Michael Steele is an idiot. The analogy with the Loving decision is clearly applicable.

February 7, 2012 § Leave a comment

from RawStory:

“Michael, I’m curious to whether you think it would be OK in modern America for there to be some states where black men could not marry white women?” author John Heilemann asked the former RNC chairman.

“First off, let’s just be very clear,” Steele said sternly. “There are a significant number of African Americans, myself included, who do no appreciate that particular equation. OK? Because when you walk into a room, I don’t know if you are gay or not, but when I walk into a room, you know I’m black. And whatever racial feelings you have about African Americans, about black people, that is something that is visceral, it comes out. I don’t know [you are gay] until later on, maybe you tell me or some other way. So, don’t sit there and make that comparison. Don’t make that analogy.”

It is a perfectly apt analogy. Go back and read the newspapers and diatribes and reporting on the miscegenation issue as it was fought through to the bitter end during the fifties and sixties in the US. The language is the same. Sure there are the occasional differences but see the appeals to tradition, the “natural order”. To religion. and to basic squeemy-ness on the part of the poor, poor lily white majority that might have to….see people of different appearances married to each other.

PropH8 has been busted down to its bigoted knees by an Appeals Court ruling.

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote, joined by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins.

Let’s get back to moron Michael Steele, however. His logic is that because you know someone is black when you look at them, it is totes different from being gay. Oh yes? So you never see someone in a public context behaving in a way that makes it clear they are gay? Why is it different if you infer (strongly) that the person is gay and get a “visceral” response? Like that didn’t ever happen? And what if your only evidence for someone being black is indirect- name, background details….vocal patterns and speech? Like that didn’t contribute to miscegenation laws? It was only about when you see someone in person?

This logic doesn’t even remotely make sense.

And it disingenuously ignores the fact that just as the anti-Black bigot has a “visceral” reaction, so does the homophobe. Like Michael Steele, apparently.

Sure sounds like “black” to me….

January 4, 2012 § 1 Comment

Oh, Ricky, Ricky, Ricky. You tried to weasel out of it:

On CNN Wednesday, Santorum said he reviewed the context in which he made his remarks and said, “I’m pretty confident that I didn’t say ‘black.'” The GOP contender said he “was starting to say one word, and I sort of came up with another word and moved on and it sounded like black.”

Well, it sure as hell sounds like “black” to me, Rick. You sad little liar you.

http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf

The CBS article points out that in Iowa the vast majority of welfare recipients are white:

NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous said in a statement Wednesday that “Santorum’s targeting of African Americans is inaccurate and outrageous, and lifts up old race-based stereotypes about public assistance.”
Jealous pointed out that federal benefits are determined by income level, not race. In Iowa, for instance, 9 percent of food stamp recipients are black and 84 percent are white.

Since Rick made his remarks at a stop in Sioux City, Iowa, that pretty much makes his comments the usual Republican race-baiting on welfare.

Now true, African-Americans are disproportionally poor and disproportionally on welfare, accordingly. However, since there are considerably more non-black folks in these here United States the raw numbers show more non-black Americans supported on welfare. And in fact more white Americans are on welfare than black Americans.

So if some guy is going to make a dent in the numbers of Americans on the dole, targeting the less populous group is…peculiar. Unless, you know, he’s engaging in race baiting in the good old tradition of Ronald Reagan.

By the numbers

January 3, 2012 § 4 Comments

The Census quick facts sheets report the following:

USA: 72.4% white, 12.6% black, 16.3% report Hispanic or Latino origin.

Iowa: 91.3% white, 2.9% black, 5% report Hispanic or Latino origin.

NH: 93.9% white, 1.1% black, 2.8% report Hispanic or Latino origin.

This is hardly news. But it IS pretty damn screwed up that two totally unrepresentative states have such a disproportionate impact on who is a viable candidate for President. This is even before we get to their generally conservative leaning populations, lack of dense urban living and a host of other factors.

Sooo. It’s been a few years. 30 give or take. How’s that trickle down working out?

September 2, 2011 § Leave a comment

about like they always knew it would.

We have record low tax rates for the extremely wealthy. The smartest investor of the supremely wealthy is himself falsifying the claim that the fabulously well to do are EVER discouraged from investing their money to make more of it. And the obscenely well-off are stockpiling trillions and trillions of dollars of value.

Should be a mighty healthy trickle to the middle class and below, no?

[Demotivator image source]

Huh. I don’t think I can ever be President.

April 20, 2011 § 1 Comment

So Trump is getting a bunch of press for dragging up Birther crap again. And good old Fox news has

Gone Full Birther

this has been laid to bed. From 2009:
In an attempt to quash persistent rumors that President Obama was not born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, Hawaii’s health director reiterated Monday afternoon that she has personally seen Obama’s birth certificate in the Health Department’s archives:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….

Factcheck.org laid this canard to rest too..in 2008:

FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

Now, let’s not be stupid here. The Republican talking class promotes this stuff as a scurrilous attack on the legitimacy of Obama. That is there real goal….to undercut the President. So this is far beyond a matter of silly little trivialities like facts. They cannot be convinced with any evidence because they think they have a lie that resonates.

However, let us focus on the allegation. As far as I can tell the Birthers are obsessed that Obama has released a “Certificate of Live Birth”, not a “Birth Certificate”, and that it is apparently a copy and not an “original”.

So basically if you don’t have the precise document that was issued within weeks of when you were actually born, these birthers think you can’t qualify as President.

Yeaaaah. I don’t have that. And I suspect that any copy that I get from the County Hall that recorded my birth won’t be up to snuff either.

See…I was adopted as a child. The identity of my birth mother, due to existing state law at the time, is blocked from any records that are available to me and, presumably any future Fox News pundits and their lackies. So even the official record, such as it is, lists parents that any casual inspection would inform you are not my biological ones.

Jesus, how many fucking people can these teabagging Republicans declare as not really Americans? We know they hate any sort of minority, the nonreligious, immigrants, gays and libruls….now adoptees?

WTF, GOP, WTMFFRUBBQ?

The Family Values Party, Presidential Candidate edition

March 18, 2011 § Leave a comment

The GOP flaming hypocrisy on “family values” and “traditional marriage” on full display.

By Salon.

See, now, you did just “tolerate” that rhetoric, dumbass

February 25, 2011 § 1 Comment

Georgia Republican Congressman Paul Broun, M.D. is really a piece of work. For background, he’s no fan of Obama and has been known to spout the sort of rhetoric that might, just maybe, encourage a violent reaction, no?

Broun, a doctor from Athens in his third congressional term, routinely calls Obama a socialist and said shortly after Obama’s election in 2008 that he feared the president would establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship.

I dunno about you but if I genuinely thought someone was trying establish a “Gestapo” in these here United States to “impose a…dictatorship” of any stripe, I’d take some exception to that.

And what do you know? One of Rep Broun’s constituents did take exception.

at a town hall event in Oglethorpe County, Ga., on Tuesday a man asked, “Who’s going to shoot Obama?”

Well, of course Rep Broun had to react to that, didn’t he? I mean after all

Broun issued a statement Friday calling the question “abhorrent.”

“I deeply regret that this incident happened,” Broun said in a statement. “I condemn all statements — made in sincerity or jest — that threaten or suggest the use of violence against the president of the United States or any other public official. Such rhetoric cannot and will not be tolerated.”[emphasis added]

Right. So by “will not be tolerated”, one assumes that Rep Broun didn’t, well, tolerate this comment.

According to the newspaper’s account, which was confirmed by Broun’s office, the congressman didn’t criticize the man for asking the question, instead deflecting it. He told the audience that he understood their frustration with Obama

See dude? That’s called tolerating it. Not just tolerating it but actually encouraging it. “I understand your frustration” is not telling some dingbat that what they said is unacceptable. It is saying it IS acceptable.

The only reason this Republican Congressman issued his fake tut-tutting three days after the fact was because he got caught out in the media. Liar.

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the republicans category at Sun Dappled Forest.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.