Scott, one of my perennial commentators responded to my criticism of Rush Limbaugh—who argued that if racism was inborn, then liberals should consider it acceptable just like homosexuality, by arguing “Have you ever heard Rush Limbaugh say - many times over the last 20+ years - that he “illustrates absurdity with absurdity?” Did you really make an attempt to catch his point?”
I have heard him say that. So what exactly is the absurdity he’s trying to illustrate?
If his point is that “well, homosexuality isn’t acceptable even if it’s genetic” I’d agree—homosexuality is acceptable regardless of whether it’s genetic or not (I’m fully aware that wouldn’t be the exact point he was trying to make), it was a stupid comparison–not “absurd,” just dumb.
As I noted in my post, racism isn’t even remotely comparable because when acted on, it actually causes harm to other people. Wouldn’t a better comparison be to compare homosexuality to some other innate behaviour that hasn’t, in our history, led to race murders, segregation and lynching?
And it’s not as if liberals have ever held “Well, if it’s innate, then obviously it’s acceptable” on other issues. There are plenty of people who argue (wrongly) that rape is an innate impulse, but I’m not aware of any liberals who think that if it were, that would excuse it.
The Destin Log is the twice-weekly newspaper devoted to covering the crown jewel of the Emerald Coast.
Archive for the 'Racism' Category
A weak defense of Rush Limbaugh
September 21st, 2009, 9:30 am by fshermanRush Limbaugh: Racism should be acceptable.
September 18th, 2009, 1:33 pm by fshermanRush Limbaugh: “If homosexuality being inborn is what makes it acceptable, why does racism being inborn not make racism acceptable?” .. I’m sorry — I mean, this is the way my mind works. But apparently now we don’t choose racism, we just are racists. We are born that way. We don’t choose it. So shouldn’t it be acceptable, excuse — this is according to the way the left thinks about things.”
Well, the way this liberal thinks about things, racism is bad because it led to segregation, lynching, sundown towns, denial of black rights to votes, hysterical screams that illegal Hispanic immigrants are plotting to reconquer the Southwest for Mexico, locking up Middle Eastern men simply for being Middle Eastern … you get the picture.
Homosexuality is not bad because … Well the only negative effect is that anti-gay bigots tend to turn purple and die at the thought gays are being treated as if they’re as good as straight people.
And no, there’s no actual sign that racism is innate.
I’m a firm believer that no matter how dumb the arguments from the right wing, I should respond with logic. But if this is where Limbaugh’s sinking too less than a year into Obama’s term, I doubt I’ll be able to hold to it.
What kind of country do we have where Limbaugh and Beck are considered the leading voices of the right?
OK, not totally invalid then
September 17th, 2009, 1:43 pm by fshermanBrowsing The Daily Howler, I must admit Ron Hart isn’t totally off-base in grumbling about charges of racism being flung at Obama opponents. Not that the president has done it (which was what he said) but a number of pundits have asserted the tea-bagging protests, Joe Wilson’s outburst, etc. are all about race.
Certainly, some of it is: Republicans showed plenty of racism during the campaign, and I doubt it’s all evaporated since. The references to his not being a “natural born citizen” and to his middle name Hussein and such all seem to suggest a campaign that’s either unnerved by Obama being Not One Of Us or to play on the fears of those who do.
On the other hand, a lot of it isn’t: As Bob Somersby at The Howler pointed out, if Hilary Clinton had become president and pushed a similar health-care proposal, we’d still hear shrieks about death panels, just as we spent the Clinton years listening to outraged warnings about Clinton’s string of murders and drug-dealing. Or the long list of accusations about how Al Gore claimed to have discovered Love Canal, invented the Internet and been the protagonist in Love Story (all misquotes) or how Kerry, a decorated war veteran, cheated to get his medals.
So Hart has a point that Obama opponents shouldn’t automatically be accused of racism, though comparing that to the “treason” charges routinely flung around under Bush is still fallacious.
And even when they’re not being racist, the right wing attacks still have more crap than substance.
For a further take on this issue, read here.
Flawed logic
August 24th, 2009, 12:20 pm by fshermanIn Sunday’s paper, Navarre “birther” Norman Caron argues that “It is Rep. Miller’s duty to represent the people!”–which means that if a majority of people think Obama might not be a citizen, therefore it’s Miller’s duty to investigate (Caron bases his claim on a Daily News poll, but the kind of polls they and The Log run are not statistically accurate, by the way).
No. No more than Miller would have to champion flat-eartherism or creationism or a belief that the moonlandings were faked, even if those were in a majority. Because none of them are true. Representing the people does not mean representing every delusion that comes down the pike.
And delusional it is: Caron directs readers to americangrandjury.org, which is promoting Barack Obama’s supposed Kenyan birth certificate, which has already been proven a fraud.
(While I don’t know Caron’s views otherwise, I wonder if he believes that we should investigate the Bush administration for torture and illegal wiretapping because a majority is solidly in support of that, too. But I’d almost bet money Caron isn’t).
As many people have pointed out over the past two centuries, a representative isn’t required to express the exact views of his constitutent: His judgment on what’s best is also involved. And while I disagree with Miller on a lot of things, I give him points for not signing on to this nonsense.
Over in the editorial, the Daily News reports that 46 percent of the people who voted in another poll believe that if Obama is not a US citizen, troops should disregard his orders as commander in chief. My questions:
•Do the respondents mean “If Obama is at some later date legally proven not to be an American citizen, people should ignore his orders” or “They should stop obeying his orders immediately, even though nothing has been proven legally?”
•If the latter, do they believe that if soldiers believed Bush was not legally elected in 2000, they could ignore his orders? If not, why not?
•If anyone else had made that argument during the Bush era, would the “ignore Obama’s orders” crowd have considered it a legitimate argument or treasonous? And if treasonous, shouldn’t the same apply now?
(Of course not. That would require our local extremists to actually have a principle of government beyond Vote Republican).
Of course, that 46 percent could just represent a bunch of really PO’d people who were passionate enough to vote (a common problem with this sort of poll) and given how far to the right our area is, there’s probably a lot of those around. Still it’s a little alarming to have members of the right-wing announcing that the military should ignore the commander-in-chief’s orders.
On diversity
July 28th, 2009, 10:37 am by fshermanWalter Williams, Friday column, on diversity requirements at the US Naval Academy: “Some black students, who were admitted to the academy meritoriously on the same basis as white students, resent the idea of being seen as having the same academic qualities as blacks who were given preferential treatment … (Preferential treatment) runs the risk of creating racist attitudes and possibly feelings of racial superiority among whites and others who formerly were racially neutral.”
Why is it that Williams and the other conservatives so dedicated to meritocracy never complain about all the schools that select based on geography—giving special advantages to in-state students, or to students from areas that rarely apply?
Or legacy admissions, under which a so-so or sub-par student whose parents went to a university gets an advantage over students with better grades and qualifications?
Why is it they never fret about how legacy admissions will leave children of the privileged feeling inadequate or unqualified or that they’ll build class resentment?
Could it be because neither of those adversely affect white people?
An idle thought
July 16th, 2009, 7:54 am by fshermanDaily News letter-writer Richard Sirmons: “Do you wonder why some of our leaders are so lackluster? They are lackluster, yet incumbent, because they pander successfully for votes from the affirmative-action crowd?”
So is Sirmons suggesting that leaders who pander to the votes of white bigots, or religious extremists successfully are spared the curse of being lackluster?
Also: “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supposed to end the double standard but affirmative action has created a double standard of greater magnitude.”
First, let’s be clear, the Civil Rights Act (and the Equal Employment Act of a couple of years later) were written because American minorities and women were massively discriminated against. It’s good to keep in mind that it wasn’t a general longing for racial equality but specific, ugly discrimination.
And affirmative action isn’t even remotely comparable to the discrimination under Jim Crow, let alone of greater magnitude. Heck, if you accept the statement in many career guidebooks about how many jobs are acquired through networking and personal contact, rather than just talent, then affirmative action has much less effect on merit-based success than networking does (and it counts less at some schools than legacy admissions).
It’s different when you’re white
July 14th, 2009, 9:12 am by fshermanSalon blogger Glenn Greenwald points out how different the reactions were when Justice Samuel Alito said in his confirmation hearings that being Italian-American shaped his decisions, as compared to Sotomayor.
Alito: “But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country” . . . .
When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.”
As Greenwald points out, there were no questions raised about whether this constituted a horrible bias. Nor did Alito siding with Italian-American firefighter Frank Ricci in the “white firefighter” case raise any eyebrows.
Creepy stuff
July 14th, 2009, 9:03 am by fshermanA Stars and Stripes article on neo-Nazis and Skinheads in the military.
One more point about Joseph Hunt
June 12th, 2009, 6:13 am by fshermanIt should be kept in mind those Chilean students were in this country legally. So why assume Donnie Baker was acting out a protest against illegal immigrants rather than against Latino immigrants generally? Or simply assumed they were illegal because they were Latinos?
Of course, that would make him a bigot rather than someone motivated by what Hunt thinks is justifiable outrage against illegals.
Memorable quote of the week
June 12th, 2009, 5:56 am by fshermanJohn De Nugent on the Smithsonian shooting: “The responsible white separatist community condemns this. It makes us look bad.”
