Racism

What Passes As Fairness to Tea Partiers in The New York Times

|

On Friday The New York Times ran a "Political Memo" by Kate Zernike anticipating Glenn Beck's rally at the Lincoln Memorial the next day. Here is how it began:

It seems the ultimate thumb in the eye: that Glenn Beck would summon the Tea Party faithful to a rally on the anniversary of the March on Washington, and address them from the very place where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "I have a dream" speech 47 years ago. After all, the Tea Party and its critics have been facing off for months over accusations of racism.

Would the Times call a speech by President Obama to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce a "thumb in the eye"? After all, many people have accused him of socialism. It is inconceivable that the Times would describe the proposed Muslim community center in lower Manhattan as a "thumb in the eye," even though that is how its critics see it.

The sad thing is that Zernike is trying to be fair. She writes that "Tea Party leaders say they are outraged, as anyone would be, by accusations of racism: they do not see themselves that way." She includes Tea Party rebuttals to charges of racism, quotes black supporters of the movement, and notes that Beck describes himself as a defender of King's legacy. But she also deems it relevant that "the movement has not attracted blacks proportionate to their representation in the larger population"—a standard that would condemn the Republican Party, the National Hockey League, and my synagogue as racist. Zernike's antipathy to Tea Partiers is hard to miss in this passage, where the line between her views and those of the movement's detractors fades away:

In the Tea Party's talk of states' rights, critics say they hear an echo of slavery, Jim Crow and George Wallace. Tea Party activists call that ridiculous: they do not want to take the country back to the discrimination of the past, they say, they just want the states to be able to block the federal mandate on health insurance.

Still, the government programs that many Tea Party supporters call unconstitutional are the ones that have helped many black people emerge from poverty and discrimination. It is not just that Rand Paul, the Republican nominee for Senate in Kentucky, said that he disagreed on principle with the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that required business owners to serve blacks. It is that many Tea Party activists believe that laws establishing a minimum wage or the federal safety net are an improper expansion of federal power.

Critics rightly note that Dr. King spoke over and over of the need for this country to acknowledge its "debt to the poor," calling for an "economic bill of rights" that would "guarantee a job to all people who want to work and are able to work." In Mr. Beck's taxonomy, this would make him a Marxist.

In other words, it's not just the occasional "Go Back to Kenya" sign or unverified claims about racial epithets that taint the Tea Party. Anyone who supports federalism, questions bans on private discrimination, fiddles with the "federal safety net," or opposes the minimum wage is objectively racist, even if he does not see himself that way.

More on the Beck rally here, here, and here.

NEXT: Annals of Cloning: Steer Is Two TIme Winner

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Funny how these cheerleaders for the Central State never bring up the Fugitive Slave Act.

    1. What staggers me is that the federalizers never bring it up either! Use it people, that is good shit!

      1. Never? It was brought up at 12:43.

        1. “Funny how these cheerleaders for the Central State never…”

  2. But she also deems it relevant that “the movement has not attracted blacks proportionate to their representation in the larger population”?a standard that would condemn the Republican Party, the National Hockey League, and my synagogue as racist.

    Not to mention the New York Times.

    Still, the government programs that many Tea Party supporters call unconstitutional are the ones that have helped many black people emerge from poverty and discrimination.

    [citation needed]

    1. I think what you meant to do was put a weasel words tag on “many”.

    2. Far as I can tell black people are still pretty afflicted by poverty and discrimination.

      1. So are many white people. And brown people. And yellow people.

        Conversely, many black people AREN’T confined to those afflictions.

        1. The black supporters of the Tea party could fit in a phone booth.

          1. The unraveling of the double helix structure of cellular DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 undoubtedly represents one of this century’s most publicly visible scientific triumphs.

          2. Max, the fat fuck vomit eater.

            Oliver Wendel Holmes got one thing right, Max. You should not be allowed to breed.

          3. Max, you missed a great “Uncle Tom” opening here. You’re not on your game today.

            1. It’s only racist when right-wingers do it!

  3. It’s neat to watch the NYT slide further and further in to irrelevancy. You would think that since Obama won they would be praising his accomplishments and detailing all the wonderful outcomes of a Progressive Presidency instead of calling people racists for disagreeing with them.

    But this is the reality of electing an empty suit. There aren’t a whole bunch of accomplishments to cheer about with this administration, and there are a LOT of people that disagree with Obama.

    It may be fun to say “Teabagger” in the salons of the upper west side, but they don’t buy enough newspapers, and sooner or later the NYT will have to change course to stay relevant.

    1. That’s why they’re frantically lobbying congress to “save journalism”.

      1. It is fine and dandy to take government candy to stay afloat.

        As long as they remember that taking candy from the back of the Koch brothers’ van will lead to the complete abandonment of all editorial discretion and they will become zombies in the right wing misinformation regime.

        1. But stuffing one’s face at George Soro’s candy emporium is just fine and dandy.

          1. I wouldn’t mind receiving candy from either party. I like candy.

            1. I have lotsa candy at my place. Come on, hop into my van!

  4. It can just a easily claimed that these government programs have blocked black people from full participation in the economic system by fostering dependency and removing the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.

    1. Christ, what an excellent, but horrifying visual.

      I am so going to use that.

    2. And yet, they vote over 90% to re-elect their oppressors. Go figure.

      1. Listen up, one day, one day the Escalator to the Promised Land will be finished. But not if you don’t vote for us.

        And the more you support us the more likely it is you’ll be allowed to ride.

        So put your backs into it and push! Push you bastards, push!

  5. Still, the government programs that many Tea Party supporters call unconstitutional are the ones that have helped many black people emerge from poverty and discrimination.

    If black people emerged from poverty and discrimination, then we can get rid of the programs, right?

    I mean, we got rid of the Civil War once blacks “emerged” from slavery.

    an “economic bill of rights” that would “guarantee a job to all people who want to work and are able to work.”

    Riiiight, because jobs are created by legislative fiat, not entrepeneurship. Hell, Marx at least understood the “capital” part of capitalism, even if he didnt’ like it.

    1. we got rid of the Civil War

      After reading that I had a ridiculous vision of people after a war continuing to shoot anything that moved. Then I thought a little more and I realized, that’s Iraq.

    2. “I mean, we got rid of the Civil War once blacks “emerged” from slavery.”

      True. Now that slavery is gone, states can secede any time they want. Surely the U.S. wouldn’t intervene militarily for something so brazenly imperialistic as maintaining dominance over territory and its resources and residents.

  6. Everything below here is racist.

    —————————————

    1. I’m posting in a troll thread

      1. ——————————————–

        And everything above here is racist. Whoa!

        To be constructive, I’d at least like to point out that I consider Beck an entertainer competent at self-promotion and the Tea Party a sideshow (mostly preaching to its own choir and a somewhat natural response given our fiscal profligacy). Dems will gradually relinquish their 2006-2008 victories without either, because they’re losing swing voters on some fairly centrist issues, like the budget, health care, financial regulation and war.

        But for the sheer entertainment value of watching East Coast liberals wring their hands, it’s pretty much worth it.

      2. Jews suck!

    2. Even the black letters?

      1. Look at how much more white there is than black on the page. Of course it’s racist.

        The discrimination against orange is even worse.

        1. We’re not going to take it anymore!

        2. The discrimination against orange is even worse

          Mitt Romney just can’t catch a break.

        3. Oh give me a break – you and orange discrimination. Have you seen one…ONE…letter here in:
          purple?
          fushia?
          magenta?
          gold?
          silver?
          lime?
          brown?
          The list is almost infinite. Institutionalized color spectrum discriminization!
          Give voice to the violet!!!

          1. Cavanaugh has already made his opinion on purple quite clear.

          2. Yes, yes you have. The admin banned them. In days of yore we used to be able to style our text.

            1. Cherish our memory of font-color freedom, brother!

          3. Not since that unfortunate incident with style sheets a week ago or so.

          4. Fucking colorists!

      2. Sigh. I was going to say something about a non-racist demarcation consisting of these black boxes and white boxes together, but the ASCII got flagged for being a non-English script.

        Also, they were holding hands.

        Your pick:

        a. For a magazine called Reason, that sure is unreasonable (ho ho!).
        b. That’s racist.
        c. I thought you guys opposed censorship.
        d. The comment posting system is fascist. Especially in the post style-attribute era.

      3. They prefer to be called African-American letters.

        1. Nigger letters, nigger letters, nigger letters!

        2. Nigger letters, nigger letters!

    3. White people suck!

  7. “a standard that would condemn the Republican Party, the National Hockey League, and my synagogue as racist.”

    And the KOS Convention, Code Pink, Moveon.org, and pretty much every anti-war rally I have ever seen on TV.

    1. every anti-war rally I have ever seen on TV

      Now John, you should know that papier-m?ch? puppets know neither race nor color.

    2. Since black people are much more likely than whites to oppose gay marriage and to be otherwise hostile to gays, does that mean that you are racist if you support gay rights?

      1. You’re racist for even mentioning this line of argument, racist.

  8. Critics rightly note that Dr. King spoke over and over of the need for this country to acknowledge its “debt to the poor,” calling for an “economic bill of rights” that would “guarantee a job to all people who want to work and are able to work.”

    Is this the new test for racism? If you disagree with the view of MLK on any issue, even ones not even tangentially related to segregation, you are a racist. I guess that makes anyone who doesn’t think it’s right for someone to cheat on their spouse a racist.

    1. If you don’t plagiarize major portions of your doctoral thesis, you’re a racist!

  9. In other words, it’s not just the occasional “Go Back to Kenya” sign or unverified claims about racial epithets that taint the Tea Party. Anyone who supports federalism, questions bans on private discrimination, fiddles with the “federal safety net,” or opposes the minimum wage is objectively racist, even if he does not see himself that way.

    THANK YOU. It has been common knowledge that liberals use black people as shields-and-swords to engorge the State, but to make it so explicit…well, finally, I say. Someone’s being honest, at least.

    1. “You will be the all important first defense wave, which we will call ‘Operation Human Shield’.”

      1. “Haven’t you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation?”

        “I don’t listen to rap music.”

    2. A reminder that I’m still available for work…

    3. “Operation Get behind the darkies!”

  10. Remember, to the New York Times:

    Sending millions of black males to prison for victimless crimes, having them work for a dollar a day while in prison, and then barring them from most professions and occupations upon their release = NOT RACISM.

    Lowering or eliminating the federal minimum wage = TEH RACISM.

    1. +10

      We’ve talked about the prison industrial complex here before but Im glad you said it again. Jails and prisons are a HUGE source of cheap (or free) labor for local governments and well connected private companies. If millions of black males were not imprisoned for victimless crimes they would have to find a new pool of slave labor.

      1. Damn. I think this point really needs to get hammered home.

      2. Inmate labor is only a small part of the prison-industrial complex.

        Processing and supervision of victimless criminals feathers the nests of innumerable economic interests: private prisons, attorneys, bail bondsmen, law enforcement, and suppliers of the materials and equipment these people use. All of this contributes to GDP, employment, and tax revenue. Put a Keynsian multiplier on this and you can understand why victimless crime is a structural part of the US economy. Add in the graft and bribes, and it’s easy to understand why government officials will never let it go.

  11. “In the Tea Party’s talk of states’ rights, critics say they hear an echo of slavery, Jim Crow and George Wallace.”

    Who is they? That is some pathetic journalism. Who are the critics of the Tea Party and what do they have to say. Saying “critics say” is the ultimate form of lazy journalism. Since it doesn’t mention anyone in particular at any particular time, it is a completely unfalsifiable statement. And thus is completely worthless to the reader.

    I thought that was the kinds of things that journalism school was supposed to teach you not to do. And doesn’t the NYT at least have editors whose job it is to ensure this dumb twat does her job?

    1. Smearing anyone who doesn’t tow the leftist lion is her job.

    2. the critic in “critics say” is the person who wrote “critics say”.

      apparently the upper-case “I” key on their keyboard is broken.

    3. Only someone brainwashed by FOX News doesn’t know that “states’ rights” has always been code for maintaining the white majority’s power to oppress black people. Always. You can pretend it means something else now, but the burden of proof is on you.

      1. Don’t be his porn.

        1. Aw, c’mon.

          1. It’s is not a command, just a suggestion. Spoof or not, posting in bad faith to troll for attention is boring.

            1. Just a joke, bro. Thought that would be obvious by the handle.

              1. There’s nothing funny about Restless Leg Syndrome. My whole family died of it, you monster.

                1. I’m sorry. you’ll be happy to know they now have medicine for that.

      2. Of course! That’s only reason the concept even exists.

        1. Pretty much.

          I fail to see what’s libertarian about states’ rights anyway. States still have governments, and they’re even more immediate to your lives.

          1. Subsidiarity is libertarian. It puts one’s elected representatives nearby and more responsive to and representative of the communities they represent, as opposed to distant legislatures and the massive bureaucracies that rule us as present.

            1. Don’t forget, closer pols are easier to shoot.

          2. C’mon, Tony… if states have any autonomy, it’s too much for liberals.

            1. Are you capable of not making a strawman argument?

              1. You know it’s true, Tony. Liberals don’t want states to be able to make their own decisions… everything should come from the almighty centralized clearinghouse, and if any state disagrees their highway funds are held hostage.

                And this is YOUR team. Proud?

      3. Not a bad spoof of Chonybot.

      4. Whereas federalism in practice has been a critical tool for progress — fact is, most people are nervous about social change; once a few of the braver states try it and nothing catastrophic happens, moderates states will follow suit. The federal government’s role has historically just been bringing the last few holdouts on board.

        The states got rid of slavery far before the feds made it the law of the land, the states granted women suffrage before it was part of the constitution, the states have started implementing gay marriage, but it won’t be federal law until many more states get on board. Without federalism, who can say how long the status quo would have been maintained?

      5. Only someone brainwashed by FOX News doesn’t know that “states’ rights” has always been code for maintaining the white majority’s power to oppress black people.

        We’ll just ignore the fact that State’s Rights arguments were used in Vermont and other states to make the Fugitive Slave Act very difficult to enforce.

        Tony, isn’t it embarassing to keep saying shit which is so blatantly false?

        I know you probably are the victim of government schools, but people have talked about this on threads which you have read!

        Are you so intellectually incurious that you can’t actually research anything that calls into question your love of the state?

        1. I said there was a burden of proof, not that it couldn’t be shown to be related to other things. The Massachusetts gay marriage ruling was based in part on states’ rights too. I’m not saying states don’t or shouldn’t have rights, I’m saying let’s not ignore the reality that the biggest contributor to arguments about state sovereignty in our country’s history has been keeping black people in their place.

          1. Tony,

            Just how stupid do you think people reading this thread are?

            You write:

            Only someone brainwashed by FOX News doesn’t know that “states’ rights” has always been code for maintaining the white majority’s power to oppress black people. Always.

            And now you claim:

            I said there was a burden of proof, not that it couldn’t be shown to be related to other things.

            Only a very stupid person could fall for this change.

            Unless, of course, you weren’t being disingenuous but actually thought you were being consistent, in which case, I pity you for your stupidity and wish you well in life.

            1. This is the bad faith I speak of.

          2. “the biggest contributor to arguments about state sovereignty in our country’s history has been keeping black people in their place”

            Yeah, about a century ago. Get with the modern era, Tony, and stop freaking out that any moment now, the South is going to re-secede. Ain’t gonna happen.

            And neither is Jim Crow.

      6. What he said!

      7. Of course Tony that’s why they wrote it into the Constitution -to keep their slaves. I wanted to fight the Civil War before the Revolution but the others disagreed, its why I went to France while those fucking racist bigoted womanizers back of the woods hillbillies wrote it.

      8. Yeah, Tony… *everyone* who *ever* says “states’ rights” = Klansman. Thanks for the reminder.

    4. I hear an echo of slavery, Jim Crow and George Wallace. And your mom.

  12. It is that many Tea Party activists believe that laws establishing a minimum wage or the federal safety net are an improper expansion of federal power.

    Only because there isn’t really an enumerated power that gives the feds the authority to do this.

    1. What enumerated power gives the federal government the authority to recognize and grant legal privileges to corporations, man?

      1. There isn’t one. Which is OK, since there’s no such thing as federal corporate law.

        1. Word. Corporations are chartered at the state level.

        2. Nice legal bitchslap, RC.

        3. For the sake of argument, you could say that the federal taxing power provides the federal government with the ability to “recognize and grant legal privileges to corporations” with IRC subchapter C being something of the result of that enumerated power. But if you’re talking purely about formation, then no, corporations are creatures of state law.

  13. “It is that many Tea Party activists believe that laws establishing a minimum wage”

    The author of this piece fails to note, of course, that the minimum wage was established in large part to protect white union workers from competition by blacks who were willing to work for a lower wage.

    Accusations of “racism” serve the same purpose for the left that accusations of being “unpatriotic” and “anti-American” serve for the right. They make these accusations for the purpose of marginalizing and discrediting their opponents without actually engaging them on substance. It is an act of intellectual cowardice.

    It will be a wonderful day when the New York Times goes out of business.

    1. “The author of this piece fails to note, of course, that the minimum wage was established in large part to protect white union workers from competition by blacks who were willing to work for a lower wage.”

      Ditto for the Davis-Bacon Act.

      1. ^^ this

  14. “Still, the government programs that many Tea Party supporters call unconstitutional are the ones that have helped many black people emerge from poverty and discrimination”

    But I thought America was this horrible, racist, mean place. At least that is what the Times tells me pretty much every day. How did “many black people emerge from poverty and discrimination” in such a place?

    1. How does one “emerge from discrimination” anyway? And if racial discrimination has decreased, wouldn’t that benefit all black people, not just many black people?

      1. That is a good point. I doubt this woman would agree that a black man is immune from discrimination just because he has a good job.

        1. Her problem is she’s not actually thinking while writing. She’s just vomiting talking points.

      2. Given their set of cultural influences biases I imagine it resembles the end scene of The Wiz where black dancers leap for joy, basking in the golden rays of the sun to the tune of ‘Have You Seen A Brand New Day.’

    2. What’s worse is how factually untrue it is. There is a ton of factual evidence to show that — in the face of hideous discrimination — African Americans were making tremendous gains in education and economic status through the early and middle decades of the 20th Century. If anything, the pace of convergence has slowed since the expansion of the welfare state in the 1960s.

      1. The poverty rate started nosediving in the late 1940s. The great society caught the tail end of that nosedive and poverty has staid pretty much constant since then. All those trillions of dollars and virtually no decrease in poverty.

        Truthfully, I think poverty is lower now than it was in 1965. But no liberal will ever admit that because doing so would admit the statistics they use to whine for more money are bogus.

        1. “”Truthfully, I think poverty is lower now than it was in 1965.””

          Define poverty.

          1. That is the rub isn’t it? I define poverty as not having shit. Not having shit like food and shelter. Fifty years ago there really were people in this country who didn’t have enough to eat. Now, one of the biggest problems facing the poor is obesity. I don’t think the government “poverty” statistics mean a damn thing beyond measuring income inequality rather than income quality.

            1. “”That is the rub isn’t it? “”

              Very much so. I’m not sure if we thinner back then. I’m not a fan of the obesity “epidemic”, considering what BMI calls obese. Just the change in the definition from obviously too fat from visual inspection to the numbers say you’re fat, makes me question the claim. Some people BMI would claim to be obese, would not meet the obese of 1965.

              I agree that more people have more shit today, but I don’t think that’s a good indicator either.

              It would be interesting to see a study (probably has been done), as to how much income was needed to run a household and how that income was spent by percent of income, including insurances, (auto, home, fire, flood, health, life, ect.), food, energy, clothing, ect. A contrast between what was necessary for basic life today, versus yesterday. How the family worked as a unit back then vs today.

              1. Consumer Expenditure Survey if you trust the BLS

              2. I’m not a fan of the obesity “epidemic”, considering what BMI calls obese.

                And considering that millions were redefined as “overweight” by a stroke of the pen in 1998, when the government changed categorization as overweight from a BMI of 27.8 to 25.0 (and, IIRC, obese from 35 to 30). According to Wikipedia (citing CNN), 25 million people became overweight overnight. Keep that in mind any time you see comparisons of obesity numbers from before 1998 to now; no one corrects for the disparity, because it reinforces the point they’re trying to make.

                And if you work out the BMI numbers, the average weight of Americans since the obesity “epidemic” started has gone up by . . . five pounds. ZOMG, WE’RE ALL CATCHING TEH FAT!!!

          2. only having 80 gigs on your PVR

          3. Not having a cell phone and a flat-screen TV.

      2. Surely you aren’t referring to these facts: 65% of black fourth graders can’t read at their grade level…49% of black teenage girls have an STD…plus the previously mentioned incarceration rate…the Left has put the KKK out of business.

    3. “How did “many black people emerge from poverty and discrimination” in such a place?”

      I did it by being a “house negro” at the library.

      1. At least spell his name right if you’re going to make a racial slur against him.

  15. And any liberal who thinks that government welfare programs have helped blacks out of poverty, go pay a visit to the nearest HUD high rise in the area. That is if you don’t wet yourself upon leaving your affluent, overwhelmingly white suburban cocoon.

    1. Or you can read the book.

      Uncle Sam’s Plantation
      http://tinyurl.com/2eo74hz

  16. let them keep playing the race card over everything, each time they do, its impact is diminished.

    racist is the new nazi

    1. I just got here, what did I miss?

  17. I demand medical care for everyone, not just the sick…

  18. Your views have a disparate impact on the number of black people who join your group because most black people don’t have those views. Therefore, you are a racist. See, it all makes sense.

    1. Shelby Steele wrote a devastating column on this a few years ago. It’s been proven prophetic.

  19. You have to admit that if MLK’s political beliefs were talked about, the Glenn Becks of the world would have to loudly condemn him as a bigger threat to America than 10 Obamas. But it’s not as if consistency is important.

    1. Ditto Einstein. Does that mean we have to reject E-mc^2 or all be commies?

      1. I’m not the one doing neo-McCarthyism. Politically Obama is essentially watered down MLK, so I fail to see how the former is a giant socialist threat to the nation and the latter is a hero of Glenn Beck’s. Beck also doesn’t understand the political beliefs of Thomas Paine and would reject many things he wrote about, yet he claims his mantle as well. Could it be because he’s an ignoramus? I report, you decide.

        1. Yes, well plenty of people who lionize MLK on both sides are talking just about the anti-racism and the “I Have a Dream” speech.

          It’s politically impossible to oppose MLK and explain that you are talking about the various far-left quasi-socialistic positions that he endorsed at various times. Anyone even trying to start that conversation is dubbed a racist by the press and the Democratic Party.

          Once you do that, you pretty much lose the ability to call out Republicans or Glen Beck for appropriating MLK’s legacy.

          Otherwise it’s just a game of “heads I win, tails you lose,” if you insist on “if you say you like MLK, then you have to approve of my far-left policies, but if you say that you don’t, then you’re racist.”

          1. That’s your problem, not mine. I happen to be on MLK’s side on most things. His great unfinished project was economic justice.

            1. No. It is your problem Tony because it reveals you to be an idiot and a hack.,

            2. “His great unfinished project was economic justice.”

              You are incapable of proving that such a thing exists.

            3. No, it’s your problem too, because Glen Beck can assume the mantle of MLK and your sort of complaints will be ignored, because MLK’s legacy really has been reduced to I Have a Dream.

              Too bad, that was part of the cost of canonizing him as a secular saint.

              You want to say that MLK stands for economic justice? Too bad, you’ve lost that game.

            4. His great unfinished project was economic justice.

              AKA the enslavement of the population at large, not just dusky folk.

            5. “[MLK’s] great unfinished project was economic justice.”

              “Economic Justice” = Leftyspeak for “Socialism.” Just say what you fucking mean.

            6. “Economic justice” is just code for wealth re-distribution – which in turn is just code for theft.

              1. Yeah, wealth redistribution downward. What’s wrong with that? It’s been deliberately distributed upward for 40 years. Only plutocracy apologists like you guys assume that the current distribution has any relationship with fairness and justice. One guy could own the entire planet and you’d still call it unfair to demand a dime from him.

                1. It’s been deliberately distributed upward for 40 years.

                  Who’s been distributing it upward, Chony?

                  1. Who’s been distributing it upward, Chony?

                    Mostly Republicans.

                    1. Mostly Republicans.

                      Government?

                    2. Mostly Republicans.

                      Okay, I’ll bite…and how are they doing this?

                2. “One guy could own the entire planet and you’d still call it unfair to demand a dime from him.”

                  Oh Buddha H. Krishna — this is reductio ad absurdum writ large.

            7. I got myself some economic justice from MLK by my parcification of the emancipification of Marty’s personification to the realization that I am the one to carry his torch.

            8. Does that mean you are pro-life too?

              1. Kick it, CC.

            9. Economic justice is impossible.

              1. Economic justice is impossible.

                No reason not to give it our best shot.

                1. No reason to shitcan the private sector, either… but that’s what would happen if your proto-Utopian idea of “everyone has the same amount of shit” were ever accomplished.

        2. So the “third-way” advocate demands of his opponents absolute adherence to the political orthodoxy of those from whom he takes his inspiration.

          Whatever with your bullshit, Tony. At least MLK had something to offer besides being a pinko.

        3. I’m not the one doing neo-McCarthyism.

          Huh? Because someone thinks that King was right about equality before the law and judging individuals on the content of their character as opposed to the color of their skin, one must also embrace a statist redistribution of wealth and income?

          Can you explain this?

          1. See Logic, Leftists’ version of.

    2. OK, this is fair.

      MLK was, in fact, the most prominent and politically successful pseudo-communist in American political life since Huey Long.

      Everyone has made a gentleman’s agreement to not talk about it, because of all that wonderful “We Shall Overcome” stuff, and because he was the victim of an assassin. But MLK was a lefty’s lefty. All of that “Wah! It’s unfair to call Obama a socialist!” stuff could never be applied to MLK, because, well, he kinda sorta was one.

      1. MLK was also as a person kind of a bad guy who was a serial womanizer who cheated on his wife. At some point after the generation who lived then is dead, we can have a real balanced discussion about him and who he was and was not.

        1. He also plagiarized portions of his doctoral dissertation.

        2. The only perfect person was Jesus, John, and he’s a figment of your imagination.

          1. Any divine status that can be attributed to him or any of his perceived deeds is strictly a matter of religious/mythological conception, but that a person of Jewish origin known as Jesus and who inspired the events loosely “recorded” in the New Testament actually existed is generally accepted as historical fact.

            1. Don’t confuse Tony with facts. His IQ is so low he can only absorb a few of them at a time.

            2. No it’s not. There is no secular evidence such a person ever existed, and plenty of reasons to believe he was fabricated–since characters with his attributes have popped up in various cultures’ mythologies long before and since.

              1. Prove the existence of Mohammed.

              2. There is no secular evidence such a person ever existed, and plenty of reasons to believe he was fabricated–since characters with his attributes have popped up in various cultures’ mythologies long before and since.

                I don’t see any DNA tests proving who wrote the Constitution, I didn’t attend the convention myself, and all I have to go by are writings attributed to the founders’ names by sources I can’t verify. Therefore, I have no reason to believe that the founders aren’t a myth, especially since characters who believe similar things popped up before them and since.

                For that matter, I don’t have any secular evidence that you exist as something other than a caricature, allegory, or joke account. Neither do you for me.

                1. CJ are you trying to make a point of some sort?

          2. “The only perfect person was Jesus…”

            This is the 16-year-old juvenile delinquent’s excuse: “I’m not perfect, Dad…” It’s deployed with the notion that any bad behavior should be ignored/excused because no one behaves “perfectly” all the time. “It’s okay that you stole Mr. Johnson’s car and drove it into the lake, Timmy. I know you’re not perfect.”

      2. “But MLK was a lefty’s lefty.”

        Thus the reason I tapped that commie’s phone.

        1. Yeah? What else of his did you “tap”?

          1. Jackie but your brain was in a jar on an island somewhere at the time. Forgive me brother but it was the proper thing to do Camelot and all.

    3. I’ll will admit that MLK is dead and has little to no real affect on the political process. Furthermore I will admit that due to the fact that only 1 person can occupy the presidency at a time, that it terms of political power, it really doesn’t matter if there are 1 or 100 Obamas.

    4. Because the important points on which people agree with MLK — and those that define him — have mostly to do with the broad goals of recognizing minority civil rights and diminishing racism.

      It’s no different than recognizing Gandhi’s contributions to Indian independence and civil rights without necessarily agreeing with his belief in socialism (or Hinduism for that matter).

      To some extent, no doubt, it’s lip service, but they have become larger than life in symbolizing greater struggles to the extent that saying “I agree with MLK on points A and B but not C” comes off as tasteless.

      1. Good point. I don’t agree with MLK’s rabid, epileptic form of Baptism but I agree with his stance on civil rights.

    5. But MLK helped achieve real good, which balances out his bullshit economic views. What exactly has Obama accomplished?

      1. But MLK helped achieve real good, which balances out his bullshit economic views.

        So doesn’t that mean his efforts pretty much amount to zero?

        1. Remember that time MLK helped get a bunch of radical socialist policies passed and we all became Communists? Me either. Achievements count for more than stated beliefs, for better or worse.

      2. I ran a good campaign and David Brookes says that qualifies me to be POTUS. That and of course the perfect crease in my slacks.

      3. Fuck civil rights. Where are my common law rights???

  20. You know, this sort of thing (which I’ve seen increasingly over the past 30 yrs.) is now working well enough that I am starting to take expressions of racism and antipathy to poor people as code language for sentiment favoring individual liberty! Yeah, it works both ways and now I’m inclined to vote for politicians who say they’ll keep down the poor & darkies.

    1. Your monocle, top hat, and cane should be delivered shortly.

      1. Thanks, I’ll be looking for them. But I’m serious. This morning I was listening to Carl Paladino on Brian Lehrer’s program, and I thought, if Paladino seems this scary to them, and he doesn’t back off that scariness, then he’d probably be the best governor libertarians could reasonably get in NY.

    2. To be fair, what you’re looking for is not candidates who describe themselves as bigots, but candidates who are decried as bigots, particularly for views that make no mention of race.

      1. I’ll consider the ones who describe themselves that way too, because, hey, the people who make this cx in analyzing others must know something, huh? That is, if libertarians are probably racists, then racists are probably libertarian. The meme would die if there weren’t something to it.

  21. Now that this race thing has been worked out, can we start discussing more important topics?

    1. More GZ mosque debates please.

  22. So, I’m reading all of this, and what I’m taking away is that the Tea Party movement is all about restoring slavery. Is that correct?

    1. No. They also support throwing old people out in the street to die and torturing kittens.

    2. It’s about Hope and Chains, and the Audacity of Rope. A lynch-mob millions strong.

    3. You forgot barbecuing orphans, and women in high heels crushing kittens.

      1. Still, the government programs that many Tea Party supporters call unconstitutional are the ones that have helped many black people emerge from poverty and discrimination.

        This is a common line of argument:
        “Nobody was ever treated fairly without government intervention!”

        It annoys the shit out of me.

      2. Wow, who knew? No wonder liberals hate them so much.

      3. That and picking up their litter. And Al Sharpton’s.

  23. FUCK YOU, “reply to this”!

    1. So, you’re into threaded comments now?

  24. Fucking squirrels, trying to make it look as if I have broken my threaded comment boycott; NEVAAAAR.

  25. Adnotatiunculae bilicis delenda est, frater.

  26. Judge a man not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character.

    If you’re a no good lazy fool, you should get what you deserve regardless of the color of your skin.

  27. If Zernike, the NY Times and others like them want the Federal Government to micromanage the economy, they should propose and promote constitutional amendments that allow it to rather than accusing those that follow the rule of law of being racists.

  28. Penn Jillette hit the nail on the head about the tea parties’ “racism”: racist movements and organizations make no bones about their racism.

    La Raza, the KKK, Nation of Islam, etc. have on thing in common: they are open and honest about their racism. The fact that the tea parties are denying racism pretty much proves it isn’t a race-driven movement

    1. But-but-but “code words”!!!!

  29. This is certainly one of the more whacked-out NYT opinion pieces I’ve seen. While the woo orientation of the Tea Party turns me completely off, claiming individual choice to be racist and the “right to a job” as not Marxist is a screeching turn into left field that, even coming from the Times, blindsided me…

  30. We’re not saying every tea partier is racist, but…

  31. Of course it’s racist. Everything over there is racist. Everything over here is racist. Right now I’m holding a racist in my racist. Look with your own two racists! I’m on a racist!

    Everything and everyone is racist.

    Oh! MARKLAR! I’m sorry! Never mind!

  32. I am so happy that the ugly (inside and out) crazy old gym teacher reaped what she had sowed. She could have gotten her argument across by saying “N word” and not using the word and by not saying “don’t NAACP me” and “Don’t marry out of your race ” but like Michael Richards AKA “Cosmo Kramer”, she ends up the trash heap of history, a history of her own making. I am so happy that the free market AKA sponsors started to pull their ads (I guess they were exercising their free speech) and she finally realized that she was just another “run of the mill gabby” and her days were numbered. She realized that she was not as smart as she thought she was, finally! We are all adults here and we all know that we cannot control how others will respond to our comments, but it nothing to do about First Amendment rights (how exactly did the government stop her? They didn’t) and street talk and more about being held responsible for our actions and words. The first three times she used the word might not have been in anger but the last eight she was filled with hate, so good riddance.

    Palin was the one who got bent over the use of the word “Retard” (she wanted someone fired for using it once), Palin also said that the people have the right to build the Mosque in NY, but out of respect for the 9/11 families they shouldn’t, but I guess this same standard is not applicable to Laura Schlessinger. Do you see the hypocrisy? The problem with Palin is the same when she mistakenly referred to Ronald Reagan Eureka College, being in California and we all know its in Illinois, same thing, she does not fact check anything she is going to say. She is soooo Palin!

    http://vodpod.com/watch/393394…..dity-video

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/wa…..urt-talker

    http://youtu.be/nhGk6eF65Fo

  33. Researchers from MIT and University of Maryland have air jordan shoes created the cathode and anode for a lithium ion battery from two jordan shoes 23 different viruses.

  34. Visalia police say they have handed over the hair straighteners investigation to Tulare County sheriffs deputies because of the officer involvement.The gas ghd iv reserves found around the world are enormous I suspect it will keep price down.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.