Even more than usual, I was physically nauseated by the Sunday morning network news shows this weekend, which all blurred together in a nightmarish display of how lazy and biased the news media is, and how aggressively it now seeks to make Americans complacent, ignorant, and ethically stunted. I’m not sure which of these journalistic disgraces it was—I think it was “Meet the Press”—where the host, briefly attempting to inject some content into his panel’s obligatory Donald Sterling bashing, asked if it mattered that his comments were intended as private. “There is no privacy any more!” a female panelist exclaimed, not as protest or complaint, but as a dismissive rebuttal. Oh. Well, that settles it then! We should now assume that any of us can be publicly pilloried and humiliated for what we say in our homes, bedroom, automobiles, and safe rooms. Next issue! Boy, the President killed at the White House Correspondents dinner, didn’t he?
Over at ABC, the token conservative this week in that “roundtable,” Laura Ingraham—the allegedly smart, ultra-right wing, acerbic former Supreme Court clerk for Justice Thomas turned radio host—couldn’t manage the presence of mind or the wit to point out that fellow panelist Van Jones had just compared NBA players—you know, the African Americans who make more money in a week than you make all year?—-to black slaves, and twice at that. What good are you, Laura, if you can be intimidated like that, and allow a shimmering opportunity to illustrate the racial double standard being used today for cynical political ends, so the public might start paying attention? No, Laura had her own agenda, so she wasn’t paying attention. She was there to use the Oklahoma “botched” execution as a platform to inveigh against—abortion. I would call her performance pundit malpractice, but how one can be judged incompetent on a Sunday public issues show, when the shows themselves are journalistic abortions?
Retribution is coming for all, however. Eventually, thanks to the excessive and imprudently unrestrained abuse being heaped on Donald Sterling, these knaves, bumblers and hypocrites are going to have to face the reality of the dilemma they have created for themselves, because the standard they so happily apply to Sterling—deceptively safe and easy because he’s objectively repulsive–is now going to be applied to everyone including their champions and heroes, , and the carnage will be unrelenting. And it will be good for the culture, I think, because like the French Revolution, the force unleashed by the politically correctness bullies, race-hucksters and Bigotry Furies will prove unmanageable, and consume its creators.
I realized this thanks to a deft and exhaustive rant on the same general topic of my post here, but far more specific, by conservative columnist and blogger Victor Davis Hanson. Hanson is pigeon-holed as a right wing blogger, and this roundly ignored by most of the media as well as partisan citizens who can only bear to read comforting confirmations of what they want to believe. In this case, it doesn’t matter. Whether his essay is widely read or not, he is right, and what he points out so persuasively cannot avoided and will have to be confronted. Read it all, but here are some highlights (Yes, I am pleased that Hanson reiterates several of the points I had posted on earlier):
- “If the NBA establishes the precedent that it can force the sale of an owner’s property because of one’s illiberal speech, however odious, what now is the new standard of behavior? … How many owners don’t believe in the idea of man-made global warming? Oppose illegal immigration? Doubt the wisdom of affirmative action? Can we scour their emails, tap their phones, or ask the public for their private indiscretions?”
- “And who will police the police? Oddly, some of the very public officials who weighed in on the Sterling matter themselves have a sorry record of racist speech—and in the public, not illegally taped private, realms. Could any of them in their retirement pitch in to buy the Clippers?”
- “…How about our Supreme Court justices, who certainly have more power over us than does Donald Sterling? Could they buy the Clippers? Justice Sotomayor has offered clearly racist observations: “ I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” [Imagine Justice Scalia claiming that wise Italian male judges reached better conclusions (by virtue of their race and gender) than minority women justices.] Or can we turn to Justice Ginsburg, who once voiced pop-eugenics nonsense with the plural code word “populations” in defense of abortion (e.g., “concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of“)? [Imagine Justice Thomas sounding off that abortion was no big deal given that we don’t want too many affluent suburbanites.]”
- “…Then there is the issue of the nature of Sterling’s more direct stone throwers. After Sterling’s ostracism, which of them can buy a NBA or equivalent sports franchise? Perhaps Spike Lee, who has appeared in NBA-affiliated commercials?… After visiting South Africa, Lee thundered, “I seriously wanted to pick up a gun and shoot whites. The only way to resolve matters is by bloodshed.” Should Lee be blacklisted from NBA games and his NBA commercial work dropped? Is publicly advocating racial violence worse than privately expressing racist ideas?”
- “…Charles Barkley has also weighed in. Could Mr. Barkley join an effort to buy the Clippers? Unlike Sterling, his racist outbursts were a bit more direct (“That’s why I hate white people”) and were not private. Was that a joke or just letting off steam?”
- “…Of course, Oprah is outraged at Sterling and said to be interested in joining an effort to acquire the team. But if private conversations are also now a proper NBA benchmark of racial sensitivity, Ms. Winfrey’s own mother-in-law just alleged that Oprah yelled out when she arrived at the Winfrey home: “Negroes in the house. Negroes in the house.” Is such unsubstantiated hearsay more or less admissible than illegally taped private phone calls?
- “…It would have been far wiser to shun Mr. Sterling and even fine him for racial insensitivity, and then let fans, players, and the general public boycott his franchise and the free market adjudicate the team’s fate, until Mr. Sterling learns that there are consequences to his past behavior and present speech. But the present hysteria has now raised far more issues of the sort Attorney General Eric Holder once damned the American people as “cowards” for not raising. A billionaire and litigious, the 81-year-old Sterling will probably not go quietly into the night. We were told his racism offered us a teachable moment—but it has now offered unending teachable hours.”
“Unending teachable hours.” I can’t wait.
And Laura, for God’s sake, be on your toes this time!
Source: PJ Media
Graphic: The Platz