Racism from Springboro Tea Party Founder Sparks National Attention

Southwest Ohio, and more specifically Springboro, is making national headlines once again (h/t anill).

It appears as if Sonny Thomas, the founder of the Springboro Tea Party, tweeted this lovely message to his followers recently:

Plunderbund points out that Thomas blamed his tweet on a Bee Gee's song:

“As I am a lifetime music lover of all genres, I always have some sort of song that can fit almost any occasion or situation. Coincidently the song “Spicks and Specks” by the Bee Gees had been on my player. I made the reference to the song not stopping to think of the era that it was produced and taken out of context could be offensive to some people."

Nevermind that the lyrics to this tune refer to the "spicks and specks" of all "the girls on my mind" and is in no way a reference to Latinos. Besides the slur, how about the part where he advocates shooting immigrants? ThinkProgress reports that while the tweet has been taken down, an apology has yet to be issued.

To top it off, the Dayton Daily News is reporting that Thomas has a 6-year-old son who is part Hispanic:

Racist comments, including a slur about Hispanics, posted on the Twitter page of the Springboro Tea Party were particularly hurtful to Alana Turner.

“Illegals everywhere today! So many spics makes me feel like a speck. Grrr. Wheres my gun!?” said the March 21 posting on the site managed by the group’s founder, Sonny Thomas.

Turner said the comments upset her because she and Thomas have a 6-year-old son who is part Hispanic.

“Basically, it’s like he’s saying he hates his son,” Turner said.

Racism on C-SPAN? Jon Stewart has the Answer

C-SPAN recently had a person call-in during one of their programs who complained that too many black people were calling in on the phone line that is designated for Republicans.

Jon Stewart and The Daily Show take it from there:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Fear of a Black C-SPANet
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

Anti-Health Care Reform Activist Encourages Violence Against SEIU Members

As if the health care forums haven't already spun out of control, there is a new development. A caller called into the SEIU union headquarters and left the following message in response to the union encouraging members to show up to these forums to counter the tea-party conservatives:



What could top that? How about anti-health care reform activist Scott Oskay tweeting the following messages (h/t TPM):

If ACORN/SEIU attends these townhalls for disruption, stop being peaceful, and hurt them. Badly #iamthemob

If ACORN/SEIU attends these meetings for disruptive purposes, and you have a license to carry....carry.

Things continue to get serious. Here is another video from an event in Connecticut:

The Water Continues to Boil

There was a town hall meeting on health care reform in Tampa, Florida last night with Rep. Kathy Castor (D) as the featured speaker. More than 1,000 people showed up for this forum and like we have seen in other parts of the country (including here in Cincinnati) things quickly got out of hand. The venue could not hold all of the people that showed up and when some were denied entry into the building, they began banging on the windows and chanting. Here is a report from the FOX affiliate in Tampa:



If you are like me, you are probably thinking, how on Earth can anything get accomplished in a setting as crazy as that? Well, it appears that nothing did get accomplished in Tampa last night (emphasis mine):

Moments later, violence broke out just outside the main auditorium doors, prompting police to close off the meeting room. A freelance photojournalist was among those roughed up suffering damage to both his glasses and camera equipment.

"That's the most violent anyone has been towards me," said Mark Bishop, who drove from Orlando to video tape the event. "It was surprising to say the least."

At least one person was treated for minor injuries following the altercation and could be seen on video with a shirt partially torn off his body.

Outside, both those for and against President Obama's health care reform ideas chanted and yelled, at times banging on the outside of the auditorium windows. Some argued face to face in the parking lot, shouting and screaming at each other as police officers looked on.

"We walk a fine line between freedom of speech and public safety," said one of the commanding Tampa Police officers on scene who indicated no arrests were made.

Not long into the meeting, Rep. Castor was escorted out of the building after being encouraged by an event organizer to leave. It appeared the congresswoman gave up on trying to get her points across after the crowd inside grew unruly.

While there have been threats of violence and while members of Congress have received death threats over this issue (more on this in a moment), this appears to be the first instance where we actually have reports of violence breaking out at one of these town hall meetings. Here is another amateur video from last night:



There are two points that I would like to make. The first is that what happened last night in Tampa, is a goal of this movement. The town hall meeting had to be shut down and that is a win for the Republicans and Conservatives who oppose health care reform. Instead of offering solutions or constructive ideas to revise the health care system, they simply have taken the position that it will lead to "socialism" and all conversation about it should be shut down.

The second point is that this type of anger is not rooted in, nor is it specifically about, health care reform. This is the same kind of rage that we saw during the campaign for President when the right-wing supporters of John McCain claimed that Obama was a terrorist, that his friends were terrorists, and that he was going to destroy America. This is the same kind of rage that we saw once Obama took office and tea parties were organized in opposition to the stimulus. This is the same kind of rage that we see from time to time when the issue of race is brought up either in the Henry Gates case, the nomination of a Latina to the Supreme Court, or the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. They claim that Obama is a racist, a foreign-born operative, and imply that he isn't really "one of us". This rage has now morphed into the opposition to health care reform, but it still has the same ugly undercurrent that is all too recognizable.

Here is another interesting wrinkle in all of this (from the St. Petersburg Times):

Instead, hundreds of vocal critics turned out, many of them saying they had been spurred on through the Tampa 912 activist group promoted by conservative radio and television personality Glenn Beck. Others had received e-mails from the Hillsborough Republican Party that urged people to speak out against the plan and offered talking points.

This behavior is being encouraged (and in some cases organized) by some Republican and Conservative groups for political gain. This is actually being viewed as a political strategy that benefits the health care industry (which donates money to many politicians) as well as allowing these politicians to cloak themselves in this astroterf populism as they prepare to run for office in the next election. This rage is also being encouraged by people like Glenn Beck (who thinks Obama is a racist) and Rush Limbaugh which not only has the profitable result of gaining them ratings, but of whipping up the rage of fringe elements of the movement that may feel it necessary to stop (in their view) the "destruction of America" at all costs.

To be frank, I worry about where this rage is heading. I fear that the encouragement of these actions will allow for their continued embrace as a legitimate means to an end. When things begin to escalate from words, to symbolic hangings (in the video below), to fights...one only has to wonder where this stops and what goals are to be achieved by such practices.

Rachel Maddow spoke about this on her show last night and I it relates to this discussion and is on point:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Boston Officer Who Called Henry Gates a "Jungle Monkey" is Now Suing the City of Boston

You may remember the story of Boston Police Officer Justin Barrett, who fired off an email to the Boston Globe in response to a story that they posted about the recent incident involving the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Gates. In Barrett's email, he referred to Gates numerous times as a "jungle monkey". Here are a couple of excerpts:

Your defense [4th paragraph] of Gates while he is on the phone while being confronted [INDEED] with a police officer is assuming he has rights when considered a suspect. He is a suspect and will always be a suspect. His first priority of effort should be to get off the phone and comply with police, for if I was the officer he verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC deserving of his belligerent non-compliance. Further [5th paragraph], a reader may assume that crimes only happen in back alleys at 0300?! You're kidding me, right? Are you still in the 5th grade, Catholic School? That paragraph was as pathetic as jungle monkey gibberish - I might as well ax you the question.

[...]

You are a fool. An infidel. You have no business writing for a US newspaper nevermind detailing and analyzing half truths. You should serve me coffee and donuts on Sunday morning. My last point counters your final 2 paragraphs, in which you state Gates is "this immensely famous expert on race" - you really have to be kidding me? Famous for what? Expert why and says who? What has he done for me and my family? What has he done for the law enforcement community or military veterans or to secure freedoms and our borders in this country? What has he done to help limit and reduce my income tax? He has proven to work to get himself attention and become a wealthy lecturer. He lectures students on the subject of racial ethics and profiling. Jee whiz. I must attend that lecture lest I lose my identity and right to free speech and the right to celebrate God and beliefs as I see fit. I am not a racist. but I am prejudice towards people who are stupid and pretend to stand up and preach for something they claim is freedom when it is merely attention because you do not receive enough of it in your little fear-dwelling circle of on-the-bandwagon followers.

[...]

Your final statement reads, "Gates, whose great success has allowed him to transcend the racial divide-" to which I ask, when did he transcend? He indeed has transcended back to a bumbling jungle monkey, thus he forever tremains amid this nation's great social/racial divide that makes it a free and great nation mixed with crazy and awkward differences. Go ahead, ax me what I think? Gates is a goddamned fool and you the article writer simply a poor follower and maybe worse, a poor writer. Your article title should read CONDUCT UNBECOMING A JUNGLE MONKEY - BACK TO ONE'S ROOTS. JB

Now, Barrett is claiming that he is not racist (he stated that in his email as well) and simply used some inappropriate terminology. In fact, Barrett is suing the city of Boston for infringing upon his free speech and for wrongful termination, check it out:

More on the Recent Health Care Forum in Cincinnati

As more and more members of Congress are engaging with public via local town hall meetings on the issue of health care reform, we continue to see the same pattern from a segment of the population who are opposed to what they view as, "socialized medicine".

It has been well documented by various sources that primarily Republican and Conservative opponents to health care reform, have engaged in tactics to interrupt these town hall meetings and specifically avoid having an intelligent debate. There is even one report that came out yesterday of a Congressman who was physically assaulted at one of these events.

The scene was no different at Monday's local town hall meeting at the First Unitarian Church here in Cincinnati with Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH). As you could see in my initial post on this topic, Driehaus was regularly interrupted by the crowd and at times had difficulty answering the questions as people insisted on shouting over him. "What about the illegals getting covered?" one man shouted, "You're lying!" shouted several others.

Driehaus pleaded for rationality and calm indicating that he wanted to have a good discussion with those who didn't agree with the plan, but couldn't do so if everyone insisted on shouting. A handful of people walked out two-thirds of the way through the forum complaining about socialism and indicating the the health care system did not need reforming. Several people wore tee-shirts with the web address of the Cincinnati Tea Party movement while others had signs objecting to, in their view, a government take-over of the health-care industry.

As the forum drew to a conclusion after a little over an hour, little had been accomplished. This had not been a thoughtful exchange of ideas but was rather a gathering of people who felt that the best way to move America forward was to prevent any rational and thoughtful debate. Participants who used buzz phrases indicating their opposition to "government control" and "socialized medicine" were cheered and when Driehaus even mentioned the words "single payer" or dared to question the deficit under President Reagan, he was called a liar and shouted down.

This opposition to President Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress has been brewing since last year's campaign season. Obama was regularly called a "socialist", slammed for "palling around with terrorists", and was criticized by many on the right for wanting to "destroy America". We see these themes injected into everything from the debate on the passage of the stimulus plans, to the birther movement, and now we see these tactics used in the health care debate. There are similarities that can be observed in many of these instances. Opponents of these policies are often operating off a playbook that misrepresents factual information and rather than get their fuel from ideas and proposing alternatives, they get their fuel from a belief that Obama and the Democrats genuinely want to destroy the United States.

Glenn Beck exploits this tactic daily on his show on Fox News and recently revealed that he believes that Obama not only hates white people, but is an actual racist. Is it any wonder why we see primarily middle-aged whites lining up to attend "tea-parties" and shout down Congressmen at these town hall meetings?

Below is a video that contains some footage that I shot after the conclusion of Monday's Health Care forum in Cincinnati. You will see the police moving in to surround Driehaus after he was done taking questions, the crowd chasing after Driehaus as he exited the church, and a conversation with one of the opponents of health care reform. You will hear several moments where people are shouting "Vote for Chabot" in reference to long-time politician Steve Chabot whom Driehaus defeated in 2008 and will face once again in the next election. As the crowd runs over to Driehaus' car, you will also hear someone shout "Don't kill your parents Steve!" which is a reference to a story that Driehaus told during the forum about his personal struggle in determining end of life care for his now deceased father.

As the crowd dispersed one person proudly stated, "Well that was a peaceful protest now wasn't it?" while two others expressed to me, "I wish their was less shouting...I would like to see a stronger push for nationalized health care." Too bad they didn't get to ask a question during the forum. Then again, they probably wouldn't have had a chance to fully ask their question before being shouted down. Here is the video:




This piece is crossposted here.

Putting Current Discussions of Race, Into Context

I came across this video that digby posted earlier today of Joan Walsh on Hardball with Chris Matthews. I agree that the point that Walsh makes is a very important insight into the whole issue of race in America and how it permeates into other issues that are discussed:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

and digby's usual quality insight:

Joan is right about this. I've written about it many times myself. There has to be a reason that the US, of all the industrialized nations, the richest country in the world, is so hostile to social welfare programs. There are a lot of contributing factors, not the least of which is our vaunted individualism. But one of the fundamental reasons America is so resistant to programs that provide for the common good is that there is a long tradition of rejecting any proposal that taxes white people to pay for programs that benefit non-whites.

Joan talked about all this in the context of a question Matthews asked about whether or not the GOP was using race to block Obama's agenda. As Joan, points out, that's fairly obvious. When you have the fatuous gasbag leadership all calling Obama a reverse racist (the new black in conservative circles) and even questioning his American identity, it's pretty clear that they are yanking the racist American id pretty hard.

But it really goes to their essential philosophy which says that the government is taking away "what's yours" and giving it to the undeserving (blacks and browns.) The fact that Obama himself is black only adds to the atmospherics, it doesn't create them. This tribalism is so deeply entrenched in American culture that its racial nature has long since been disguised in less obvious terms such as "liberalism." Obama's race simply makes it impossible for the hard core wingnuts to hide their real intent.

Also relevant is a post that digby wrote back in 2003, most notably the following:

Racism is the original sin of the American experiment and progress in expunging it is slow going, especially in its ground zero, the south. It may even be that some of our most cherished beliefs about ourselves --- individualism and self-sufficiency --- are partially grounded in an ugly reaction to slavery and the fallout from it. White Supremacists and neo-confederates are exactly what they appear to be and more subtle aspects of their philosophy play themselves out in the multitude of ways that people rationalize their beliefs about government social programs and many other things in American culture.

[...]

But if we think we can make any headway with working class whites (particularly in the south) who currently vote Republican by making an appeal to their class solidarity with blacks, we are going to be disappointed. Their resistance to that idea is one of the main reasons they reject government social programs in the first place. We don’t help blacks or whites by failing to understand that and we certainly won’t win any votes by ignoring it.

This cuts through the normal discussions that are typical of television debates about the issue of race and certainly cuts through all of the simplistic divisive nonsense that people like Glenn Beck continue to spew.

Pat Buchanan Sees the Republicans as a Big-Tent Party (Full of Whites Who are Being Discriminated Against)

After President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to become the next Supreme Court justice, the issue of race has been discussed on Conservative talk-radio and by some Republican members of Congress. As Sotomayor was questioned this past week during her confirmation hearings, some pundits even referred to her as a "reverse racist" and undeserving of the nomination because she was an "affirmative action" nominee. One of these individuals was Pat Buchanan. Last night Rachel Maddow had him on to discuss his position on Sotomayor and ended up exposing Buchanan as a bigot...again:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Maddow is right when she says that Buchanan is dating himself and stuck in the 1950's. Republicans should be running far, far away from Buchanan and other bigots who are advancing arguments like this.

Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor is a Stupid, Racist, Hispanic Chick Lady-and Other Right-Wing Smears

What will they think of next? In case you are keeping score:

- Jeffrey Rosen kicked it off by advancing the claims that Sotomayor is "not that smart".

- Karl Rove and Fred Phelps echoed this line of attack

- Former Republican House member Tom Tancredo raised the bar by calling Sotomayor a racist.

- Newt Gingrich decided that the racist line of attack was the best and called her a "Latina woman racist" via Twitter.

- Rush Limbaugh tweaked the racist line of attack and called her a "reverse racist".

- Ann Coulter jumped on the "racist" bandwagon

- Glenn Beck, while echoing that she is a racist, also made a reference to her as a "Hispanic Chick Lady".

- and finally, Pat Buchanan expressed outrage that the four finalists for the nomination did not include a white male and stated that Sotomayor only got the nomination because she was a Hispanic woman.

Help us out Rachel Maddow:



and why are all these people calling Sotomayor a "racist" or a "reverse racist"? It is because of this quote from a lecture entitled "A Latina Judge's Voice" that she gave in 2001:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

This quote has been repeated in this isolated format and has been the focal point, by those I referenced above, for their claims of racism. What is missing from the quote above? Ah yes, context! Here is the same quote in context:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

The point that Sotomayor is making is a simple one. Personal experiences vary depending upon your gender, race, and background. These varied personal experiences give people different perspectives on the same issues. Judges, like everyone, inherently bring these personal experiences with them and they affect the way that various issues are perceived. These variations in perspective are not problematic, they are healthy.

Can you tell me Sotomayor's statements above, are different from this exchange between then Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito and Senator Tom Coburn during Alito's confirmation hearing:

U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what's important to you in life?

ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.

ALITO: I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

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 have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

And that goes down the line. 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. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.

COBURN: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I think I'll yield back the balance of my time at this time, and if I have additional questions, get them in the next round.

SPECTER: Thank you very much, Senator Coburn.

Video of the above can be found here.

The content of what was said is not the issue, it is who said it. None of these people who are calling Sotomayor a "racist" had a problem when Alito said virtually the same thing at his confirmation hearing. What we are currently seeing is more disgusting partisan politics over the nomination of a Latina woman for the nation's highest court.



The crosspost of this piece is here.

The Continued Need for Expanded Racial Discourse

Since the election of Barack Obama into this nation's highest office, there has been widespread praise for how far the United States of America has come in regard to race relations. After all, not even half a century ago, our black brothers and sisters were fighting against seemingly insurmountable odds in order to achieve equality. It still pains us to watch the old footage of black members of society being beaten, attacked by police dogs, and sprayed with fire hoses. These images, along with the images of peaceful protests singing "We Shall Overcome" cannot help but remind us not only of how far we have come, but of the power of a determined people to create social change.

While a black man ascending into the office of President indicates measured progress for race relations, it does not automatically mean that issues of race and racism are no longer relevant or worth discussing. Isolated incidents of achievement are not always indicative of widespread societal progress. One only needs to turn back the clock a mere three and a half years and remember the scenes that played out in New Orleans duirng Hurricane Katrina for a reminder of why race issues should continue to be discussed in the twenty-first century.

Attorney General Eric Holder recently gave a speech in honor of Black History Month and used the opportunity to encourage people to have an open dialogue about race. Holder said that we are "essentially a nation of cowards" in our collective failure of engaging in meaningful discussions on race related issues. Holder continued:

Our history has demonstrated that the vast majority of Americans are uncomfortable with, and would like to not have to deal with, racial matters and that is why those, black or white, elected or self-appointed, who promise relief in easy, quick solutions, no matter how divisive, are embraced. We are then free to retreat to our race protected cocoons where much is comfortable and where progress is not really made. If we allow this attitude to persist in the face of the most significant demographic changes that this nation has ever confronted-and remember, there will be no majority race in America in about fifty years-the coming diversity that could be such a powerful, positive force will, instead, become a reason for stagnation and polarization.

With President Obama now in office we see people retreating into their "race protected cocoons". Racial disparity and racial inequality have not just magically disappeared, but rather it is the chance for meaningful discourse which has fallen into old patterns and continues to fade into the background. What a fantastic opportunity this country currently has to speak to each other about issues of race now that we have witnessed the election of our first black President. What follows should not be the assumption that all has been overcome, but rather a dialogue on how we can continue to move forward. Communication and emerging from our protected cocoons is the only way that we can effectively continue this all important progression on these issues.

Recently, the much publicized editorial cartoon printed by The New York Post, touched off a firestorm of criticism. The cartoon (linked to above) shows two white police officers standing over a bullet-ridden and bloodied chimp with their guns smoking. One officer is saying to the other: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill". Rev. Al Sharpton was quick to criticize the cartoon as racist for the implication that the dead chimpanzee could be interpreted to be President Obama. The Post initially issued a statement defending the cartoon and attacking "those in the media and in public life who have had differences with the Post in the past". "To them," the statement read, "no apology is due." This led to continued demonstrations outside the Post's offices and concluded with an apology from Rupert Murdoch, CEO of NewsCorp.

This incident got a lot of sensational coverage in the media and set off debates between pundits who argued whether or not the cartoon was racist. Whether the chimpanzee was initially intended to represent Obama is not necessarily the central issue. A more productive discussion would have stretched beyond the surface and could have examined the history of likening African-Americans to monkeys and chimpanzees. Now, with Murdoch's apology and the sensational aspect of this story fading, we will once again shelve the discussion of this issue until the next controversy erupts. This pattern, one we have seen for years on the issue of race, is not a recipe for progress, but like Eric Holder says, a reason for stagnation.

While the recent controversy over the Post's editorial cartoon shows us an example of the continued failure of discussing race in a meaningful way, there are still some who feel that it is appropriate to engage in behavior that directly works against progress. Jim Schifrin is the publisher of The Whistleblower (an internet based alternative "news" source for Cincinnati) and has come under fire recently for blatantly racist language and images as well as assassination jokes that he has posted. As you can read in other stories posted at The Cincinnati Beacon, many area politicians have repudiated this racist language.

In the January 17th edition of The Whistleblower Schifrin made mention of sharing Obama jokes with Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters:

Q: What do Abe Lincoln, JFK, Martin Luther King Jr. and Obama have in common? A: Nothing, yet!

Q: What's the difference between Sarah Palin naked and Michelle Obama naked?
A: Playboy and National Geographic!

BREAKING NEWS: “Hail to the Chief” is being replaced with the theme song from "The Jefferson's"!

Finally, everybody—just relax. When was the last time you saw an black guy keep
a job for four years?

In the February 20th edition of The Whistleblower Schifrin has Obama's face pasted over the face of a monkey and also published this result of a "limerick competition":

The best part of dead Presidents' Day
Is that at some point this one will also be that way.
I don't wish him bad luck
(Though I really don't give a good ... uh ... "darn")
Just call me a nasty old Republican ofay!

and in the February 21st edition of The Whistleblower, Schifrin posted a photo that likens Michelle Obama to a monkey. It is racist actions like these that run directly contrary to the kind of progress that Eric Holder talks about in his speech. There is nothing about the publication of such images and so-called jokes that allow us to have an intelligent and productive conversation about serious race related issues. The fact that there are still Jim Schifrin's of the world out there should indicate not only that racism is still alive and well, but that we need to take every opportunity that we are given to have intellectual discussions that will actual move this country forward instead of backward. After all, as Eric Holder said:

As I indicated before, the artificial device that is Black History month is a perfect vehicle for the beginnings of such a dialogue. And so I urge all of you to use the opportunity of this month to talk with your friends and co-workers on the other side of the divide about racial matters. In this way we can hasten the day when we truly become one America.

Perhaps Jim Schifrin would like to take Eric Holder's challenge and discuss (in interview format) his use of assassination jokes, racist jokes, and likening monkeys to the Obamas. (If he is interested in such an interview, he should let me know.) After all, lobbing racist insults is an easy thing to do, but tackling these issues in a meaningful manner is another matter entirely.

Though we have made great strides with race, it is evident by the examples that I have listed above, that we still have a long way to come. As Eric Holder states in his speech, "to respect one another, we must have a basic understanding of each other" . Communication and dialogue is the only way that we can begin to understand each other and understand the full history of black America. "The history of black America and the history of this nation are inextricably tied to each other", Holder states, and until we start to talk with each other and understand this, we will see more stagnation and less progression.


This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/

Conservative Outrage Over Rev. Lowery's Benediction

It seems as though there is some rage brewing in the hearts and souls of some conservative commentators about the benediction that the Rev. Joseph Lowery gave at President Obama's inauguration ceremony yesterday. Here is the benediction:



The part of the benediction that some conservative commentators are fumed about, is the last portion. Glenn Beck, comfortable at his new home on FoxNews, breaks down just why he is so angry:



Beck is amazed that there was an objection to the Rev. Rick Warren saying a prayer at the Inauguration for simply agreeing "with much of Obama's platform on gay marriage". Beck even sarcastically throws in, "what bigotry there". In fact, the objections to Warren were not because he "agrees with much of Obama's platform on gay marriage", but rather because he has equated homosexuality to pedophilia and incest. This strays from the point, but needs to be corrected nonetheless.

Beck continues on that instead of Warren creating controversy, it was Lowery that stirred the pot when he asked god to:

help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around ... when yellow will be mellow ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.

Beck decries this statement as "America being called racist" and goes on to say that he wants to believe in the message of change, but that this appears to be the same old divisive language that we are used to. Talk about missing the point. Beck even tries to imply that Lowery's old age has something to do with his remarks. Beck assures Obama that he and his family have been "down on their knees" praying for his success and that he is perfectly fine with "brown sticking around". Thanks for clearing that up Glen.

Joining Beck in expressing outrage at this benediction is Michael Savage:



Savage calls Lowery an "old black racist" and proclaims "how dare he say 'when white will embrace what is right' when he was elected because of white people." I guess it didn't cross Savage's mind that just because white people voted for Obama, it isn't proof that racism doesn't exist. Certainly it indicates progress in the last 40 years, but it does not indicate the eradication of racism. Savage goes on to express his outrage claiming that he was offended as a white person and wonders what Lowery meant by "when black will not be asked to give back". "What in the heck does this old man mean," Savage exclaims, "...you mean they won't have to pay taxes?"

Too bad that Lowery said "when black will not be asked to get in back" and not "when black will not be asked to give back" according to the transcript of his speech. Amazing to see what some will try to do to a message that is meant for inclusion and it is equally amazing to see Michael Savage trying to pass as a moral authority on race relations. Are members of the right-wing trying to re-emerge by placing themselves upon moral high-ground? Stay Tuned!