Look In The Mirror Part Deux.

(I went longer on my FB  Wall.  Here is that output.)

 

It has come to my attention that wing nuts are doing some kind of victory dance over the fact that the bombers were not Tea Baggers, but were (dread, awful, dangerously other) Muslims.

Naturally that shit made me sick. And of course to make it not just bad, but beyond stupid, these wing nuts are ignoring the incontrovertible fact: they were white boys!

I just posted in answer to one of the witlessly stupid FB cards touting that fact:

 "It appears the Boston Bombers were white boys. All white people in America go look in the closest mirror. The face staring back at you is the face of "Islamic terrorism" Let the racial profiling begin."

 Now do I actually believe we need to be profiling white boys now? Hell no. I was hoping to make the point by way of ridicule that profiling is a idiotic and racist game.

 But the celebrating by the wing nuts? That is so stupid wrong, that I will have to do inventory.

Ok. Up until Monday the face of Domestic Political Terrorism was white boys. You could call Tim McVeigh the original Tea Party Patriot. He did not just hate the Fed Gvt. He did something about it! And there are many, many more similar minded Americans. Luckily only a few ever go through with anything. On account of them being cowards at heart.

 Up until Monday the face of Domestic Antisocial Terrorism was white boys. Columbine, Aurora, and most recently Newton. (And I still think to a great extent Boston,) were terrorist acts by malcontents, antisocial misfits who mostly wanted the thrill of blowing shit and people up. Not much else going on there for lots of these homicidal assholes.

 Up until Monday the face of Domestic Christian Terrorism was white boys. Abortion clinic bombings, and shootings, and attacks on other religious institutions. Shit. Even some of the so called leaders of major churches and ministries can give the worst of the radicalized Imams and Clerics a run for the Savagely Insane Hate Mongering violence encouraging money.

 And now with the Chechen boys we have a new status, a new reality in America. And now the face of Domestic Muslim Terrorism is white boys.

Is there any domestic terrorism category left or is this a clean sweep in all categories?

 Not that I would ever say we need to start profiling white boys. Buy by the same token, when catch some wing nut spewing that shit, I just want to send them off to Gulag. Not Stalin's. But The one in that Mad Max movie.

Look in the Mirror Assholes.

Wing nut assholes  are wetting their pants  in joy over the fact that the Boston bombers were Muslim.

Perhaps  not oddly, they seem to forget they are/were white boys.

There is one of those FB  slides making the rounds to day  that makes much of the fact that they turned out to be Muslim (white boys,) rather than  Tea Party  (white boys.)

One of my republican friends shared that idiocy.  I usually (90% at least) ignore his political shares.

I had to respond to that one, and did so, thusly:

It appears the Boston Bombers were white boys. All white people in America go look in the closest mirror. The face staring back at you is the face of "Islamic terrorism" Let the racial profiling begin.

I am sure to piss a lot of his friends with that.  Good!

Superficial, Self Deluding GOP Thoughts About Racism, and Who's a Racist.

Over at Lawyers Guns and Money, a teaser about an upcoming essay, The New Racism, by Erik Loomis (a History Professor.)

I find the teaser interesting, and I am sure I will agree with a lot of his points. He does raise in his teaser the definition issue, meaning, how do we define racism in the post Civil Rights Era?* My main point of departure is the UN definition for racial discrimination, and the natural and logical inferences that definition leads to, for a working definition of racism. But what I think is more to the point, particularly when talking about tea baggers and other assorted right wing racists, is how do they (wrongly) define it?

I'll rehash the old, as in have said it many times here before, way of saying it, and then I will add the newer, updated, snazzier version.

Old version.

There are a lot of right wingers out there who's understanding of the issues concerning racism (beyond you can't use certain racist insults anymore,) doesn't go much further than,"Racism = Bad. Being called a racist is bad. I am not bad. Therefore I am not a racist." That's the denial with out self analysis definition that lots of right wingers operate under.

In short, Not Me.

New version (which is not really all that new, but I have been thinking lately that more, if not many many right wingers actually can process the matter at least this far in their definition of what is a racist.)

"See that guy over there? He's way the fuck worse than me. That's racism. He's the racist. I'm not as bad as he is, so I am not a racist."

In short, Not me. Look at that other guy. He's the racist.


(* As an aside that's a truly lousy way to describe it. But yes I know it's a form of short hand for Post Struggle for Civil Rights Leading to Enactment of Federal Civil Rights Laws, Era.)

Line of the Week. Thanks Wonkette.

Last line, in a piece under the heading, PAUL RYAN'S GHOULISH GAZE:

"Thanks, Paul Ryan, For Reminding Voters GOP Wants To Kill Medicare & Social Security!"



"The teabaggers would literally shoot themselves in the face with those guns they love so much if they thought it might also hurt the coloreds."

Here.

I do disagree with the staff over at Wonkette about one thing. I don't think his gaze is ghoulish. I think it's more that of a Meth Head, or someone strung out on some other chemical grade crazy, if not the naturally occurring crazy. WTF is it with these crazy looking GOPers? If that is the way the people in your family, in your hood, in your workplace, look, don't be fooled, people. That's the way crazy people look. That's the thousand yard stare of street corner preachers and bag people. How can folk not know that? (Rhetorical q. Crazy people think each other look normal. A lot. There are limits, but since few crazy people are all crazy, there's a lot of camaraderie among the partials.)

Oh. And a quickie.

No, people. And I am embarrassed, otherwise, at the treatment of Bradley Manning pending trial. But there is no reason to throw a fit over P. Obama saying he broke the law. He's POTUS, not on the SCOTUS. He does not have a professional obligation to be neutral over the subject of a Federal Criminal Inquiry. He is the chief law enforcement of the Nation. All the Federal prosecutors answer to him. So chill out. Stick with the argument that is actually founded in reality, that the treatment of the poor boy has been an embarrassment to the Nation and the People of Our Constitutional Republic.

The Most Interesting Part of the Story is Juan Williams.

Follow up to the non scandal of a liberal (now ex) executive at NPR being a liberal and saying liberal things to people. Remember how I (tacked on actually) the bit about Juan Williams fauxrage? Condescension? That's his meme, in the vid clip with Hannity. Turns out that was a pre loaded shell in his shotgun.

Huffpo is reporting that they have a pre recorded clip that was meant to air no sooner than next week, with Williams using the same line.

As opposed to the Hannity interview, he dances up to the line of calling NPR racists, but he definitely is dealing race cards (and the part time conservative card) out of the deck. Again, oddly and inexplicably, he goes full freak in the Hannity interview. What's his deal? Is he drinking the same batshit Kool Aid that Huckabee is?

Again, what I want to know is why am I the rare person pointing out that Williams has and did go there, in the Hannity interview?

We shall see. I think a little push back might make it clearer for all to see. And it's pretty clearly there already. Williams called NPR management racists . . . on account of them, a bunch of liberal whites, calling the ignorant tea bagging racists, racists.

And that is crazier than what Huckabee said. Crazier than that actor I am avoiding discussing . . .