Mark Draughn, a.k.a Windypundit and the Ethics Alarms 2013 “Blogger of the Year,” has swallowed the Kool-Aid, apparently, and decided to defend the race-baiters, from the tippety top of our government to the stygian depths of MSNBC, who have finally managed to get police killed in retaliation for the “racist murders” of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and others. In his most recent post he challenged my analysis, and ended up making me feel pretty good about it. I love Mark’s blog and admire Mark’s mind, and if can’t do any better than this, I am obviously on firm ground.
I want you all to visit Windypundit, for Mark is terrific (usually), so I’m not going to go through the whole post, which you can read here. I will make a few salient observations though. Let’s play “Mark Says”:
“I knew there would be people who would take Brinsley’s reputed motive and use it to smear protesters and activists who had spoken out against police abuse.”
1. Mark wrote this before my straw man post, and sure enough, he followed the script. It’s about “police abuse.” Right. Not race. Not the racism of whites, the hunting down of black men; not about how blacks can’t get justice even when they have been gunned down with their hands in the air. Indeed, it’s not “about” any of the irresponsible, exaggerated, inflammatory accusations that we have been hearing since Trayvon Martin was shot…and not by a cop, either.
2. “Reputed motive.” Mark thinks I am unfair to conclude that a killer who wrote online that he was going to kill some “pigs” in retaliation for police killing Mike Brown and Eric Garner killed the two police officers in retaliation for police killing Mike Brown and Eric Garner. Got it.
3. I’m smearing protesters! These are, recall, protesters who, by their use of the “hands up, don’t shoot” theme, were smearing a specific police officer with the false claim that he was a racist and a murderer, though the evidence says otherwise, and smearing the integrity of the citizens on the grand jury who refused to indict him. By extending this smear to police generally, they were also asserting that this—that is, the fictional racist murder of that “harmless, unarmed black teen” who had just tried to take the officer’s gun and was charging all 300 pounds of his body at Officer Wilson—was the potential orientation of all white police. I was smearing them by pointing out that this was divisive, inflammatory, dishonest and irresponsible.
“There wouldn’t be constant references to police shooting unarmed black men if police were not, in fact, shooting unarmed black men.”
Yet, strangely, the shooting of unarmed white men, which also occurs, has been left out of the discussion. I wonder what Mark thinks this signifies. That only black men are shot by the police? That’s not true. That protesters want to make it seem like this is the case? That is true. That they cheery-pick incidents to maximize racial distrust? Also true. If the issue is not making police out to be racist killers, but just reforming “police abuse,” why isn’t police abuse of non-African Americans part of the discussion? It has to be either because the race-baiting, anti-police activists want to distort the facts, or because they don’t care that white men get killed too. Which is it?
“ It’s not like the civil rights advocates, activists, journalists, and pundits are just making stuff up.”
Sure they are! They are made up the narrative that Brown was harmless, and used a photo that made him look like Gary Coleman. They treated the “hands up” story, which came from Brown’s pal, as if it was fact. Then after it was shown to be unreliable, they continued to treat it as fact, and do to this day. I guess it doesn’t count as “making stuff up.” Treating the deaths of Garner and Brown as racial incidents absent any proof whatsoever is making stuff up. Representing to the public that four hours is an unreasonable time to process an outdoors potential crime scene is making stuff up. I’m not even going to list all the stuff they made up about the Trayvon Martin inccident—Zimmerman immediately saying the kid was black, that he was profiled because of a hoodie, etc. But mostly they are making up the illusion that only black men get shot by the police.
“However, Jack’s assertion that Michael Brown activists should not have made accusations before the investigation was complete is hypocritical nonsense. He is making that assertion in the middle of a post in which he accuses civil rights leaders and activists of creating the atmosphere that motivated cop killer Ismaaiyl Brinsley. In other words, just hours after the shooting — long before the NYPD investigation could possibly be complete — Jack claims to know who the murderer was, why he did it, and the identity of the people whose anti-cop rhetoric supposedly influenced him to do it. Jack is doing exactly the same thing he’s criticizing others for doing. The next time a cop kills an unarmed black man, should we hold Jack accountable for creating the conditions that made the cop fearful?”
This is the second worst of Mark’s arguments (the worst is yet to come.) In the case of Wilson, he was publicly accused, with nothing but the testimony of Brown’s accomplice in crime and a proven liar, of executing an unarmed man who was in a position of surrender (that was after Darion Johnson abandones his earlier claim that Brown was shot in the back, and that Wilson fired a final shot into him, execution style, as he lay on the ground). When I wrote about Ismaaiyl Brinsley, there was no substantial question that he was the killer, and the evidence of his Instagram message announcing his intent and motivation was online for all to see. And he was already dead. I wasn’t contributing to the conviction by rumor of a man who hadn’t been yet shown to be guilty of anything, and would have to live with the results
“This is not the first time Jack has criticized activists for claiming there was racial bias in the Michael Brown shooting when “there is no evidence of this at all.” Technically speaking, Jack is plain wrong. As Jack more-or-less admits, the simple fact that a white police officer shot an unarmed black teenager is evidence of racial bias. It’s not very strong evidence, and it’s subject to interpretation and possible refutation by other evidence and testimony. But it’s still evidence.”
This is Mark’s worst argument, by far. I never “admitted” any such thing. The fact that a white man ends up killing a black man is no evidence of racial bias at all, unless you believe, as the activists do, that whites are inherently racist. Does Holder start civil rights inquiries when a black man kills a white one? No. Never.This idea, which I am frankly shocked that Mark or anyone but the most virulent anti-white racist would endorse, assumes that prima facie racism exists because a white individual is, justly or not, inflicting harm on a black one. Does a white judge sentence a black prisoner harshly? Racism. Does a white superior reprimand a black subordinate? Presumptive racism. Does a black candidate for a job fail to get hired by a white interviewer? Must be racism. A white cop gives a black driver a speeding ticket. Well, look at their colors, man! Racism! Is a white blogger convinced that a black President is a catastrophic, epic, tragic failure? Isn’t that racism? I’m told it is, almost every day.
You can, and should, examine the whole of Mark’s post. It fails because it adopts the straw man that the issue is merely police abuse, rather than police racism that culminates in the murder of blacks, as part of a larger racist culture. It fails because it continues to rationalize the “hands up” narrative, because it conveniently ignores the Trayvon Martin references—which have nothing to do with police–in the rhetoric of pundits and activists. It fails because it can’t explain, if the issue isn’t race, why white victims of excessive police force aren’t part of the discussion. Most all, it fails because the underlying belief that the simple fact of a white individual taking action that results in negative consequences for an African-American is evidence of racism is racism itself.