Selective outrage by a liberal blogger
Liberal blogger Pam Spaulding posted today about the brutal beating of a black woman by a white man in Georgia. The attack on this woman by itself would spark outrage, but the fact that it was done to the victim in front of her terrified young daughter only makes it worse. Add to this that the victim is a military servicemember and the alleged perp comes across as being quite the lowlife, which his mugshot does nothing to dispel. Spaulding is right to feel outraged about this attack. Anyone with a shred of decency would. What confuses me about Spaulding’s post on this is the conclusion she draws that “we see yet again that a post-racial society is nowhere to be found”. She follows this comment with a link to a “related” post:
Former President Carter charges racism is behind Wilson’s – and teabagger/birther – outbursts
Interesting, though the connection between the attack in Georgia and the ex-President’s odd remarks escapes me. If this particular attack shows that we are still not in a “post-racial society”, which I presume from the “related” link is the fault of the “teabagger/birther outbursts”, what are we to make of this attack a couple of days ago on a white student by fellow classmates who are black? Is this too the result of “teabagger/birther outbursts”, which would seem to be counter-productive of supposed white racists? Finally, why did Spaulding select the attack on the Georgia woman alone as her example and not include the attack on the Illinois boy? Hmm… curious. Certainly there couldn’t be selective outrage here motivated by partisanship, could there be? Naaaah. Of course not. That would like claiming that thousands of people who turned out to protest a president’s policies were all motivated purely by racism and not because of, say political disagreement.
Oh wait.
– John (Average Gay Joe)
29 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Once again, you fail basic reading comprehension. You left out the relevant fact of the post: “witnesses said West could be heard screaming racial slurs at the victim.” Still confused?
Was the white student beaten as a result of his race, as Rush and Drudge tried desperately to intimate? Did they yell racial slurs at him? Was race even a factor in the beating? Or did Rush and his angry white men simply seize on it to stir up more racial hatred – as you do here?
Rod Dreher has backed away from this rabble-rousing. When will you?
Comment by torrentprime — September 16, 2009 @ 6:36 pm - September 16, 2009
and once again, tp fails basic reading.
By the democrat standard, the students involved must be racist, even before we consider the reports that it ‘may be racially motivated’. But hey it’s black on white violence, which means that they’ll be sentenced to sensativity training.
With Rev. Wright.
Comment by The_Livewire — September 16, 2009 @ 7:17 pm - September 16, 2009
Matthew Shepard wasn’t attacked because he was gay. He was robbed and beaten, which is a tragedy, but it wasn’t motivated by homophobia.
Why is Kanye West a jackass and Professor Gates a victim of white oppression?
Comment by Ashpenaz — September 16, 2009 @ 7:28 pm - September 16, 2009
Ok, so the police captain is now calling his intial comments about the attack on the white student “premature” and not racially motivate. Yet for someone questioning my reading skills, you display an appalling lack of comprehension yourself, TP. Contrary to your insinuation, I didn’t question that the Georgia woman was the victim of an apparently racially-motivated beating. I’m not surprised to see you using the exact same tactic my post was criticizing Spaulding for. Also, I haven’t a clue what Rush Limbaugh said about the white student being beaten up since I do not listen to his radio program. If what Dreher writes in his column is accurate, than I would agree with him that it is “evil”. Of course you neglected this from Dreher’s closing paragraph:
Now please explain why this crime in Georgia demonstrates that we live in a racist or “racial” society and perhaps you can also explain how any of this is connected to “teabaggers/birther outbursts” Spaulding considers to be “related”.
Comment by John — September 16, 2009 @ 7:30 pm - September 16, 2009
Oh no. Pam is partisan. So are most commenters here.
Comment by DRH — September 16, 2009 @ 7:38 pm - September 16, 2009
Are you joking, Ash? Shepard was targetted for robbery because he was a gay man and there is no reason to doubt that he was brutally killed because he of his sexual orientation.
Comment by John — September 16, 2009 @ 7:41 pm - September 16, 2009
DRH: And your point is?
Comment by John — September 16, 2009 @ 7:42 pm - September 16, 2009
With the current truth campaign against ACORN and the dismissal of the racist radical Van Jones, I think we should continue to encourage
bloggers and the new media. Encourage them to continue to shed the cleansing lite of day on union meetings, church meetings used for radical government. Any videos of welfare corruption, union corruption, insurance cheats, etc. Now that we all carry around recording equipment in our phones we can swamp the so called educated liberal “reporters” in the state run media. We owe it to the patriots who marched on 9/12.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 16, 2009 @ 8:00 pm - September 16, 2009
Ash is correct, John. You might try actually questioning what you read in the news every once in a while instead of sucking up what you want to believe and spitting out what you dont:
Comment by American Elephant — September 16, 2009 @ 8:13 pm - September 16, 2009
And here we see the results of “hate crime”: racial groups at each other’s throats over whether or not some crime or insult is “racially motivated”. The race lobby thrives on continuing racial discord.
Anyone (including that police chief) who thinks that the race of that kid on the bus was not an issue is a fool. The chief, I suspect, got a call from someone suggesting he get his mind right if he didn’t want to dead-end his career.
The young couple who were raped, tortured, and murdered in Knoxville were picked because they were white. I seem to recall the brutal murder or four whites in Wichita by blacks (Dec 2000). Hate Crimes? Does it matter?
It’s a certainty that there are white (and brown, red, and yellow) miscreants that select victims based on skin color. When they commit crimes, they should be prosecuted and punished.
The problem is that “hate crime” laws are applied selectively based on political calculations. That is not justice any way you look at it.
As far as the perp in this beating – who cares what he said? Would it have been better if he’d just called her a dumb b***ch? Used the c-word? Told her that her child was ugly? If he’d left her race out of it, would that be less of a crime? The case sounds like a slam-dunk to me; convict the jerk and let him spend a few years in the slammer.
Judges and juries have long been able to use motive to decided guilt and punishment. We should just leave it that way.
Comment by SoCalRobert — September 16, 2009 @ 8:21 pm - September 16, 2009
I will simply have to say that I gave up reading Pam’s blog over a year ago.
Comment by Swampfox — September 16, 2009 @ 8:33 pm - September 16, 2009
My point about Matthew Shepard is that just because someone is attacked, say, called a liar on the House floor, doesn’t mean the attack is based on minority status. Shepard’s tragic story should be a lesson to people of all sexes not to go out with strangers–but it is not about homophobia any more than the Gates or Wilson story is about racism. I suspect that Kanye’s rant was about race, though. A white country girl a better singer than a black woman? That just can’t happen, can it? (Stop me before I contradict myself and go through my whole Adam Lambert thing–it throws off my whole argument here.)
Comment by Ashpenaz — September 16, 2009 @ 9:05 pm - September 16, 2009
Much of the breast-beating is motivated by ‘Liberal Guilt’, which I’m more than tired-of. Everything evil in the universe ISN’T motivated by racism…latent or overt…it just wells up out of stupidity, crude brutality and just plain wickedness. …It’s just not worth the arguement with the Liberals anymore.
As for the cure, some people just deserve a bullet in the back of the head.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — September 16, 2009 @ 10:49 pm - September 16, 2009
It wells up out of racism. Liberals look at minorities and see people who are victims, who are incapable, and need special rules, handouts, and benevolent white people to take care of them. They see people who are unable to take care of themselves. All of which is deeply racist. So they project their racism onto everyone else.
Comment by American Elephant — September 16, 2009 @ 11:11 pm - September 16, 2009
Everything evil in the universe ISN’T motivated by racism…latent or overt…it just wells up out of stupidity, crude brutality and just plain wickedness.
But it’s not that black and white (as it were). It’s a nice, self-conforting, hazy shade of grey. You can’t call it evil or wickedness because liberals don’t want to be called what they are.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 17, 2009 @ 2:22 am - September 17, 2009
I think that Elephant has hit a nail on the head regarding the libtards and their own racism.
One of my other favourite blogs is written by Kevin Jackson of Black Sphere. He gets a lot of flack because he does not fit the liberal idea of a downtrodden black.
For some reason as I was reading the comments to this post I was reminded of my experience on the train between Albany and Montreal in July. Despite the fact that I met a really lovely young lady on that trip, what marred the trip for me happened to be some young men and women who were a mixture – mostly blacks, but there were some whites amongst them. I was unfortunate enough to be sitting in front of some of these rather ugly Americans and had to put up with the foulest and crudest of language imaginable. On top of that this group had fouled up the bathrooms closest to us so bad that I was totally nauseated by the smell and ended up vomiting as a result.
Does that episode make me have a distaste for blacks? Nope. Yet I have a real distaste for those particular young people, black, whites, female and male. I suspect that they were heading to some kind of boot camp or even a detention of some sort because they were met by people in govt. vehicles when they arrived at Pt Henry. To say that I was thoroughly grossed out by their behaviour is an understatement.
Did you note something I wrote? UGLY AMERICAN…. Yes… that statement could make me racist against Americans… but that is not the case at all. It is just that I recognize that some Americans, just like some Australians and yes some British people behave badly in certain circumstances.
Comment by thestraightaussie — September 17, 2009 @ 3:55 am - September 17, 2009
I saw Kevin Jackson on Glen Beck’s 9/12 special. Best line “I’ve not seen any racists here, but I’ve Dick Cheney on speed dial to take ‘em out quick if I find any.”
Second best line, “I had some liberal call me ‘Clarence Thomas’ he was upset that I took it as a compliment.”
Comment by The_Livewire — September 17, 2009 @ 8:28 am - September 17, 2009
>And here we see the results of “hate crime”: racial groups at each other’s throats over whether or not some crime or insult is “racially motivated”.
SoCalRobert
You have it 110% correct
Good post
America has a serious, serious shortage of objective thinkers.
Comment by Geena — September 17, 2009 @ 9:36 am - September 17, 2009
#9: So what you are saying is that I should instead be like you in “actually questioning what you read in the news every once in a while instead of sucking up what you want to believe and spitting out what you dont” by citing a much disputed ABC 20/20 news story as unquestionable proof of your claim? Hmm…
Comment by John — September 17, 2009 @ 11:20 am - September 17, 2009
#10: Good points.
Comment by John — September 17, 2009 @ 11:21 am - September 17, 2009
#12: There is absolutely nothing, other than partisan slander, to show that Wilson’s outburst was motivated by racism. With Shephard there is reasonable evidence to show that homophobia was at least partly to blame for his murder. The two incidents are simply not comparable. As for West, it’s difficult to say. Probably had more to do with his being a completely self-absorbed a-hole than anything else.
Comment by John — September 17, 2009 @ 11:24 am - September 17, 2009
#13 & 14: Agreed. Well, except for the “bullet in the back of the head” part. That’s a bit too hyperbolic for my taste.
Comment by John — September 17, 2009 @ 11:25 am - September 17, 2009
Interesting, though the connection between the attack in Georgia and the ex-President’s odd remarks escapes me.
The connection isn’t between those two events at all. The point of the post, like many others, is that there are many commentators today who claim that because we elected a black president (bi-racial president maybe?), this is now a “post-racial” country, i.e., that racism is dead. Pam’s point is that such events (the beating of a black woman while using racist slurs and and ex-president accusing a Congressman of racism) is that racism does still exist and such commentators are buffoons. I don’t believe she’s accusing anyone of being a racist, but observing that racism does still exist despite the claims of some people.
Comment by Neptune — September 17, 2009 @ 11:37 am - September 17, 2009
Vargas appeared on the November 19, 2004, The O’Reilly Factor on FNC and summarized her findings:
ELIZABETH VARGAS: We talked to a lot of witnesses in the case, looked at statements that had been previously sealed by the court following the convictions. And what we found out was that sort of the original version of events that everybody believed may not be true. The version of events was Matthew Shepard didn’t know, had never met these two men, that they targeted him, attacked him, and beat him so severely because he was gay. We have talked to several witnesses who say actually the men may have in fact known each other.
. . .
O’REILLY: So you may get backlash now from the gay groups who say, well, why even bother with this thing? What are you going to, what’s the answer to that?
VARGAS: The answer to that is we’re trying, we have an obligation to uncover the truth of what really happened. 20/20 was one of the first newsmagazine’s to go out with this story that this was a bias crime, this was a hate crime way back in 1998 when this happened. … The girlfriend of Aaron McKinney went on our program in silhouette … She lied. She comes to us now, not in silhouette, in full face to admit that she lied. This was something they cooked up hoping to get him a lesser sentence to explain why he might have freaked out and done what he did.
O’REILLY: So they were going homophobia, whatever? They tried to do it.
VARGAS: They claimed that this was something from the beginning they cooked up as a way to get a lesser sentence. But I must say it’s important to know we knew this would be controversial. We know there will be some people who are not happy about this version of events.
Comment by rusty — September 17, 2009 @ 11:50 am - September 17, 2009
#23: Well that makes her comments on ex-Prez Carter’s statements rather curious then, that is if what you say is true:
Lemme guess: you only see Spaulding saying here that racism still exists in this country and criticizing those who might say otherwise, correct? Wrong. Read it again.
Comment by John — September 17, 2009 @ 12:33 pm - September 17, 2009
#24: Ah I see, an interview of the 20/20 reporter on Fox News now makes this revisionist history pure gospel. Nope, no irony here either.
Well, if news stories are all that matters in establishing fact allow me to do likewise:
Comment by John — September 17, 2009 @ 12:38 pm - September 17, 2009
Lemme guess: you only see Spaulding saying here that racism still exists in this country and criticizing those who might say otherwise, correct?
No, John, that’s not the only way I read it. I also take her to mean that she (and others) believe that there is racism behind much of the extreme reaction to the President’s policy goals. (Birthers certainly are fringe, and I think she uses the word “teabggers” to imply the fringe and not mainstream reasoned opposition to bigger government.) But what I don’t read into the post that everyone who disagrees with the President’s policies is racist.
And yes, I do also think she’s criticizing those who say racism doesn’t exist, because it does. I don’t think it is as pervasive as some on the left would like us all to believe, but it does it exist and it does motivate the behavior of some people.
Comment by Neptune — September 17, 2009 @ 1:06 pm - September 17, 2009
No, Neptune, Spaulding uses the derogatory term “teabaggers” to refer to all TEA Party members and by implication to her they are just as much fringe as “birthers” are. Although even there she frequently implies that “birthers” represent the GOP leadership and membership. Finally, Spaulding regularly states that “teabaggers” and Republicans are indeed racists for criticizing the president.
Comment by John — September 17, 2009 @ 3:22 pm - September 17, 2009
Here’s Professor Reynolds on the Dreher post:
“Meh. Read the transcript. Limbaugh bit is obvious parody, which Dreher didn’t catch, and Megan didn’t notice that he didn’t catch, and I didn’t notice that Megan — oh, never mind. Anyway, much ado about nothing much.”
FYI
Best wishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — September 17, 2009 @ 7:03 pm - September 17, 2009