Race, Politics, And The Conservative Cognitive Breakdown

“The greatest hope that most Americans — including Republicans — had when Barack Obama was elected president was that the election of a black man as the country’s president would reduce, if not come close to eliminating, the racial tensions that have plagued America for generations.”

Fox NewsWhat strain of myopic lunkheadedness could have produced that appalling misunderstanding of racial politics? There is no one with a functioning brain who could ever have thought that just by electing an African-American president, racial tensions would be eliminated. That is such a shallow analysis of modern society that no amount of shame would be sufficient to heap on the author. The only explanation for expelling such an idiotic notion is that someone is looking for a contract with Fox News.

The quote above is the opening paragraph of uber-rightist Dennis Prager’s column in the National Review, and it demonstrates how acutely myopic conservatives are when attempting to grasp the complex issue of race. Prager is actually stunned that “The election, and even the reelection, of a black man as president, in a country that is 87 percent non-black — a first in human history — has had no impact on what are called ‘racial tensions.'” But where he got the idea that sending an African-American to the White House would weave some sort of magic spell over the country that would eliminate racism is simply incomprehensible.

What makes this even more dumbfounding is that the truth is readily apparent in so many aspects of our national profile. If anything, Barack Obama’s election exacerbated racial tensions in some constituencies. People who were predisposed to prejudice hardened their views. Borderline racists slipped across the line and succumbed to their latent bigotry. Amongst politicians and pundits, racial agendas became more aggressive and rhetorical attacks, both blatant and subliminal, multiplied. Shortly after Obama’s inauguration the FBI reported an unprecedented increase in the number of assassination threats. The most simple minded observer ought to have recognized that Obama did not win 100% of the vote, and that the nearly half of the electorate that voted against him contained the same amount of bigots as before the election.

Prager goes on to assert that “racial tensions,” which he dismissively puts in quotes, are actually the fault of African-Americans. He says that the notion is “a lie perpetrated by the Left.” He claims that the term is “a euphemism for a black animosity toward whites and a left-wing construct.” This effort to pretend that racism doesn’t exist, except in the minds of the victims, is commonly found among racists who seek to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the lingering hatred in American culture. According to Prager, blacks are just insufficiently grateful for the generosity shown them by the majority white population. After all, we let them have their president, didn’t we?

Prager has some company with Richard Cohen of the Washington Post whose column today made some equally lunkheaded assertions. His piece titled “Racism vs. reality,” was a defense of racism wherein he declared that he “can understand why [George] Zimmerman was suspicious and why he thought Martin was wearing a uniform we all recognize.” Cohen was referring to Martin’s hoodie, but he might as well have been referring to his skin, because Cohen’s premise was that there is justification for being suspicious of young black men.

Cohen berates politicians who fail to “acknowledge the widespread fear of crime committed by young black males,” noting that “We know them from the nightly news.” However, that widespread fear is largely a product of the distinctly biased representation of African-Americans on the nightly news (and all through the day as well on Fox News and other cable networks). Cohen’s argument relies on phony statistics that disparage blacks as being more prone to criminal activity when, for the most part, they are just more prone to being prosecuted and incarcerated.

Cohen closes by saying that “There’s no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman profiled Martin and, braced by a gun, set off in quest of heroism.” But then he adds that “The result was a quintessentially American tragedy — the death of a young man understandably suspected because he was black and tragically dead for the same reason.” Understandably suspected? Cohen is alleging that it’s perfectly OK, even understandable, to presume foul intentions just by the color of one’s skin. Isn’t that an outright admission of racism?

In a “Stand Your Ground,” “Racial Profiling” society, it is disheartening to see these kinds of opinions being expressed in mainstream media. The consequences of those combined concepts led directly to the tragedy in Sanford, Florida. And it proves that, contrary to Prager’s moronic rambling, there is much work to be done before racial tensions are eliminated. And it won’t happen because one person gets elected to office.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Who Asked This: “Do You Think Obama Is A Crypto-Muslim?”

I’ll give you three guesses. No, it was not Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck.

So that pretty much leaves about 700 other extremist, evangelical, Tea-publicans and rightist media hacks. However, it does narrow it down one particularly delusional Christo-fabulist whose identity I just hinted at in the previous sentence.

That’s right. It’s God’s own press agent Pat Robertson, who still wonders where President Obama was born, and who advises his manly followers to beat their wives. On his 700 Club broadcast yesterday (video below), Robertson took a break from blaming natural disasters on gay marriage to delve into the gnawing mystery of whether Obama is concealing a clandestine plot to deliver America to his Islamic brothers and bring an end to the Judeo-Christian western civilization that he obviously despises.

Robertson: What is it with the Obama administration? Do you think Obama is a crypto-Muslim? What’s the story?
CBN’s Erick Stackelbeck: I think he is a revolutionary leftist. […] If you have that mindset, in my view, you will work with other entities that you may not agree with on everything. You will work with other entities against a common foe. For the hardcore left, for the hardcore Islamists, the common foe is Judeo-Christian western civilization.
Robertson: Chilling. And ladies and gentlemen, I wish it weren’t TRUE!

Robertson has a point. Have you ever noticed all the shocking similarities between American progressives and Muslim fundamentalists? It is downright uncanny.

Tea Party Taliban

Oh, I’m sorry. I was confusing American progressives with Tea Party Christianists. As it turns out, it is the American right-wing that is joined inseparably with the ideological mission of the Jihadi crowd. So, Never mind.


Michele Bachmann Explains “The Way We Spank The President”

Michele Bachmann

When you’re a conservative Tea Party Republican and you’re not certain that you’ve fully established your Teabagger cred, there is only one place to go to shore up the wingnut reputation you so feverishly crave: WorldNetDaily – the premiere web destination for Obama-phobic conspiracy dementia. And that’s just where Tea Party queen Michele Bachmann went to unleash a stream incoherence that must be heard to be believed.

As tempting as it is to focus on Bachmann’s fixation on President Obama’s “magic wand” and her lessons on “the way we spank the President,” I’m going to resist and direct your attention instead to the blatant dishonesty in her interview. She begins with this deliberate falsehood:

Bachmann: “Republicans won’t get patted on the back, or get new votes for passing amnesty. They’re going to get blamed.”

There is, of course, nothing in the immigration reform bill currently being debated that has anything in it that even remotely suggests amnesty. First of all, you need to know that amnesty, by definition, is an act of forgiveness for past offenses. The bill, in its present form, does not forgive any offenses at all. There are stiff financial penalties, as well as obligations to be employed, fluent in English, and free from any criminal record. The process to become a legal resident would take about thirteen years. These punishments and penalties are the opposite of amnesty.

As for Bachmann’s assertion that Republicans would suffer some sort of blame were they to support the bill, she never bothers to explain how that would manifest. The more obvious consequence of failing to support the bill is the continued rejection of the GOP by Latino-Americans, the nation’s fastest growing electoral constituency. Many analysts, including those on the right, warn that Republicans are perilously close to handing traditionally red states like Texas over to the Democrats. And if that weren’t bad enough, Bachmann goes on to say…

Bachmann: “I think that the President, even by executive order, could again wave his magic wand before 2014, and he’d say ‘Now all of the new legal Americans are going to have voting rights.’ Why do I say that? He did it in 2012. Do you remember? Anyone who was here as a Latina, under age thirty, he said you get to vote. What? He decides you get to vote?”

Well, I don’t remember that, Michelle. But then again, I don’t suffer from paranoid hallucinations. In the real world the President never gave the right to vote to anyone, and he has no executive authority to do so. Immigrants can only obtain voting rights by fulfilling all of the requirements of residency and then applying for and passing the mandatory citizenship tests. Bachmann has made up an event that only occurred in her cartoon brain.

She may be confusing a presidential instruction to the INS to assign a lower priority to the deportations of certain undocumented residents who have lived in the U.S. from an early age, are in school or the military, and have no criminal record. These are people who never broke immigration laws because they were brought into the country when they were children by their parents. It is wholly within the authority of the INS to prioritize its enforcement procedures, just as every law enforcement agency does. And most importantly, the people to whom this applies did not, and will not, get any voting rights unless, and until, they become citizens through the usual process.

Of course, Bachmann has a somewhat notorious history for becoming confused, such as the time she claimed to have to have “the kind of spirit” of a serial murderer.

Michele Bachmann
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook


EXCLUSIVE: Fox News Signs George Zimmerman As Host: “Stand Your Ground” Premieres This Fall

Now that the jury has delivered a “not guilty” verdict for teen stalker/killer George Zimmerman, Fox News has taken a bold move to extend the ratings bonanza of the trial into the fall television season.

George Zimmerman
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

Sources inside Fox News have confirmed that Zimmerman has agreed to host a nightly crime and social affairs program on the network that is set to premiere in October 2013. The controversial signing is consistent with Fox’s programming philosophy of exploiting the transient publicity of media spectacles by drafting the beneficiaries of inordinate press attention, despite a lack of experience or qualifications – e.g. Sarah Palin.

The preliminary format for the Zimmerman program is said to consist of segments analyzing breaking crime dramas such as murderous spouses, kidnapped sorority girls, celebrity arrests, high-speed police chases, and any stray rumors involving presidential sex scandals. Fox News contributor, and noted racist ex-cop, Mark Fuhrman, will have a regular spot on the panel segment to offer his expertise in undermining criminal prosecutions with racial epithets. In that respect Fuhrman, who famously extolled the virtues of the “N” word, shares common ground with Zimmerman who regards innocent black teenagers walking through his neighborhood as “fucking punks.”

Fox News CEO Roger Ailes welcomed Zimmerman to the network saying “We could not be more excited by having such a strong advocate of law enforcement on our team. George’s unique insight and commitment to safe neighborhoods and the preservation of the Second Amendment will connect with our audience and inspire Americans to stand their ground.” Ailes also said that Zimmerman will have a role on the Fox Nation web site where they specialize in flagrant lies, a skill Zimmerman has already demonstrated a knack for.

Zimmerman’s new colleagues at Fox are also anxious to work with him. Sean Hannity, who gave Zimmerman his first platform on cable TV, praised his keen instincts and predicted that his hair-trigger analysis and spin on reality will surprise many. Bill O’Reilly is looking forward to lunching with Zimmerman at Sylvia’s. And Geraldo Rivera lauded Zimmerman’s critical eye on fashion that he hopes will put an end to the trendy adoption of thug-wear that has resulted in so much unnecessary bloodshed.

Hoodies

The addition of George Zimmerman to the Fox lineup is a good fit to shore up both their editorial mission and their audience appeal. They are already receiving rave reviews from the NRA and the Tea Party. Throughout the trial Fox demonstrated an overt favoritism for Zimmerman and the prospects of his acquittal. Now, with his new assignment, he will make Fox the first and only network to feature a host who has actually snuffed out the life of an innocent American. And the icing on the cake is that the victim was black and almost certainly not a Fox viewer.


Zimmerman Verdict Reactions From President Obama vs. Fox News

Over the next few days (weeks?) There will be plenty of opinions expressed on the outcome of the George Zimmerman trial. Some of them will come from knowledgeable legal analysts and, unfortunately, way too many from partisan political hacks.

The latter were among the first to weigh in with ignorant and incendiary blowhards like Rush Limbaugh predicting, and even yearning for, civil unrest. And then there was wingnut Tea-publican Steve King who blamed Obama for Zimmerman being tried in the first place. But Fox News, and their corrupt cousins at Fox Nation (see Fox Nation vs. Reality for a detailed examination of their corruption), were not about to be left out of the media Wretch-a-Thon as they elevated a couple of stray episodes of minor vandalism to the front page, leaving the dishonest impression that America was aflame with rioting.

Fox News Zimmerman Riots
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

In addition to falsely fear mongering over non-existent riots, Fox managed to insert into their article an already debunked allegation that the Department of Justice was of staging anti-Zimmerman rallies. They also dredged up phony assertions that Obama had politicized the trial last year when he merely expressed empathy for the grieving parents.

However, the best demonstration of the difference between responsible leadership and reckless provocation can be observed in the responses to the verdict by President Obama and the dour visages of Fox News.

Obama: I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.

The President gave us a call for “calm reflection” and a challenge to seek solutions for ourselves and our country. And then there was this:

Tucker Carlson, Fox News: I’m positive that people like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton do not deserve to be called civil rights leaders. They are not. They are hustlers and pimps who make a living off inflaming racial tensions. They know nothing about this. They’re not residents of Florida. They don’t represent anybody. They’re not elected to anything. They don’t have constituencies. And the only reason they are allowed to do this is because we in the press enable them by calling them civil rights leaders. Why do we do that?

So Carlson’s morning after aphorism begins with racist epithets hurled at African-American leaders who Carlson, a white scion of wealth and privilege, doesn’t think should be leaders – as if he gets to choose. His tirade then spits out a series of criteria that he thinks ought to disqualify people from having an opinion. But, oddly enough, they all apply to him. He doesn’t know anything about this. He is not a resident of Florida. He doesn’t represent anybody. He wasn’t elected to anything. He has no constituency. And the only reason he is allowed to do this is because the press enables him. Why do they do that?

Sharpton and Jackson have actually earned the respect of the communities they serve. You may have differences with them, but they have been in the trenches for decades and the people who have chosen to stand with them have every right to do so. You do not need to be elected to have a role as an activist. Nor do you need some specific residency. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not elected and he took his campaign for equality across an entire nation.

Carlson, on the other hand, has no right whatsoever to pick and choose leaders for the African-American community or the civil rights movement. He has been more of an impediment to equality throughout his career than an advocate. And with these comments from his new perch on Fox News, he proves that he is only interested in creating hostility and division, which is probably why he got the job at Fox where racial division is a key component of their editorial agenda.

The obvious differences between the messages of Obama and Carlson are proof of which side holds the moral high ground. Carlson’s rant illustrates the ethical vacancy of Fox News and its conservative minions whose preference for prejudice and hate is all too apparent. While Obama’s words offer constructive inspiration aimed at bridging social divides. What this country needs is more of Obama’s bridge building, and much, much less of Fox’s bridge burning. Particularly the sort of burning in their news photos that are obviously meant to provoke fear and aggravate tensions.


Zimmerman Verdict A Victory For Trayvon? Here’s Why.

This evening the jury in the trial of George Zimmerman returned a verdict of not guilty for the charge of murder in the second degree, and not guilty for the lesser included charge of manslaughter. Many will be surprised that the jury did not consider what occurred at least manslaughter given the fact that Zimmerman had pursued Trayvon Martin, who had done nothing wrong, and later shot and killed the teenager he had called a “fucking punk.” However, there is a reason to be grateful for the verdict and it is simply this: There was a verdict!

What people need to remember about this case is that there almost was no case. Immediately after the shooting, the Sanford, Florida police department abdicated their responsibility to conduct a proper investigation. They did not interrogate Zimmerman as a suspect. They did not interview witnesses. They did not collect evidence. They did not even test Zimmerman for drugs or alcohol. The police simply bought Zimmerman’s story, concluded that he had a right to shoot Martin under the “kill at will” law (aka “stand your ground”), and closed the case.

If there was any indication of racism, it was with law enforcement in Sanford. Their neglect of duty resulted in turning this local crime into a national drama. And eventually, justice was served when the people rose up to demand it, and the Republican governor of Florida agreed to appoint a special prosecutor who found that there was sufficient evidence to try Zimmerman. What’s sad is that it took a month for authorities to make an arrest.

Zimmerman - Martin
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

That’s what this is all about. And now there has been a trial and the jury has spoken. It was not perfect by any means. The prosecutors failed on many levels to make a convincing case. The jury cannot be faulted for the shortcomings of counsel. But the very fact that a trial has been concluded when at the start of this whole affair it was not even considered, is a victory. Trayvon deserved to have his day in court, and while the decision is not the one his advocates had hoped, at least his killer was put before the bar of justice. That nearly didn’t happen.

And this is still not over. In a post-verdict press conference, the defense attorney said that Zimmerman would not have to see the inside of a courtroom again, but that is not true. There is a federal case pending for the violation of Martin’s civil rights. There will also likely be a civil suit for wrongful death on behalf of the Martin family. In the civil suit Zimmerman cannot decline to testify. There may be some interesting new evidence unveiled due to that alone. Also, a civil suit does not require a unanimous decision by the jury to find a defendant liable.

It should also be noted that the vile cretins who predicted race riots were, as usual, wrong in their presumption of bad behavior by disappointed citizens. Just the fact that scumbags like Rush Limbaugh entertained the notion is proof of their inherent racism. The unfounded fear mongering about violence, and even worse, the suggestion that everyone from civil rights activists, to liberals in the media, to President Obama, actually wanted an adverse verdict so that they would have an excuse to act out with wanton destruction, never panned out. But those who spewed such repulsive predictions will forever be stained as the bigots that they are.

I believe that Zimmerman should have been convicted of manslaughter, at least. I believe that the prosecutors dropped the ball in several instances, while the defense seemed more motivated and better prepared (except for that stomach-turning knock-knock joke). I believe that Trayvon deserved better than to have his killer acquitted and that justice failed him in that respect. But I also believe that, as Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” And the fact that the people demanded and got a trial, after the law had brushed it aside, is a profound victory that should not be dismissed in the midst of these other defeats.

While there is much to regret in this outcome, it is important to remember that Zimmerman was not found innocent. When members of the jury come forward for interviews I expect that they will tells us that the state did not overcome the legal burden of reasonable doubt. And given the state’s poor case construction, I can’t say that I blame them. Prosecutors allowed their own witnesses to advantage the defense. They unnecessarily conceded much of the defense’s version of events (i.e. that Martin was on top during the struggle). They failed to offer a compelling story that explained what happened the night of the shooting. Zimmerman’s acquittal was due more to the inadequacy of the prosecution than to the status of the facts. A more aggressive, competent prosecutor could have got a conviction, but the absence of that is still not innocence.

Hopefully what people take from this is a more conscientious perspective of conflict resolution. I suspect that George Zimmerman will not pull out his gun so easily in the future. And anyone else in a similar situation should also think more than twice. While Zimmerman was not convicted, he did endure 16 months of criminal litigation, and his trials are far from over. I doubt anyone would want to go through that, particularly when another jury in another case might arrive at a different verdict.

And that’s what makes this verdict a victory. The fact that there was a trial and a verdict may help to prevent another tragedy such as the one that befell Trayvon Martin. We could not have said that if the Sanford authorities, who originally chose to do nothing, had their way. But the people’s voice was louder and we got the trial we demanded. And if we stay united and committed there will more and fuller victories to come.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox News Editorial Calls Men “The New Second Class Citizens”

In the twisted universe that Fox News has been working so feverishly to construct, whites are the only victims of racism, education is hurting our children, there isn’t enough carbon in the atmosphere, and now, men are second class citizens who are oppressed by a society that inhibits their freedom and disparages their character.

War on WomenNever mind that men control virtually every powerful institution in America. In the Forbes 500 list of top corporations there are only 18 women CEOs. Women hold only 18.3% of the 535 seats in Congress. Of the 772 full-time judges in the U.S. District Court and Courts of Appeal, just 30.4% are women. A mere 25% of colleges have female presidents. Women continue to get less pay for the same work as men. And predominately male politicians are legislating decisions that ought to be left to women, their families, and their doctors.

Yet somehow Suzanne Venker of Fox News has concluded that it is men who are being short-changed by society. This is an opinion that she has articulated many times before in Fox News editorials and in books published by the Wingnut Supremos at WorldNetDaily. Her first article for Fox was titled “The War On Men,” where she argued that the battle of the sexes was all the woman’s fault. Then she wrote that “‘Submission’ Is Not A Dirty Word,” it only demonstrates that you trust your partner. Her article “What Men Want,” lamented the decline in women who took pride in taking care of their man. The persistent theme in her views is that women ought to be happy to be subservient to men.

In her latest column Venker continues to berate society for its conspicuous favoritism towards women and prejudice against men. She begins by asserting that…

“The most obvious proof is male bashing in the media. It is rampant and irrefutable. From sit-coms and commercials that portray dad as an idiot to biased news reports about the state of American men.”

Venker doesn’t offer any documentation of her claim that male bashing in the media is irrefutable, mainly because there isn’t any. Sure, there are a few representations of dads in sit-coms who are less than competent. But it doesn’t come any near the way that media portrays women as sex objects, bimbos, screw-ups, and bitches. What’s more, who are the media honchos who are producing these characterizations? Overwhelmingly men. So even to the minimal extent that men endure unflattering images, it is men who are providing them. It is also men who are providing the much more common unflattering images of women. But worse, Venker complains that the media makes too big a deal out of the mistreatment of women.

“[The media] would rather feed off stories that paint women as victims. And in so doing, they’ve convinced America there’s a war on women.”

Aside from her disturbing dismissal of the very real problems women face as victims of both discrimination and violence, Venker has utterly misconstrued the notion of the “war on women.” It has nothing to do with a literal war that involves casualties. It is a reference to the social and legal assaults on women’s rights in the workplace, in the courts, in the home, and particularly with regard to making personal decisions about their own bodies. These are concepts that seem foreign to Venker who seriously contends that it is men whose welfare is in jeopardy. This was expressed explicitly when she said…

“Yet it is males who suffer in our society. From boyhood through adulthood, the White American Male must fight his way through a litany of taunts, assumptions and grievances about his very existence. His oppression is unlike anything American women have faced.”

I’m going to just let that hang there and sink in. It is so steeped in delusion that it needs no response. Venker’s perverse sympathy for the beleaguered “White American Male” says so much more about her, and her detachment from reality, than anything I could muster.

And isn’t it appropriate that Fox News provided Venker with this platform? It’s a network that features notably misogynistic male anchors and contributors, balanced by an army of blondes with no journalism credentials. In fact, just this week Fox promoted one sexy blonde with no reporting background to primetime, and replaced her in the daytime slot with a former Miss America. As for misogyny, Fox’s Erick Erickson just tweeted this after the nation’s most severely anti-choice bill was passed in Texas: “Dear liberals, go bookmark this site now.” The link he posted was to a site where you can buy coat hangers. That reference to the tragic past when women died during illegal abortions is about as disgusting as it gets.


The Eyes Of Texas Are All Up In Your Vajayjay

Just when you think that Texas has gone so far over the edge of decency and sanity, they surprise you by pulling a stunt like this:

Texas Senate Tampons
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

You’re Allowed To Carry A Gun Into The Texas Senate Gallery, But Not A Tampon
According to Jessica Luther, a freelance writer and pro-choice activist who has been coordinating much of the push-back to the proposed abortion restrictions over the past few weeks, Senate officials are confiscating any objects they believe may cause a similar disruption in the gallery during Friday’s vote. Protesters aren’t allowed to carry water bottles or even feminine hygiene products, just in case they might throw them at lawmakers.

Despite banning tampons, it is still legal to enter the Texas senate gallery with a loaded handgun. So while Texas senators are afraid of tampons coming at them from enraged protesters, these brave souls have no fear of bullets coming at them from the muzzle of a Colt 45.

However this presents a delicate problem for security personal who must ascertain whether any protester is trying to transport a contraband tampon into the building in some secret hiding place. It also gives new and disturbing meaning to the lyrics of this iconic anthem of the great state of Texas.


Riot Promoter Rush Limbaugh Frets About Post-Zimmerman Unrest

[Update The verdict is in: Not guilty on all counts.
And the verdict is in on Limbaugh as well: Not right about anything, as usual. But then he offered the best appraisal of himself last November:]

Rush Limbaugh

With the fate of George Zimmerman now in the hands of the jury, many on the right are openly speculating as to whether African-Americans have enough self-control to keep from turning into hostile animals. It is an obvious insult to the dignity of people who have been insulted by right-wingers for decades.

At the head of the classless, of course, is Rush Limbaugh. On his radio program today he opened with an offensive presumption that people disappointed with a potential Zimmerman acquittal were already preparing to engage in organized riots.

Limbaugh: They’d rather have the verdict on Monday so they can use the whole week to trash the country. Plus the riots are scheduled for Monday. They probably don’t have the rioters ready to go today. […] I think the DOJ’s probably already done the organizational aspect of the riots.

There is no support for this sort of vile speculation. There are no rallies being planned. There are no protest groups forming. There has never been any threat of violence associated with the outcome of this trial. No authoritative person in the civil rights community ever prejudged Zimmerman’s guilt. The only point of contention was that law enforcement had initially declined to conduct a proper investigation or make a serious effort to ascertain liability.

Nevertheless, Limbaugh went on to make repulsive assertions that advocates for justice were plotting indiscriminate violence. He even said that they would “trash” their hotels when they arrived in Florida to embark on this imaginary rampage. The rant that Limbaugh delivered could not have been more disgusting and filled with blatant racism and hatred for people he apparently considers to be less than human.

And if that weren’t enough, Limbaugh’s tirade barely made sense. In one passage he sought to portray the non-existent protesters, who include the media and the White House, as “totally invested in a guilty verdict.” But his argument in support of that opinion was absurd:

Limbaugh: The media is desperate for a guilty verdict so that they can once again proceed on the assumption that this is a racist, biased, unfair country that refuses to allow blacks to have the slightest chance to get ahead. The civil rights movement wants much the same thing. The White House wants a guilty verdict.

That’s just asinine. If the civil rights movement, the media, the White House, et al, were looking to affirm society’s racism, they would not want a guilty verdict as Limbaugh says. A conviction, after all, would demonstrate that justice was fair and colorblind. How would that achieve the goal that Limbaugh asserts? What’s more, Limbaugh is contradicting his whole premise. From the outset of his program he insisted that there was a constituency that was preparing to riot following the acquittal they anticipated. But now Limbaugh says that they actually want a conviction, after which there would be no reason to riot and all their planning would have been for naught.

The truth is that it doesn’t matter whether Limbaugh has any idea what he’s talking about or not, so long as he says it with a deep animosity for liberals, minorities, and any other of his perceived enemies. And as for his new found aversion to rioting, here is a reminder of what he was saying a few years ago when he openly advocated such behavior by his dittoheads at the Democratic National Convention:

Rush Limbaugh Riot

Rush Limbaugh: Screw the World! Riot in Denver!
I’m dreaming of riots in Denver. Remember 1968? […] I mean, if people say what’s your exit strategery, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That’s the objective here.

That’s the objective here. He could not have been more explicit in his desire for violence and destruction. And now this scumbag thinks he can characterize others as having the sub-human traits that he harbors himself. Psychiatrists call this “projection.” I’ll just call it hypocritical bullshit.


Zombie Journalism: Fox News Must Be Running Out Of Fake Scandals

Imagine how frustrating it must be for the folks at Fox News who have been struggling so furiously to tar President Obama with one atrocity or another, but are having no success due to their total lack of evidence. Fox, and their cohorts in the Republican Party, have dedicated themselves to inventing phony crimes, and attempting to pin them on the President, to the exclusion of every other activity. But whether it was “Fast and Furious,” the IRS, Benghazi, gun confiscation, or the global warming hoax, not a single allegation has had any effect on the President or the White House. It has been a total loss for Fox, having expended enormous energy and resources, but getting no return whatsoever. On the air, in print, online, including their Lie Factory Fox Nation – a total bust.

The visceral pain and disappointment of Fox has visibly manifested itself on the air with increasingly ludicrous rhetoric and even more far-fetched charges. But what can Fox do when all of their best efforts to smear Obama have fallen short of their goal? Well, they can dredge up some past bit of melodrama and present it as if it is breaking news:

Fox News

The zombie story that Fox is reincarnating here is one from October of 2009, after Anita Dunn, then the White House Communications Director, correctly noted that

“The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it is not ideological… what I think is fair to say about Fox, and the way we view it, is that it is more of a wing of the Republican Party.”

This is not a follow-up story. There is nothing new added. It isn’t even a new posting. It is a link to an old, irrelevant article that is as out of place as a pet rock.

Why would Fox post this four year old item in their list of current news stories? Besides being ancient, it is unrelated to anything else that is going on in on today’s news cycle. It seems to be merely a wild swing at the President and an awkward reminder of Fox’s paranoia and persecution complex. But overall, it’s simply another example of the way Fox does business. They have no ethical rudder and are running a self-serving, partisan public relations agency for right-wing propaganda. Up next on Fox: Obama “palling around with terrorists.”

[Update 7/14/2003] Two days later, the breaking political stories on Fox News have changed several times with one exception: the zombie “War of Words” story remains in firmly planted on their home page.