race-baiting

Ethics Heroes: Doug Wilder and Artur Davis

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

 

Like everyone else, Doug Wilder knows what ““they’re going to put y’all back in chains” meant. Unlike most Democrats, he has the integrity to admit it.

Democratic flacks and media mouthpieces for the Obama campaign have thoroughly disgraced themselves and insulted the intelligence of the American public by twisting words and logic to argue that Joe Biden’s “put y’all back in chains” rhetoric was something other than the divisive race-baiting it was. Eventually, in such episodes of lock-step partisan dissembling, there are a noble and courageous few who refuse to go along, and black leaders Artur Davis, a co-chair of President Obama’s 2008 campaign, and Doug Wilder, the first African-American governor (of Virginia, where Biden made his comments) have stepped to the fore. Continue reading →

Joe Biden’s Ethics Catch-22

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

OK, we get it: he’s an idiot. But why is he Vice-President?

Speaking to a large crowd in Virginia estimated to be about 40% African-American, Vice-President Joe Biden proclaimed that “Romney wants to, he said in the first 100 days, he’s gonna let the big banks again write their own rules — unchain Wall Street. They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”

Telling an audience of blacks that the other Presidential candidate and his party plans to put them back in chains is unequivocally dirty campaigning, race-baiting, divisive, and uncivil, the precise kind of campaigning that Barack Obama swore that he would deliver us from in 2008. Now the Obama campaign, as well as his Administration, has embraced divisiveness as a primary strategy, and outrageous scaremongering with a racial bite is also consistent with the current principle-free attack mode by the Democrats, which has included accusing Mitt Romney of being a felon, a tax-evader and a murderer.

Yet the media line on the Biden speech is that “Republicans” have screamed foul. A Vice-President of the United States, running for re-election with an African-American President, telling black Americans that the opposition plans to put them back in chains? Why are just Republicans screaming foul? Why isn’t every decent Democrat, progressive, reporter, pundit and member of the public screaming foul? Is this really what they all consider appropriate, honest, respectful and civil campaigning for the highest offices in the land, by one of the occupants of those offices? Continue reading →

Quest for Fairness: What Will It Take For America To Treat Blacks Like Regular Human Beings?

/ Jack Marshall / 36 Comments

“Look, a monkey! Must be racist.”

Two recent incidents at the London Olympics—really, really stupid incidents—-caused me to wonder anew what it must be like to be black in this country, and to despair. I’m not referring to discrimination, exactly.  I think a better term would be  “unhealthy obsession.” To be black in America is to be automatically a subject of controversy and conflict, and I assume this is a crushing, almost irreducible burden that makes daily life, happiness and sanity infinitely more difficult for African-Americans than for any other  group. It appears that the culture, the media, the public, interest groups and government just won’t ever leave them alone to just live.

Here is U.S.tennis star Serena Williams, and she has just won a Gold Medal in singles tennis. Williams, whose passion and effervescence is almost as attractive as her athleticism, does a little happy dance. Not too much of one—nobody could accuse her of preening or taunting like NFL players after a touchdown. And yet she is criticized anyway, by Fox Sports among others, because what looked like just a happy dance to me was really a version of the “Crip Walk,” a hip-hop move adopted by the notorious L.A. street gang, the Crips, about 40 years ago. Since Serena is black, some saw this as a poorly-timed reference to drug-dealing killers, or even glorification of gang culture. Three seconds of a little jig, and suddenly the Olympics is the site of a race incident—and this is an ethics alarm that should never have gone off.

Or should it? The “Crip Walk” is considered so provocative in some neighborhoods that schools have banned it. From that perspective, maybe critics have a point; it might have been irresponsible for an African-American athlete from L.A. to do the move.  Williams—I love you, Serena!—brushed off the controversy by saying, simply, “I don’t care.” Still, a pure moment of an athlete’s joy in victory was marred, because the victor happened to be black. Continue reading →

Dear Pundits: Stop Telling Your Audience Something Is “Unprecedented” When You Are Ignorant of What The Precedents Are!

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Phooey. James Taranto beat me to this one.

Sing it, Sam. Join in at any point, Juilan: “Don’t know much about history…”

When I read that a reporter had interrupted President Obama today as he was announcing his illegal immigration amnesty program for young illegals, and saw that an MSNBC guest had made the fatuous suggestion that a white President would never be treated so disrespectfully, I immediately thought, “What? Have these people never heard of Dan Rather’s heckling of Nixon?”

Taranto wondered the same thing, and printed this, from David Schoenbrun’s 1989 book,”On and Off the Air: An Informal History of CBS News,”  in his blog:

“When Dan Rather, the White House correspondent, arose to question [President Nixon], boos and cheers rang through the hall. The boos came from Nixon acolytes spread through the room, the cheers from fellow correspondents expressing their support for Dan. As the noise erupted, Nixon, on the stage, looked down at Rather and asked with heavy sarcasm, ‘Are you running for something?’ Dan, always impulsive, snapped right back, ‘No, sir, are you?’ More boos, more cheers! Not the most dignified scene at a presidential news conference. Dan was in trouble. It is one thing, perfectly legitimate, to challenge a president with tough questions. It is something quite different for a reporter to engage in a sassing contest with the nation’s chief executive, no matter how obnoxious and wrong the president may be.”

Since Democratic strategist Julian Epstein is ignorant of history, however, and also committed to the desperate and insulting Democratic strategy of ascribing any criticism of this most foundering of Presidents to nascent racism, he embarrassed himself with this silly rant: Continue reading →

Racism, the Media, and Reverend Wright Distortions

/ Jack Marshall / 25 Comments

He’s b-a-a-a-a-a-c-k! (Sort of….)

This has been happening to me a lot lately. I see a political story with ethical implications, and decide to pass. I think, “Nah, this is another ‘the news media is in the tank for Obama story”—it’s pretty obvious; I don’t need to go there.” Then the story starts to churn, the news media, left and right, distorts it thoroughly through spin and stupidity, and pretty soon I can’t stand it any more.

The controversy over a proposed, and rejected, Super-Pac ad blitz focusing on the President’s controversial relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright—demagogue, radical, racist—began when a leaked copy of a proposal prepared for conservative billionaire Joe Ricketts was leaked to the New York Times. The Times’ decision to put the proposal on its front page was sadly typical, and irresponsible. We don’t what wacky proposals circulate in the back rooms of both parties and their allies, and I don’t see why we would want to know, unless, as in this case, the objective was to suggest a series of things that aren’t true. Prime among them was that the Romney campaign was preparing to mount a full-bore attack on the President’s character. Nothing has suggested that, except the Times, whose story forced the presumed GOP nominee to apologize for a mode of attack 1) he had nothing to do with and 2) had never been approved anyway.

This was unfair, slanted and biased conduct by the Times, and the point at which I decided, “Oh, heck, we’ll be seeing the Times and the Washington Post, not to mention the broadcast media, pulling this until November. People either will recognize it for the partisan bias  it is, or they won’t.”

Then came Carol Costello on a typical morning for CNN, when she or the regular morning host Soledad O’Brien spend every AM sneering at Republicans and looking at the camera all dewy-eyed whenever President Obama’s name comes up. Costello, who I have concluded sets my teeth on edge even worse than the smug O’Brien, began her day with this: “Today’s question: Will racial politics work in 2012?” Continue reading →

Ethically Confounding Quote of the Year (Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Ethics Train Wreck Division): The Washington Post

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

“It is unclear how the new documents might bolster or undermine the state’s case against Zimmerman, who has a Peruvian mother and a white father.”

—-The Washington Post, reporting on the release of evidence and testimony in the Trayvon Martin shooting.

Other sentences that would have been just as reasonable and appropriate:

  • “It is unclear how the new documents might bolster or undermine the state’s case against Zimmerman, who is a big hockey fan and hates cheese.”
  • “It is unclear how the new documents might bolster or undermine the state’s case against Zimmerman, who really liked his second grade teacher, Miss Felton.”
  • “It is unclear how the new documents might bolster or undermine the state’s case against Zimmerman, who can do this really gross trick with his tongue.” Continue reading →

Unethical Quote of the Week: Georgetown Professor Michael Eric Dyson

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

 “Look all of this othering of Obama, like he’s from some other planet. Everything he does is subject to a different lens and seen through a microscope that really tends to pick him apart. I think it’s indivisible from the broader issue of his race, of his being a black man with a certain kind of authority. These are impolite things we don’t want to talk about. We think that they’re being extraordinary ratcheted up. But I don’t see any other way to explain it but a remarkable resistance to the integrity of this man that has no other explanation”

—-Prof. Michael Eric Dyson, discussing criticism of President Obama’s comments on the Supreme Court during Sunday’s edition of ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” 

Prof. Dyson

When we look at why it is that there is a vast divide between black and white Americans regarding such incidents as the Trayvon Martin tragedy, the irresponsible comments of supposedly respectable commentators like Dyson must be given due weight. How all previous presidents must envy President Obama, whose defenders have a ready and versatile, if disgraceful, defense for any misstep, error, mistake, misstatement or policy that goes awry: it’s just racism.  What a wonderful tool to deflect criticism! Of course, it is ethically indefensible and contributes to racial divisions in the nation and society, which President Obama supposedly sought to heal, but polls must be telling the Democrats, and their flacks in the media, that it is effective.

Prof. Dyson is a scholar at a major university, and his race-baiting to discourage open and fair political discourse is thus more despicable and harmful than that of celebrities like Morgan Freeman and professional race-card dealers like Representatives Sheila Jackson Lee and Maxine Waters. Astoundingly, his outburst occurred during a discussion of President Obama’s almost universally derided and shockingly inaccurate comments about the possibility that a majority of the Supreme Court would find Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional. The criticism of the President was legitimate, substantive, and richly deserved: if that criticism was based on race, than all criticism of Obama is motivated by race. That, of course, is exactly the message that Prof. Dyson wants to deliver.

Ethics Dunce: Greta Van Susteren

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Newt: ” Honey, I’m divorcing you to marry the woman I’ve been cheating on you with for the last 6 years.” Marianne: “Fine. Just wait til you run for President. I’ll be ready.”

Newt Gingrich’s second (of three) wife, Marianne Gingrich, has said in the past that she had it within her power to  end her ex-husband’s career with a single interview. This is not as remarkable as it sounds; just consider how many political spouses past and present have or had that power regarding their own power partners. Let’s see: Eleanor Roosevelt…Jackie Kennedy…Coretta Scott King…Lady Bird Johnson….Pat Nixon…Hillery Clinton, of course…Bill Clinton…Laura Bush…Tipper Gore. That’s just for starters. I have no doubt that Marianne Gingrich might be able to tell tales that would make any of these women feel fortunate by comparison, but on the other hand, what could she say that would be a surprise? Anyone who doesn’t know by now that Newt is about as miserable an excuse for a human being as one can be and avoid being shot or imprisoned hasn’t been paying attention.

This is the problem, however. People don’t pay attention, and have the memories of Eric Holder under Congressional questioning about Fast and Furious. After Gingrich’s deft response to Juan Williams’ accusatory race-baiting question at the last South Carolina debate sparked a standing ovation, you would have thought that he was the new star on the scene to hear callers on conservative talk-radio rave.* Yes, yes, Gingrich is smart and articulate. So were Richard Nixon, Tom DeLay, Huey Long and Joe McCarthy. So were Professor Moriarty and Goldfinger. We know Newt is smart; we also should know other things about him by now, like the fact that he’s an untrustworthy narcissist and a cur.

Apparently Marianne Gingrich has decided to do America a favor and to remind amnesiac Republicans once and for all who they were cheering this week. She has taped a two-hour spill-the-dirt interview with ABC News. The Gingrich camp is in a panic, and supposedly there is an ethics debate at ABC about whether the interview should air before the critical South Carolina primary, possibly Newt’s last chance to stop the Mitt Romney juggernaut, or after. Fox host and legal analyst Greta Van Susteren comes down on the side of holding the interview in the can until Monday. On her blog, she writes: Continue reading →

Mitt’s Gift

/ Jack Marshall / 30 Comments

South Carolinian Ruth Williams says she was praying for divine guidance as to how she would pay a late electric bill when she found herself in the crowd around the Mitt Romney campaign bus. When she told the Republican presidential front-runner about her plight, he reached into his wallet and handed Ruth around $50 to help her keep her power on.

That bastard!

He only did it for the publicity, of course. (Though there were no cameras present.) Or he did it to show he was better than her. Romney gave her the money because he’s such a rich SOB that it was throwing crumbs to a peasant. Yesterday on CNN, a Democratic operative cited the incident as proof of how out of touch Romney is with the needs and feelings of regular Americans. After all, she said, he just carries all this cash around with him—it was like his betting Rick Perry that $10,000. (Williams says Romney emptied his wallet and gave him everything he had. Wow…the tycoon carries 50 bucks around.)

Over on MSNBC, where every act by a Republican is evil personified,  guest Joy-Ann Reid, a blogger for theGrio.com, was furious; she said that the hand-out proves Romney is a racist. Continue reading →

Recent Race Card Rankings: Trying Out The Knight Scale

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

I can see Michael Moore from here!

Ethics Alarms recently proposed the Knight Scale, a way to rank attempts to play the race card or otherwise accuse politicians, satirists, writers, pundits and others of racism in order to silence them, ruin their credibility, or score cheap political points in the media. The Knight Scale was made possible by blogger Christopher Knight, who somehow managed to find a cartoonist’s substitution of Michelle Obama for Marie Antoinette ( as a commentary on the First Lady’s ill-timed–some say—taste for lavish parties and social activities) in a famous painting. Despite the fact that the French queen was not, to my knowledge, black, Knight somehow found this to be blatant racism, thereby establishing the tippity-top of the Knight Scale: you just can’t come up with a more far-fetched, unfair, factually indefensible accusation of racism than that. With that outrageous complaint as a 10, the most outrageous, where would other, necessarily lesser bogus racism claims rank?

Let’s look at last week. From here on, we can count on an ever-increasing number of Knight Scale candidates, since an African-American President  presents such an irresistible temptation for unscrupulous race-baiters, and the entire Obama Administration is seemingly conditioned to cry race bias whenever criticism get hot, so consider this a trial run: Continue reading →