In a different context, on Sunday night John Oliver (here at 1:15) quoted his wise, albeit probably mythical, barber as remarking "we can't change history, we can only prevent it from happening again."
Unfortunately, MSNBC will heed the first point and ignore the second. Breitbart reports that on Saturday morning
“Bill Maher, you do not get to tell people of color what they should or should not be offended by. Stay in your lane, slim,” (Tiffany) Cross stated. “Maybe instead of trying to invoke sympathy for Sharon Osbourne or making sure Tomi Lahren has a space to souse her BS, you should have more diverse panels of people who can explain colorism to you and systemic racism and how these things still devastate people’s lives and livelihoods today. Try that instead of standing on your alabaster perch every week to crap on other people’s lived experience while providing a safe haven for well-established white supremacists because I’ve got to tell you — this old angry white man act is so played.”
“The country, like it or not, is changing in real-time. And sadly, ‘Fake Time with Bill Maher’ is not,” she added.
Give Tiffany Cross, host of "Cross Connection" on MSNBC, a point for the clever renaming of "Real Time with Bill Maher." Take ten away from her for racial bias, and not of the subtle variety.
Maher certainly could book African-Americans on his show, albeit not immediately because it is on hiatus for five weeks. It might blunt the invective from Cross and cronies if it were black faces explaining why she is plainly wrong. He could, for example, interview Adolph Reed or John McWhorter. (Oh wait, he has.)
It's unlikely, though, that they'll even know what "colorism" is. It sounds like the individual is validated by the color of her skin, but it probably means whatever Cross wants it to mean at whatever time. Bigots are like that.
Similarly, the reference to "a safe haven for well-established white supremacists" is odd- nay, ignorant- because Real Time is consistently bereft of white supremacists. Maher clearly prefers the company of moderates and liberals, all the more so to emphasize that there are people on the left dedicated to democratic values and opposed to bigotry of the right or left.
It shouldn't be necessary to tell anyone not on the far right that credibility should not be measured by color of the skin heredity has assigned. Alas, "stay in your lane" Cross needs to be told.
Cross intends some issues to be off-limits to whites. By the same principle, comment on others could be reserved for whites. This would include the stock market, given that whites are more invested in the stock market than are blacks. This framework would be bad for open debate and democracy itself but would create a bear market for apartheid. It's unlikely that would deter cross.
Perhaps one of Cross' colleagues on MSNBC can remind her that viewers include individuals who are white, old, and male. Stereotyping such a person as an "old, angry, white male" strikes a discordant note on the airwaves of a cable news network continually asserting its commitment to diversity. Nevertheless, this probably is of no concern to MSNBC, which clearly is trending toward women, blacks and Latinos, and gays.
Given the increasing polarization of politics on the basis of ethnicity (and education), this is probably wise marketing. Still, a legitimate cable news network should not be unaware of bigotry in its own ranks.
A consistent application of cancel culture would prompt the firing of Cross. However, that is a toxic culture, one with which the host appears to be too comfortable. Nonetheless, a network appalled by racial bias on the left must not (though it will) let this moment pass unnoticed. Consistent with the values it claims to espouse, MSNBC could issue a statement with a reference, merely vague if necessary, to the comment of Saturday morning and add
We decry bigotry in all its forms, especially in a month in which our organization has celebrated the diversity represented by individuals given the opportunity to love and marry anyone of their choice. We welcome their voices and voices of all Americans, and those who have come to our shores seeking to be Americans, whatever their religion, gender, or national origin.
That would the values of MSNBC claims, or once claimed, for itself. The network's silence will indicate that the second part of the recommended statement is no longer operable.
Friday night's Real Time with Bill Maher included a lively
discussion between the proudly politically incorrect Maher and Max Brooks,
senior resident fellow at the Atlantic Council and nonresident fellow at the
Modern War Institute at West Point. (A second guest also participated.) The
two were apparently very much in agreement, in which "apparently"
does a lot of work.
At 22:30 Brooks, with a notable reference to "the
extreme wokesters on our side," stated "And this should be a lesson to the extreme wokesters on our
side who want to do waway with prisons-right- because what do you give
Chauvin- art therapy?"
Then Maher, at 22:56 maintained
Look, people throw around the term "systemic
racism" a lot nowadays for everythiing. But the criminal justice system
has been full of racism and it has been systemic. I mean, that's the epicenter
of the problem.
No, no, it's not. That's the epicenter of the controversy,
not of the problem. Systemic racism is only one of many problems in the
criminal justice system, though it is the one upon which 98% of the attention
is focused. However, don't blame Brooks, while seemingly agreeing with Maher,
later (at 25:59) noted
We can admit now that the Democratic Party has a department
of self-sabotage. They meet at Oberlin over a cup of Kombucha and white guilit
and they think how are we lose Florida on a Jewish communist named Bernie
Sanders who's anti-Israel but pro-Fidel Castro.
Unbeknownst to Maher and possibly even to Brooks, the
relevant word in that otherwise demagogic remark is, accurately, "department." By contrast, beginning at 24:03,
Maher had maintained
.... you know, I mean the people (who) want to abolish the police- these must
be fans of the Purge movie series, right, because you're not going to like it
and I see that the Democrats have finally caught on to this idea because you're
not going to like it that because crime is going to be the big issue in that
because it's way up and I see Biden now was saying "Defund the police? I
said refund"- refund, he's literally doing that old bit. Refund the police
because you don't want to be on a place on this issue where you look lie a
johnny come lately. I'm talking about all the Democrats and people don't trust
you on this issue- oh now, they get the message, now they're coming over to
crime is an important issue.....
The Democrats (and) I'm talking about all
the Democrats. Yet, Democratic politicians, officials, and strategists, notwithstanding their praise of the George Floyd protests, that "defund the
police" is a polically damanging slogan and generally avoided the
phrase. When it has been invoked, it has been to explain, honestly or
dishonestly (I've maintained the latter), that it refers to transferring some
of the enormous sums spent on police departments to social services in order to
address the severe needs of the public, especially of black communities.
Moreover, a quick Google search I made turned up one
national Democratic politiican who has called for elimination of police. Similarly,
once Maher ended at 25:03, Brooks remarked
And this is the onus is on us because we're in powr now so
it's put up or shut up so when someone like Rashida Tlaib tweets out no more
police and mo more incarceration, right? The system is unreformable, okay,
well, ththen, come up with an alternative aidea and try it out in your district
and give us a working model or shut up before you lose us another election.
Tlaib, yes, but as Maher is unaware, it's practicallyonly
Tlaib. Two weeks after Floyd's murder, one Democrat tweeted "The 'defund the police' movement, is one of reimagining the current
police system to build an entity that does not violate us, while relocating
funds to invest in community services."
That was Representative Ilhan Omar, with Tlaib one of the original four
members of "The Squad," and considered (aside from Tlaib) the most
radical. And she was defining, or redefining, "defund the police" as
relocating funds to community services. Even Omar recognized the toxicity of
the expression, and recognized it almost immediately. It was largely a rallying
cry, and one in a moment of time.
Unknown is the genesis of Maher's determination to
stereotype Democrats as initially calling for defunding police, or wanting to
strip them of funds, or to exhibit a disinterest in crime.
But we can speculate, and so I will. Week after week, Maher hits on the same
themes, among them political correctness, cancel
culture, or "wokeness," which are not synonymous yet obviously
intertwined. And week after week,
published, liked and retweeted are tweets which imply that he is racist, call him racist, or even demand that he be vanished from the media.
Maher is no idiot and realizes that far too few moderates or
even conservatives watch his show for it to remain on air. He depends on
viewership of the left and if he continues to antagonize the race left, he is
vulnerable not only to declining viewer numbers but also to a boycott, of his show and/or his stand-up tours.
He probably realizes (as I've emphasized) what happened in
national politics, and especially the Democratic Party, in 2020. Supporters of an octogenarian, ideologically out-of-step with his party and saddled with a history
of failing miserably in Democratic primary contests, stayed alive only by winning the primary in South Carolina. He did so only by gaining the endorsement of James Clyburn, and rallying to his side African-Americans, the voters who matter in South Carolina primaries.
And almost automatically, the endorsements came rolling in
and white primary voters in state after state decided that Joe Biden, after
decades of lulling Democrats to sleep, was the man.
George Floyd was brutally murdered by a white police officer
and Black Lives Matter, which popularity had been limited to supporters of
eradicating either the police or the nuclear family, quickly became leaders of
the black lives matter movement and darlings of CNN and MSNBC. While hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of
whites flocked to the streets, there never was a doubt that the movement
was of Black Lives Matter and led by African-Americans determined to end police brutality
against their commmunity.
Make no mistake about it: Maher does not say "I mean,
that's the epicenter of the problem" lightly. The brutality, he suggests
inaccurately, is applied exclusively to the black community. Crime is
exploding, he claims, without noting that the increase has been occurring
disproportionately in the black community and cannot primarily be attributed to police reform. Nonetheless, he argues, it has been ignored by (nameless) "Democrats."
Most white and black police reform activists may be
registered Democrats but Democratic politicians are, with very few exceptions,
not among individuals demanding police be defunded. Moreover, the white
activists are motivated by the injustice toward the black community and inspired primarily by the black lives movement and secondarily by Black Lives Matter.
The other guest, author Dave Carlin, remarked "defund the police is the worst marketing political slogan I've ever heard. I heard somebody else say 'why can't you just say 'improve policing'? The answer must not be uttered in polite company. The protests were held in the name of "black lives matter" and promoted most notably by BLM, whose website at the time demanded defunding of the police.
Black Lives Matter, though, cannot be held responsible, whether by Democratic partisans or by Bill Maher,who has been denounced repeatedly (unjustifiably) for being racially biased. Thus, ubiquitous "Democrats" are slammed for allegedly propagating "defund the police," whether by Republicans angling for strategic advanage or an otherewise politically incorrect talks how host whose wings have been clipped.
If you were this stupid (or naive or dishonest) you, too, could make $1 million to $1.5 million annually hosting a show on MSNBC (maybe).
Watching this sentencing, and struck yet again by the defiance in Derek Chauvin’s demeanor; the utterly cold look on his face — the same way he looked as he knelt on George Floyd’s neck for 9 and a half minutes. It’s chilling to the bones.
— Joy-Ann (Pro-Democracy) Reid 😷 (@JoyAnnReid) June 25, 2021
"Defiance" can be defined as "bold resistance against an
opposing force or authority" or, as is more applicable to this case,
"contemptuous disrespect for the authority of another." That is utterly contrary to the "cold
look" Reid also observed on Chauvin as today's sentencing hearing took
place.
"Utterly cold look" is a realistic judgement. However, Chauvin displayed no defiance as he
took on a stoic demeanor.
Perhaps Reid understood that she was contradicting herself
and merely Reid wanted to condemn the defendant as much as possible by slamming
him for both being defiant and utterly cold.
The intellectually dishonest remark would be self-satisfying.
This, though, suggests either either extreme naivete about
the justice system or an interest in justice which is highly selective:
If Chauvin gets less or even equal to that, it will prove that we just don’t ever have equal justice under law in this country.
— Joy-Ann (Pro-Democracy) Reid 😷 (@JoyAnnReid) June 25, 2021
Fortunately, Chauvin received a sentence greater than
12-and-a-half years. He is expected to serve 15 years because he was sentenced
to 22 and-a-half years. Though a
relatively light sentence, it is greater than the other by 30 months.
If Chauvin gets less or even equal to that, it will prove
that we just don't ever have equal justice under law in this country. Derek
Chauvin received a longer sentence than Mohamed Noor, and we nevertheless live
in a nation without equal justice under law. Reid must be living in another
world, or at least another country, than we are.
Some of us recognized injustice before the brutal murder of
George Floyd. During the protests which followed, most other people learned of
racial disparities in policing; of the unwillingess to prosecute, or inability
of convicting, police accused of illegal behavior; and of harsh punsihment of
blacks for minor violations of law.
It all added up to unequal justice of law in this country.
However, her own words indicate that Joy Ann-Reid was blithely unaware that we
lack equal justice and, with the sentence handed down to George Chauvin, now
should be expected to argue that equal justice is the norm.
Instead Reid, despite believing equal justice is the norm,
may instead complain that Chauvin's sentence was insufficient and indicative of
a lack of justice. If so, she should be called upon to explain her journey from
faith in the system to outrage at the permissive sentence handed down upon
George Chauvin.
Meghan McCain makes a few easily rebuttable claims in this excerpt about abortion in one of the
episodes of The View. At the outset, she maintains
.... spiritual journey and relationship with God in their
church is their own personal journey and I don't try to proselytize my
spirituality on other people but if you are a devout Catholic as Presidenty
Biden claims to be, abortion is a cardinal sin that can do deep spiritual harm
to you."
Meghan McCain: “Abortion is murder.”
Also Meghan McCain: “The AR-15 is by far the most popular gun in America. I’m not living without guns …if you’re talking about taking people’s guns, there’s going to be a lot of violence." https://t.co/XgdL08n7Kr
I don't try to proselytize my spirituality on other people. Translated into English, that may mean "I don't impose my religious beliefs onto others,"
after which McCain does precisely that. She asserts "abortion is a cardinal sin that can do
deep spiritual harm to you." Uh, no. According to Wikipedia
The seven deadly sins, also known as the capital vices, or
cardinal sins, is a grouping and classification of vices within Christian
teachings, although they are not mentioned in the Bible. Behaviours or habits
are classified under this category if they directly give rise to other
immoralities. According to the standard list, they are pride, greed, wrath,
envy, lust, gluttony and sloth, which are contrary to the seven heavenly
virtues.
These are not "deadly" sins and do not cause one
to drop dead. Rather, they are traits or emotions, along with innumerable
others worthy of avoiding. None is characterized in Scripture as a "cardinal sin" nor is anything there labeled a "deadly sin." Instead, "we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God," which suggests a wider range of sin, without a specific claim of "spiritual harm," whose definition is elusive.
In her sloppy and rambling way, McCain may be inferring that commission of a "cardinal sin" blocks admission to heaven. Given the universal inability to avoid all sin, that would enable none of us to be saved. rendering irrelevant the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. And without the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice as outlined in the Bible, it is unclear where McCain derives a Christian concept of God at all.The concept of seven sins as a unit is not a divine construct but a creation of human beings.
These sins also have nothing to do with abortion, whether of the intentional or the spontaneous sort. Ironically, Ms. McCain has herself had an
abortion, known alternately as "spontaneous abortion" or "miscarriage," That was reportedly a traumatic event for
McCain, memory of which should have prompted her to clarify what abortion, which is mentioned
in the Bible exactly zero (0) times, God has expressly forbidden.
But that is Meghan McCain's choice- which is what this is all about.
Steve Richetti, the patriarch of the clan, has long been a confidante of Biden and is now a White House counselor. Sons T.J. and Daniel and daughter Shannon all have been given jobs in the Administration. Good work if you can get it.
All these privileged mofos mad with President Biden because he didn't hire them, cough, Krystal Ball, Walter Shaub. Yet pretending it's his policies & literally trashing him for personal reasons nobody really cares about.
Her self-description suggests that she is no Trump
supporter- but may as well be. Aside from the (inaccurate) personalized cheap
shot toward Ball and Shaub, she chose not
to criticize anything in particular Shaub has stated. Instead, she was exorcised because ethics are things "nobody really cares about."
There is much that is significant which fails to arouse more than a passing interest of the public. Four-and-a-half years ago, a tape surfaced in which
presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, an underdog to Hillary Clinton, bragged
about assaulting women. Fortunes reversed, he won the election, in part because
nobody really cared that that a presidential candidate believed women exist for
his sexual pleasure. Trump proved that was something "nobody really
cares about," aside from individuals who already found him distasteful, of whom there obviously was an insufficient number.
Fortunately, there are individuals who recognize that
criticizing the ethics of the Trump Administration does not relinquish one from
the responsibility of objectively considering the current Administration's
ethics.
Biden has a choice to make:
Reflexively defend every executive branch power grab that came before him, continuing the trend.
OR
Support efforts to reign in those executive powers and strengthen accountability mechanisms to help protect our democracy for generations. https://t.co/PyumKfotVL
It's insufficient not to mimic the most corrupt
President in American history. President Biden needs to establish a more ethical regime than he appears to be doing, and for his supporters to demand nothing less.
Share
|
On June 8, 2021, I wrotelthat Eric Adams, former NYPD
captain and current Brooklyn Borough President and leading candidate for the
Democratic nomination for mayor of New York City, understood one important
issue better than did any other candidate.
"Stop and frisk," Adams explained, was originally
implemented to remove illegal firearms from the streets of New York, but went
awry when police used it increasingly to arrest individuals for illegal
possession of drugs, which usually was marijuana.
The GOP likes firearms in as many hands as possible. The Democratic Party lives in the fear that it will have to admit that much crime is not mass shootings committed by mentally ill or bigoted whites but ordinary street crime committed by whites, blacks, and all manner of bad individuals. Therefore, a Democrat or a Republican prioritizing confiscation of illegal
handguns is all to rare, and worthy of consideration for the most difficult
governmental job in the nation. Usually.
Some say the presidency is the most hardest job. However,
Donald Trump somehow served four years as President (Ronald Reagan eight
years). And speaking of the Chosen One:
During an Easter Sunday visit to the Church of God of East
Flatbush, Mr. Adams cited a biblical passage that describes a test of courage
under duress.
“I believe in all my heart that this is an Esther 4:14
moment,” Mr. Adams, 60, told the parishioners. “God made me for such a time as
this.”
Imagine questioning a policy or statement of a Mayor Adams,
and being accused of criticizing God. By contrast, two
of the other candidates, Andrew Yang and Kathryn Garcia, in what has shaped up
as a four-person race
joined forces this weekend to urge voters to list Ms. Garcia
second on their ranked-choice ballots and to say that Mr. Adams should not be
mayor. Ms. Garcia did not suggest that her supporters rank Mr. Yang second.
Mr. Adams and some of his supporters have characterized the
alliance as a bid to disenfranchise Black voters. On Sunday, Mr. Adams said
that it was disrespectful for the candidates to unveil their alliance on
Juneteenth.
“While we were celebrating liberation and freedom from
enslavement, they sent a message and I thought it was the wrong message to
send,” Mr. Adams said Sunday.
Speaking on CNN’s “New Day” and Fox 5’s “Good Day New York,”
Mr. Adams continued to talk about the joint campaigning as disrespectful to
efforts to elect Black and Latino leaders.
“What message were you sending during this time that we’re
talking about how do you empower various ethnic groups in politics?” Mr. Adams
asked on CNN.
Another Black candidate for mayor, Maya Wiley, said she did
not see any problem with the alliance between Mr. Yang and Ms. Garcia,
acknowledging that such coordination often happens in ranked-choice elections.
On Fox, Mr. Adams argued that the alliance “feeds into the
signals of America.”
“We know America’s dark past,” he said. “Everything from
poll taxes to how we stop the vote, what we are seeing across the country.”
However, another black primary candidate, Maya Wiley
said she did not see any problem with the alliance between
Mr. Yang and Ms. Garcia, acknowledging that such coordination often happens in
ranked-choice elections. “I’m not calling this racism,” she said Monday
morning.
Wiley's statement was classy. The quasi-coalition between
Garcia and Yang also is classy, at least on the part of Yang, who evidently
expressed a generosity of spirit uncommon in politicians. Then there is Adams,
who is little more than an egomaniacal, race-baiting bigot.
NYC mayoral candidates Kathryn Garcia and Andrew Yang campaigning together on Juneteenth "sent the wrong signal ... and that is how many of the African American, Hispanic candidates felt after they saw it," mayoral candidate Eric Adams says.https://t.co/CT3kogacAtpic.twitter.com/Wsr3NLuKsR
Here we go again. In April, I quoted a newscaster in
Buffalo, NY who had reported
Tonight 75-year-od Martin Gugino has now filed a civil
lawsuit against the city, the mayor, and the two officers caught on video
shoving him to the ground during a protest on the steps of city hall. Gugino's
story and this video you see here made international headlines last June.
About 50 officers assigned to the Portland police
department's crowd control team resigned one day after one of the team's
officers was indicted for allegedly using his department-issued baton to
assault a protester last summer.
The wholesale resignation of the police department's Rapid
Response Team (RRT) took place after a Multnomah County grand jury handed down
an indictment Wednesday charging Officer Corey Budworth with fourth-degree
battery. All the officers who resigned their positions on the team returned to
their regular assignments.
Budworth is accused of shoving photographer Teri Jacobs to
the ground and using a baton to strike her during a protest last August -- an
incident that was caught on video and posted to social media....
Jacobs filed a lawsuit against the city that contains
screen-captured images from a Twitter user named "John the Lefty,"
and the video that person posted to Twitter shows an officer pushing Jacobs
with his baton, first while she's standing and then again while she's sitting
on the ground.
Budworth isn't named in the lawsuit, which alleges two
officers assaulted Jacobs: a John Doe 1 who "swung his (baton) like a
baseball bat" and an Officer 37 who pushed Jacobs with his baton, first
while standing and again once she was on the ground. A law enforcement source
said Budworth is the officer who is identified as "officer 37" in the
video, which was posted to Twitter and later cited in Jacobs' lawsuit.
"In this case, we allege that no legal justification
existed for Officer Budworth's deployment of force, and that the deployment of
force was legally excessive under the circumstances," Schmidt said.
The similarity between the Jacobs incident and the Gugino
incident is not only- as with pregnant Nicole Harper of Arkansas- that the
victims are white. Although Gugino allegedly had violated a curfew, there is
another similarity.
Jacobs and Gugino weren't assaulted because they presented a
risk to the health and safety of individual citizens, police, or the community.
They were attacked because they presented no danger or menace.
Police knew instinctively that if the person were part of a
large group, there would have been retaliation. Members of the group would have
turned against the police or against buildings in the immediate area. Instead, each was a defenseless individual, hence vulnerable. They were easy
targets.
In sports and elsewhere, it's sometimes referred to as
low-hanging fruit. It was easy- no mess,
no fuss; officer 1, civilian 0. There will be sporadic criticism- in Portland's
case, from a black member of the City Commission. However, if the victim happily turns
out to be white, there will likely be no mass protests nor a peep from any
organization a politician is beholden to.
Portland Police Chief Chis Davis, presumably fearful of
further tumult in his department, stated
Our entire organization, and not even just our sworn staff
but also our professional staff in the last 14 months has been put through
something, none of us have ever seen in our careers and at a level, and an
intensity that I don't think any other city in the United States has
experienced.
Nearly rationalizing the brutal action of a professional
under his command on the basis of generalized, ongoing stress, Davis would have
been derided if there had been several victims, even if they were participating
in illegal activities thretening the community.
Instead, Jacobs was surrounded by few if any supporters, was
in no position to respond to her attackers, and thus there was relatively
little immediate or continuing backlash. Indictment of one police officer is
inconsequential compared to what might have ensued if present were more
individuals, especially ones who could have retaliated.
But as with Gugino and Nicole Harper, there were not. There
was little to spark outrage on traditional or social media. Teri Jacobs, Martin
Gugino, and Nicole Harper, like George Floyd, were alone. Moreover, there were
few witnesses. They drew the short straw.
