Sen. Reid’s crime: Pretending to be a white, old, male, unfunny Margaret Cho.
I cannot pass up an opportunity to come to the defense of Senator Harry Reid regarding a supposed ethical breach that doesn’t exist.
The Democratic Senate leader was addressing the Las Vegas Asian Chamber of Commerce, and at one point told the audience, “I don’t think you’re smarter than anybody else, but you’ve convinced a lot of us you are.” Later, when another man named Wong came to the podium, Reid took the microphone and ad-libbed, “One problem I’ve had today is keeping my Wongs straight.”
The horror.
Now apparently taking their cues for sleazy campaign tactics from Democrats, who were so successful turning Mitt Romney’s accurate but ugly 47% comment into a scandal, Republicans caught these moments on video with a mole of their own from America Rising, a Republican opposition research firm. Though he had sworn to organizers that he was only taking still picture, the mole captured Harry’s wit and put it on YouTube, where it was immediately pounced on by conservative bloggers who don’t really think this kind of thing is racist, but feigned indignation because a lot of Reid’s supporters do. Got that? This is classic Republican “justice” : attacking Democrats for conduct Republicans think it is absurd to attack Republicans for. In alleging hypocrisy, Reid’s conservative critics embrace hypocrisy themselves. What they should be doing is defending Reid, because nothing he said was racist or offensive in any way, except to the speech police and political correctness Furies who infest the progressive ranks.
Remember, this is a group that defines itself racially. That means they think they are distinctive and different, or their groups wouldn’t exist. Personally, I don’t think such groups should exist; I think having race-segregated organizations of any kind encourage bias and is an unethical practice. If a Congressional White Caucus is racist, so is a Black Caucus.
And , of course, it is.
Nevertheless, it is absurd to claim that a speaker making comments that relate to the race a group uses to define itself is being insensitive or racist. The first comment, “I don’t think you’re smarter than anybody else, but you’ve convinced a lot of us you are,” is at worst a compliment (It’s also incoherent, but that’s our Harry, love him.) The second is absolutely benign. If Reid was talking to an Irish group and used “Kelly” for Wong, would anyone have raised an eyebrow? There is no difference. Harry was innocent.
Further proof of this is that apparently not a single member of the group complained about the remarks, and, amazingly since they weren’t remotely clever or funny, the “quips” got laughs. This doesn’t matter according to the rules of political correctness bullying, of course, just as it doesn’t matter that the vast majority of Native Americans don’t care what Dan Snyder calls his football team. This is offense by proxy, you see. It doesn’t matter, in assessing speech crime, whether anyone is actually offended. The only question is whether a case can be made that they ought to be offended.
Harry Reid, being gutless and thus unwilling to take any steam out of his own party’s continuing effort to bowdlerize speech and hamstring free thought, not to mention strangle humor, felt the need to apologize, thus justifying, since the ends justifies the means to these slimy people on both sides of the aisle, the silly, hypocritical, petty effort by the GOP to play speech cop.
Yechhhhh.
Ethics Alarms 
Remember, this is a group that defines itself racially. That means they think they are distinctive and different, or their groups wouldn’t exist. Personally, I don’t think such groups should exist; I think having race-segregated organizations of any kind encourage bias and is an unethical practice. If a Congressional White Caucus is racist, so is a Black Caucus.
I don’t understand why people don’t get this. How can you decry (and rightly so) white supremacy groups but not decry black supremacy groups? And that’s not the only paradigm that happens in, skin color, weight, religious affiliation, gender, age, political leaning, socioeconomic standing. I mean, progressives love to bring out the non-discrimination laws to protect their chosen groups, but the moment the tables turn, it’s like those laws don’t exist for the groups they find unworthy of those protections. Being a wealthy, fat, straight, white, old, god-fearing, republican man may or may not have given that person privileges over the course of his life, but that doesn’t mean that we throw out legal protections when he needs it. It’s fucking sick.
I don’t think I’ve been quiet over my disgust of feminists. While a feminist might be a good person who genuinely wants equality between the sexes, I think the group as a whole is poison, I think that if you really want to stand for equal treatment of the sexes, you have to start by removing the bias from your name, and then from your actions as a group. Beth inferred from that that I “must be an MRA”. Which was funny, because I had to Google the term. I would reject being a “Men’s Rights Activist” for the same reason, even if MRA doesn’t have the baggage feminism does. You don’t get equality by cordoning off your membership with divisive language. It’s stupid. Sure there might be male feminists, and sure there might be white people in the NAACP, but the token black guy in the Arian brotherhood doesn’t give the group legitimacy, so why should they?.
I don’t think “Black Supremacy” groups have ever been given much public sympathy. One example off the top of my head comes the “Black Panthers”, which I don’t believe has a particularly good reputation among anyone. Comparing the Congressional Black Caucus to a “Black Supremacy” group is simply not accurate, however misguided a concept such a caucus may be.
I was thinking more like the NAACP, I mean…. That acronym stands for The “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People” You have to put a mirror to titles like those, if it were instead the “National Association for the Advancement of White People” Progressives would lose their shit.
I am not really criticizing at this point, but just offering a thought…
There are many types of “white” and “black” people. There are Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Russian-Americans; there are African-Americans (“Colored” Americans), Haitian-Americans, Congo-Americans, etc. It is a somewhat significant distinction that the NAACP chose to represent themselves as “colored” rather than “black” peoples, as “colored” politely referred to a particular group with particular issues. Blanketly hoping to advance all “black” people regardless of circumstance would be very racially problematic, even today.
The NAACP most closely represents African Americans. Similar organizations, such Irish-American betterment societies (there were once signs “Irish Need not Apply”), for instance, are not divisive like an “NAAWP” would be. Organizing to address real issues, such as the particular discrimination experienced by African Americans, is not racially divisive – what historical injustices did “white” people as a whole in America experience that an “NAAWP” could address?
Today most historical injustices have been addressed or more importantly could be addressed. All lawful citizen’s have the right to vote; they have the forceful expectation to be heard by politicians, back up by the ability to replace an unresponsive representative. Most codified discrimination has been removed from the books. Enfranchisement, alone, allows all people to seek meaningful redress for legitimate lingering grievances. Explicit racial discrimination does not exist today like it did when the NAACP and other groups were originally formed.
The problem is that these groups have difficulty moving passed their original mandate. They now have a tendency to invent new racial issues, that are really more of an economic or class issue that affect all “races” equally. By numbers alone, there are more “white” people living in poverty than “black” people today. Arguing that black people are discriminated against here today is an incomplete expectation at best; even in the Plantation era Deep South, the abundant poor “white” people were looked upon with a special disdain. Poor white people today have a difficult relationship with the police.
Most issues are now racially neutral. The racially motivated civil rights era organizations have won! Unfortunately, race is not the cause of every issue; employment and employability for instance are vastly complicated issues, some based on the character and work ethic of the individual, some based on economy-wide trends that affect everybody. Using the racial hammer, when an economic screwdriver is needed, will just cause society to splinter.
It is a somewhat significant distinction that the NAACP chose to represent themselves as “colored” rather than “black” peoples, as “colored” politely referred to a particular group with particular issues. Blanketly hoping to advance all “black” people regardless of circumstance would be very racially problematic, even today.
OR the NAACP was formed in 1909 when black people were still commonly referred to as “colored” and never changed their name (A la Redskins). Your comment is revisionist history. They DID and DO hope to blanketly advance all black people, regardless of circumstance. (Which is all the more obvious when you consider the issues they choose to push)
The NAACP most closely represents African Americans. Similar organizations, such Irish-American betterment societies (there were once signs “Irish Need not Apply”), for instance, are not divisive like an “NAAWP” would be.
Kant 101: Either something is ethical for everyone, or it isn’t ethical for anyone. If the NAAWP is divisive, the NAACP is also divisive, society just deems it necessary divisiveness, or doesn’t recognize it. If there are discussions to be had, they should be done by human rights groups, and specifically appealing to a group, regardless of how disenfranchised that group may be is divisive by nature, and by definition contrary to the idea of a human right’s organization. If “Humanity Now” decides that black people are underprivileged and require help, so be it.
The problem is that these groups have difficulty moving passed their original mandate. They now have a tendency to invent new racial issues, that are really more of an economic or class issue that affect all “races” equally.
100% I unequivocally agree. I think while humanity isn’t ever going to be rid of it, racism as a thing has steadily decreased over time. I would go a step further though, I’m not sure that the NAACP or the Al Sharptons of the world really believe their rhetoric, I think that they like their government subsidies and pity money. If you listen to these people, you’d think that people were being lynched in their front yards still.
It should have been “…keep my Wongs Right”
Yes, that was the correct comic construction, although arguably more offensive (to those inclined to protest), since it would play on the actual name itself, rather than the name’s commonality.
Don’t forget the Australian politician in the days of the White Australia Policy who justified it by saying “two Wongs don’t make a white”.
Yes, now THAT gag would have been dicey for Harry.
Particularly since I was presenting the politician’s reported remarks, which had also got the out of context treatment (though, to be fair, he undoubtedly knew that they could and would be taken that way).
I thought Reid’s joke referred to non-heterosexual Asians, instead he just misspoke.
It’s the hypocrisy not the act itself that causes conservatives to regard this example as noteworthy. It’s hypocritical to make race a part of your remarks if you would make a big deal out of it if the other side did the same thing. While I don’t think it’s particularly helpful for conservatives to pounce on things like this with glee, it’s hard to blame them for pointing out the hypocrisy of it. Only conservatives are consistently nailed to the wall for their speech whether it’s to be stupid or to point out the stupidity of the other side. It does get old.
So is what Reid said bad, or isn’t it? If it isn’t then the GOP shouldn’t try to embarrass him with it. If it is, then they can’t complain when Republicans say similar things. Sorry: by no means is the Republican conduct ethical or rational.
So is what Reid said bad?
**********
No.
And they shouldn’t try to embarrass him with it. But it’s hard to be very upset about their reaction to it. He’s such a fatuous hypocrite .
It’s at the very least funny. So, I’d argue that it might not be ethical, but it’s rational to point out that in light of his own political spectrum he’s a flaming hypocrite.
No, what Harry said is NOT bad,
“Being a wealthy, fat, straight, white, old, god-fearing, republican man may or may not have given that person privileges over the course of his life…”
I’m not wealthy, far from it, nor am I god-fearing. Presumably the rest would entitle me to special consideration, which I do NOT ask for nor WANT. Whatever rights and/or special consideration I might be due, I have because I am willing to fight for them.
Was I the only one who thought the, ‘One problem I’ve had today is keeping my Wongs straight.’ was a double entendre?
Yeah. From Harry Reid? Yeah. From ME it might have been a botched double-entendre.
I have been wondering all day: WHY aren’t there more, and more ubiquitous, Harry Reid jokes? At least for as long as he’s poking around Capitol Hill and giving the country the shaft…
Those comments were in poor taste. Politicians are not comedians.
Certainly Harry is not. Horror movie star, maybe.
There was nothing in bad taste about them, and if the audience didn’t think so, and they would know, you shouldn’t think so. Political hyper-correctness.
Now, having Harry as a speaker, THAT’S in bad taste.
Non-comedians shouldn’t even tread in these waters. They suck at delivery so they do come off at sounding insensitive. Here’s a better idea — don’t try them in the first place. It’s easy to parse out words/meaning after the fact. But this was a live speech. Leave it to the professionals or leave it alone.
JFK? Reagan? I guess Ronnie qualifies as a pro.
Two Wongs don’t make a right, but they do make a scandal about nothing.
I’ll show myself the way out (and run for Senate).
Well Hung, Julian!