Political Correctness at WaPo Run Amok

A recent article in the Washington Post detailing several assaults on local bike paths never mentions the racial characteristics of any of the attackers. It describes them somewhat – mentioning their approximate height, age, and clothing , apparently in a feeble effort to solicit readers to help identify the attackers. And in one instance it includes the skin tone, and in another an artist’s sketch of the attacker. But the Post doesn’t point out the attackers’ most obvious physical characteristic: their apparent ethnic origin, or for that matter their hair color.

Wow – times are a’ changing. Who would have thought, say 20 years ago, that political correctness would lead to this. Not mentioning racial characteristics may be a new policy of the Post. Or it may have been the personal preference of the article’s editor.

Why not just describe them as “a man”? What’s next – not mentioning their gender? Oh I guess that will never happen because it will never be politically incorrect to point out that an attacker is a male.

A Columnist’s Calumny

The left is outraged at Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen for writing that “People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?)”

Then, in attempting to defend himself, he slanders a whole segment of the population by writing, “What I was doing was expressing not my own views but those of extreme right-wing Republican tea party people.”

The affront is multi-fold. interracialHe calls tea party people “extreme.” That’s corruption of the English language. Since when is it “extreme” to want to reduce our burgeoning national debt and slow the rate of government spending, which is mainly what the tea party is all about? The true meaning of the word extreme, in a political sense, is to describe people who carry out violence for political ends.

The other smear is that tea partiers are against interracial marriage. He provides zero evidence to back that up.

Yes, distressingly, there are still folks out there who are opposed to interracial marriage. And you know what? For whites, they’re split about evenly among Democrats and Republicans – 12.5 percent of the former and 11.4 percent of the latter for the years 2000-2010, according to one survey. (The numbers for all races are 9.3 and 11.6 percent respectively. Among blacks, curiously, the numbers are 2 percent for black Democrats versus 13 percent for black Republicans, but one wonders whether there was an error. Why would black Republicans be against blacks marrying whites? You’d think if anyone, that would characterize black nationalists, who certainly aren’t card-carrying Republicans.)

About a year ago MSNBC host Chris Hayes got himself into trouble when he declared that racist Americans “almost entirely” are Republicans. Then a few days later, to his credit, he apologized and pointed out that those opposing interracial marriage are split about evenly among Democrats and Republicans.

Richard Cohen, are you as honest a journalist as Chris Hayes? If so, it’s time for you to apologize as well.

A Veiled “Racist” Smear

Has David Chalian, of PBS’s The News Hour, been taking his marching orders from Spencer Ackerman? That’s the “Journolist” member who wrote “call them racists” in reference to conservatives.

On the July 21 News Hour, Chalian smeared Tea Party activists when he said – paraphrasing – “BigGovernment.com is saying hey, it’s not just elements in the Tea Party who are racists, it’s Sherrod who’s racist too…”

Either it’s a deliberate smear by Chalian, or he’s so out of it as to think that the folks at BigGovernment.com actually think that elements of the Tea Party are racists. Hasn’t he heard of BigGovernment.com’s standing offer of $100,000 to anyone who can produce evidence of the Democratic congressman’s smear that racial epithets were hurled at a rally? Probably not, since it’s doubtful he ever reads anything but left-leaning media outlets (which undoubtedly don’t report on BigGovernment.com’s $100,000 challenge).

Note to David Chalian: if you’re so sure that the Tea Party is racist, here’s your chance to make an easy $100,000.


Abandoning Their Principles for a Larger Prize

Is it racist to say that someone who has dark brown skin and an accent that’s common among African Americans could never win the U.S. presidency?

It could either mean that the utterer of those words (1) thinks someone is inferior due to the color of his or her skin and accent, and therefore should never be president, or (2) doesn’t think someone is inferior due to the color of his or her skin and accent, but thinks that too many other people do think so, and therefore he or she doesn’t have a good chance at winning the presidency.

As someone who doesn’t think that racism in America is near as prevalent as most leftists would have you believe, I would give the utterer of those words the benefit of the doubt and ascribe to him or her No. 2.

But most people on the left do think that racism is very prevalent in America – even among other leftists (who allegedly can exhibit “unconscious” racism in addition to the overt kind). They’re far more likely not to give someone the benefit of that doubt, and would ascribe to him or her No. 1. I’m sure if you did an experiment, you’d get those results.

Now we have a Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, who (by saying Barack Obama could win the presidency thanks in part to his “light-skinned” appearance and lack of a “Negro dialect”) indicated that he thinks someone with dark brown skin and an accent that’s common among African Americans could never win the presidency.

Given that most on the left would reflexively consider that a racist remark (even if uttered by a fellow leftist), it’s hypocritical for them not to call for Harry Reid’s resignation.

I guess they’re just salivating too much at the thought of socialized healthcare, and in this instance are willing to let their principles go down the tubes.

Hey Andrew Sullivan – you certainly seem like the type who would think Reid’s remark is racist. When Trent Lott said “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years” if Strom Thurmond were elected president (to which Lott could have been referring to any number of things, but probably they were just empty words aimed at trying to flatter Thurmond at his birthday celebration), you didn’t give Lott the benefit of the doubt at all and reflexively thought his remark was nefarious. You proceeded to take the lead in the blogosphere in taking down Lott.

Why the silence now Andrew, vis-a-vis Reid?

Smear Alert! Another “If You Oppose Obamacare You Must Be Racist” Canard

Some folks’ bias is so strong, minds are so narrow, and economic illiteracy are so profound that they’re totally incapable of understanding why other folks don’t view Obamacare as a good thing. A big explanation, they surmise, must be racism.

The latest smear comes from an article in today’s Washington Post, written by a Kate Julian, which touts a “study” in which people sorted “stereotypically ‘black’ and ‘white’ words and names (Tyrone and Shaniqua vs. Brett and Jane) into positive and negative categories.” More “black” words in negative categories implied racism. By this logic, the fact that most white people don’t choose “black” names for the kids means that most white people must be racist.

What about the names Matilda or Gertrude or Vladimir? (No offense to anyone named that.) If those are mainly in a research participant’s negative categories, does that make the participant racist against whites?

Hey Kate, I don’t know what race you are or whether you have kids, but if you’re white and you do have kids, are they named Tyrone or Shaniqua or something along those lines? If not, does that make you a racist? (Of course no, but yes if you take Kate’s premise to its logical conclusion.)

The “study” found that people alleged to be racists were more likely to oppose Obamacare. But that can’t hold because the original premise – based on the misleading sorting exercise – was faulty.

What if, say, RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who is black, proposed Steelecare where healthcare is reformed along more free-market lines. What if the alleged “racists” were more likely to support Steelecare? Would that mean support for Steelecare is based on racism?

While I can’t rule out that there isn’t someone, somewhere in the U.S.A. who opposes Obamacare because he or she is genuinely racist, I am confident that at least 99.999 percent of those who oppose Obamacare do so because of legitimate concerns with this monstrosity of a plan.