I jsut love this story, because it shows so much of what is WRONG with our present society--especially the mainstream media and leftists--while trahshing the despicable Associated Press. Have others joined my futile search for an honest, competent AP reporter? Maybe so.
Here ws the headline on the featured picture story (picture of Obama) on my AT&T/Yahoo internet default page:
"Was transcript of Obama's speech racist?"
No, this story ws NOT from the Associated Press. How do we know that? It is becaues the STORY went on to say, under the headline: "A news service--take that, you despicable people of the AP (editorial comment)--writes up the President's speech, but neglects to clean up grammar."
Say what? It is RACIST to fail to clean up the President's grammar? Does that mean it is RACIST for you to quote something from this blog without "cleaning up" the typos and proofreading mistakes, since I can't see well enough to prevent them? And did yu know that media people ut there are "cleaning up" the President's grammar? I actually did not, although I have no problem with deleting all of the "uhs" and similar obvuos verbal "typos" taht are clearly not part of the text. I actually wuold object if reporters actualy correct GRAMMAR. I don't consider cleaning up obvioius verbal ticks--not the substance of the speech--as "cleaning up grammar". Nobody talks CLEANLY, without "uhs" and "you knows" and etc. But I don't kow what business the AP, or anybody else, has "cleaning up" GRAMMAR (if,for example, the Preisdent splits an infinitive or uses a word incorrectly). Would this be a big deal if the AP had done this to SARAH PALIN or MICEHEL BACHMANN (or even Rickk Perry)? If you see sudden quotes from Rick Perry leavingt in the Sluthern misponunciation, you will know that the mainstream media is ding ti dELIBERATELY in 'revengae" for the "racism' of the LEFTIST Associated Press.
Yes, I find the AT&T/Yahoo headline to be RACIST, just as I find leftists (incluidng in the mainstrream media and in the office of the President of the United States) to be the PRIMARY "racists" left in our society, Yes, I am willing to call the President of the United States a "racist", so long as you understand my reference to the fundamental meaning of the word.
"Racism" is sometimes equated--on the left, mainly--with "hating" black peoiple or "hating" white peole. That is not correct. That is not the eSSENCE of racism, although it is certainly an individual form of racism to "hate" people becuase of the color of their skin. The essence of racism is to DEFININE people by the color of their skin, and assign people rights and benefits--while denying those rights and benefits to others--based on the color of their skin. You can see from this headline that this is exactly what leftists do: DEFINE people--including Obama and those who criticize him--based on the color of their shkin instead of individual, COLOR BLIND merit.
When I saw this main headline I quote above, I asked myself: What the Hell could this possibly mean? Did a member of the Ku Klux Klan somehow alter the President's speech because he or she is a raceist? That is why it made my whle year that we are talking abuot the despicable, incompetent AP here. That is the point. WHY would anyone assume that it is RACIST for the AP to to fail to "clean up" a Presidential speeech? If it were not the leftist AP, I might assume a POLITICAL motive. Yes, I seem to remember Rush Limbaugh making a point of "counting" the "uhs"--or some such thing---in an Obama appearance where he did NOT use the teleprompter. The idea was to show that Obama is not "really" such a great speaker, if yoiu take his teleprompter away. Limbaugh was not making a RACIST point. He was making a POLITICAL point: that the wroship of Obama (I remember this in the 2008 campaign, I believe) was totally over the top.
It is the LEFT (not disappearing rednecks or the joke that is the present Ku Klux Klan) that insists on DEFIING everything in terms of race, without any reason. It is like hiring a blaock person BECAUSE he is black, or giving people special braks to get into certain schools, including professonal schools, BECAUSE of their race or ethnicity. No, again, it is incorrect to suggest that "racism" requires that you "hage balck people" or "hate white people". Dobut that? Don't. If I refuse to hire a black person because of his skin because I think that is best (for whatever reason, including peer pressure), is that racism? Of course it is. If I just don't want to hire a black person because I feel more COMFORTABLE around my own race, is that racism? Of course it. is. It is racism because you are not rtreating people as individuals, but rather dEFINING them based on the color of their skin. "Hate" really has nothing to do with it, although hating someone because of is skin is obviouisly a from of racism bECAUSE you are defining the person based on the color of his skin (assuming that the "hate" is for that reason, and not because the INDIVIDUAL has done something to you).
If you assumer that the only reason that someone would do something "unfair" to President Obama is because of his race, then yoiu are defining EVERYTHING in terms of race. You are, by definition, a RACIST. Ohter politicians get treated unfairly. I mentioned Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Is it automatically SEXIST to say something bad about them? Now WHAT you say may be sexist, as so much of what the SEXISTS in the mainstream media have said about them is sexist. But criticizing Palin and Bachmann is not automatically sexist. What about Herman Cain? He is black. The mainstream media gives him little respect. Clarence Thomas? Again, yI WHAT you say about President Obama is racist, you can make that charge. But if you are simply assuming that some criticism, or mistake, is racist because Obama is black, then it is YOU who are the racist. Yep. I just called the people of AT&T and Yahoo RACIST.
For seven years, this blog has shown you that the despicable AP is INCOMPETENT, and filled with incompetent people. Sure, that incompetence is usually exacerbated by AGENDA,, but they are INCOMPETENT FIRST. There is no reason to believe--absent some sort of really convincing evidence that the Ku Klux Klan has infliltrated the leftist AP--that any botched AP transcript was anything but a MISTAKE, or maybe an attempt to show what an "unsanitized" Obama spech really is. Yep. I am saying that I fail to see what is so bad about OCCASIONALLY transcribing what the President actually SAYS. But I agree it is stupid to insist upon putting out aa transcript that includes every verbal fumble and stumble, incluiding those "filler" words that everyone uses whn "thinking" of what to say ("uh", etc.).
In the end, of curfse, it is unimportant whether Obama gives a good speechor not. Most of us thingk that is part of his problem: that he thinks that eveyrthing is all about a good SPPECH, which may contradict what he said yesterday and what he is going to say tomorrow. Politics should be about SUBSTANCE, Sure, communication ability has some value. But making speeches cannot provide the SUBSTANCE that is not there. This mainstream media idea that substantive criticism of Obama, and every unfair thing concerning Obama (as if Democrats and the mainstream media ewere not desperately trying to do UNFAIR things to Republicans, along with whatever fair things they can do)--this idea that criticizing Obama, or doing something he does not like because he thinks it reflets badly on him, is itself RACIST. It assumes that Obama's RACE somehow protects him from the same things that a white politician has to face. Remember the HATRED for Bush--sometimes stoked by Obama?
That is why this is perversely important. It is not important whether the despicable AP made a mistake, which they do every single day. It IS importatn that leftists want our politics, and our entire society, to be ALL ABOUT RACE, when the rest of us have gone beyond that.
No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Remember, if you quote me (and I freely give you permission to quote this blog without checkig with me) make sure and "clean up" my typos and "grammar". If you don't, I may have to call you a.....................................Hey, what is it called, anyway, when you HATE THE BLIND?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment