, well-funded right wing attacks that are unprecedented since the McCarthy era,” she said. “The videos were a manufactured, sensational story that led to rush to judgment and an unconstitutional act by Congress.”

ACORN’s board decided to close remaining state affiliates and field offices by April 1 because of falling revenues, with some national operations will continue operating for at least several weeks before shutting for good, Whelan said Monday.

For years, ACORN could draw on 400,000 members to lobby for liberal causes, such as raising the minimum wage or adopting universal health care. ACORN was arguably most successful at registering hundreds of thousands of low-income voters, though that mission was dogged by fraud allegations, including that some workers submitted forms signed by ‘Mickey Mouse’ or other cartoon characters.

Yes, Mickey Mouse was but one fictional character “signed up” by ACORN workers. As I have noted about a GAZILLION times, they have been under investigation in up to 14 states, including Florida, Nevada, and Louisiana, for submitting THOUSANDS of false voter registrations. Recently, a conviction for voter fraud was returned in Pennsylvania for an ACORN worker.

So, enough with the “poor me” victim crapola. ACORN brought this on themselves with their underhanded, illegal dealings. Having to disband because their funding is cut is just what happens when organizations operate in unlawful ways.

But is ACORN really running out of money? Not if Peter Orzag has anything to say about it, and he does. That would explain the name changes, and the April 1st date:

While America is distracted by Democrats’ attempts to unconstitutionally ram government-run healthcare down the throats of the American people, the Obama administration began preparing to resume funding to President Obama’s favorite community organizing group.

The fiscal floodgates are opening for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the president’s former employer and legal client, despite a congressional ban on funding the activist group that has long been a practitioner of election fraud.

In a March 16 memo Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Peter Orszag quietly ordered federal agencies to resume funding the group whose employees were caught on hidden camera videos last year condoning a variety of crimes including child prostitution and tax evasion.

Well, I’ll be darned. Someone inside Obama’s office is making sure ACORN gets its funds restored, all while we are focused on the Healthcare Legislation. The ol’ “Look over there!” trick. Well, that sleight of hand almost worked. But now we know Obama’s buddy is looking out for his his buddies. Seems ACORN, or whatever it’s calling itself these days, is here to stay, if Obama has his way…

Case in point: Washington Post “media critic” Howard Kurtz’s article today about FOX News Channel’s “reporters’” growing discomfort with the shenanigans of FNC darling Glenn Beck, he of the mighty chalkboard of insanity, his ludicrous fits of crying, his manic desire to be a political player, the fearmongering, paranoia and Stalin-Mao-Hitler-Marxist-Communist-Racist-Obama-hating cavalcade of madness. The meme that Beck is merely an entertainer and that FOX personalities are worried that the new star on the block could damage its relationship with the White House and the channel’s reputation are laughable at best. After all, Beck organized the infamous “9/12″ rallies, a non-news event enthusiastically covered by FOX, complete with inflated crowd estimates. Beck, in displays of false modesty, claims to be a mere rodeo clown. Nonsense. He’s a liar, an ignoramus and a dangerous Father Coughlinesque demagogue who has done enormous damage to political discourse and the profession of journalism. (Beck would probably decry Coughlin’s loyalties but the technique remains the same).

Beck apologized recently for wasting his audience’s time following a hilariously absurd and demented interview with disgraced tickling enthusiast and former Congressman Eric Massa. But not to worry, he’s back to whatever passes for normal now.

FOX’s “news” operation didn’t show restraint or a desire for fact-checking while helping pump damaging, and false stories about the Clintons into the media churn, with the Vince Foster conspiracy theory still holding a strong showing behind the JFK assassination.

And it’s not as if Beck makes money for the network. He’s a loss leader (here’s a partial list of companies that have pulled their ads, despite Beck’s strong ratings). There are rumblings that Rupert Murdoch’s children are fed up with the drama surrounding FOX News’s foolishness, but you can bet that as long as daddy Rupert is in charge and Roger Ailes continues to draw breath nothing will change.

The Kurtz article follows an absurd piece in the Washington Post by former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines. With wide-eyed wonder, he ponders the vexing question of why reputable media organizations don’t call FOX out as a propaganda mill. This from a man who if he had a sense of shame would have the decency to keep quiet about media ethics, considering that reporter Bush/Cheney stenographer Judy Miller’s wildly incorrect WMD/Chalabi articles started being published in the NYT on his watch. The New York Times, which sets the agenda for all other publications in the United States, was thereby complicit in pushing falsehoods that led to an unjust and unnecessary war, costing thousands of American lives and ruining the U.S.’s reputation around the world. Good work, Howell.

But to answer your question, Howell: Cowardice. The American media are sheep. You’re welcome.

American reporters love to express their wonder at the Pakistani media’s love of conspiracy theories and wrinkle their brows over what a terrible impact the dissemination of false and sensationalistic information could have on the U.S.-Pak relationship. Look in the mirror, people.

– Cross Post from: The Pakistan Update

For some folks at MSNBC? Seems like it, given this recent departure. Craig Crawford, an MSNBC mainstay, has quit the network, even leaving before his contract was out. Wait until you read why that is in this article, MSNBC Political Analyst Craig Crawford Has Left the Network – In A Very Public Way. (Photo by Terry Ballard)

It confirms what many of us have been saying for a while:

Writing on his blog at CQPolitics.com, Crawford says he has found the network “unrewarding for me,” – and expands on his reason for leaving in a comment to Mediaite.

Crawford last appeared on MSNBC on February 5, as a guest on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, where he regularly appeared (according to TV Eyes). The blog post came exactly one month after that appearance. Crawford wrote:

Three months short of my current contract I sent the following to the boss, Phil Griffin: “Phil, Just wanted to give you the heads up that my situation with MSNBC has become so unrewarding for me that I’ve decided to move on. — Craig”

But he really expanded on the reasoning in the comments:

i simply could not any longer endure being a cartoon player for lefty games, just gotta move on to higher ground even if there’s no oxygen

i have never and never will forgive Chris for calling me a racist after the West Virginia primary (the last time I will ever go on air with him). Probably should have resigned then and there, but better late than never.

“Cartoon character for lefty games”?? Holy smokes! Tell us how you really feel, Craig:

We asked Crawford what he was referring to regarding Chris Matthews, and to expand on why he left the network. He responded by email:

I haven’t felt like a good fit for MSNBC since the presidential campaign, and the hard turn toward point-of-view programming. No particular event brought this on, just my desire to try other outlets and have more fun. As far as Chris is concerned, on Morning Joe after the West Virginia primary he accused me of always defending Clinton and what he claimed to be her racially motivated campaigning. That’s the problem. Trying to be fair became seen as bias in the new thinking over there. But I do wish my many pals at MSNBC nothing but good things.

This appears to be that incident from Morning Joe.

Dang, Craig, maybe you could have spoken up a bit more back then, giving it back to Tingly Leg that Hillary ISN’T racist, and for Tingles to claim she is, and calling you a racist, too, was nothing short of reprehensible and slanderous? Just asking. So, tell us more:

The decision by a Countdown regular to leave MSNBC because of his the way he perceives the network is a notable one. Although Crawford isn’t purely left-wing, he is a commentator that represents the left perspective. His exit, and his reasoning, show some level of discontent among those who may be politically on the same team at MSNBC.

Crawford says on his blog he will be on Fox & Friends as a guest on Monday, although FNC says he won’t be. He also writes in the comments that he is a “free agent.”

> Update: Crawford took down the F&F booking info shortly after publication.

Some interesting comments at both Craig’s blog, and at Mediaite about Craig’s decision. Many people support him, but a number of MSNBO viewers attack him for going to “Fox and Friends.” Now there’s a surprise.

It is mighty interesting that Crawford has departed the network before his contract was up, and especially the reasons why. I reckon it is better late than never. Oh, no, wait – because he colluded in MSNBC becoming MSNBO, participated in Hillary-bashing even if it was in staying silent in the face of blatant falsehoods about her from other commentators. And he did participate in their “lefty games.” Now, we are stuck with Obama wrecking our country. But, hey – if things keep going this way, there will be fewer “journalists” willing to make Obama’s presidency a success, like Good Ol’ Chris Matthews. I guess that’s something.

Welcome to the Kool Aide Free zone, also free of Hopium smoke. Glad you made it out, Craig.