Cut Out The Foolishness With Oil Spill Blame Game

Perhaps if President Obama could turn into Aquaman, and swim to the ocean floor, he could simply plug the hole himself and take away the whining of right wingers still smarting with an emotional wedgie over the blame President Bush took for Hurricane Katrina.

More and more right wingers are attempting to blame the president for the oil leak (including a few misguided liberals). It's interesting that small-government conservatives are now whining about why President Obama (the government) is not doing more to help them. Since President Obama is all powerful - as conservatives now make him out to be - perhaps he could convert himself into Aquaman and swim into the Gulf of Mexico. Perhaps, like Aquaman, he could communicate with sea animals to enlist their help and warn them of the danger in the area of the oil spill.

Seriously, people, this is not a fault thing. If anyone can stop this oil leak it would have been done by now. BP wants to stop this as bad as anyone, and has been ineffective.

If BP can't stop it then I doubt President Obama or anyone else is going to be able to stop it.

This is an accident that has gotten out of control. Obviously, if we had Aquaman, it would be better for us. Unfortunately, however, Aquaman is a fictional character (cool as he seems to a lot of us) who can't help in this instance.

My humor is not directed at those who suffer due to BP's oil spill. Rather, this humor is directed at the morons who act as though there is a simple solution and President Obama just has not done it.

There is no simple solution to the latest issue right wingers are calling "Obama's Katrina." And, sadly enough, this disastrous leak could go on longer than any of us want to imagine.

Targeting Latinos With Arizona Law ... Conservatives Amazingly Accuse Others Of Racial Politics

Some people just make you shake your head (beginning with the puzzling decision to use President Obama's middle name for no apparent rhyme or reason). The headline of the article is "Obama values Latino votes over safety of American citizens." The depth and breadth of the ignorance of such a statement is nearly beyond comprehension.

It's appalling to make such a suggestion when President Obama is justifiably concerned about how counterproductive this law is with respect to Latinos.

Instead of working for true immigration reform, campaign-year Republicans are attempting to divide Americans on an emotional issue by pushing forward this draconian law that could lead to a legalized form of racial profiling.

Barack Hussein Obama has really given new meaning to the term "socialist." He has now put 1,200 troops on the border, but has insisted to Mexico that the troops won't be used to stop criminal illegal aliens. Apparently, it doesn't matter when criminal illegal aliens destroy the value of American education, rape the welfare system and fly Mexican flags in favor of the American flag. Our forefathers must be spinning in their graves.

It's interesting to hear the term "socialist" from this writer, who again resorts to a word similar to what was used to attack people during the Civil Rights era.

The stupidity of the excerpt (and its headline) cited above is that it assumes that those who are against the Arizona legalized harassment law are somehow in favor of open borders and crime sprees for illegal aliens. Some have demonized illegal immigrants as dangerous criminals and cast a dark cloud (no pun intended) over all Latinos to be treated as suspect - guilty unless or until proven innocent in a show-me-your-papers state.

It's ridiculous.

Tough Guy Glenn Beck Makes Fun Of Malia Obama, Questions Her Intelligence

Fox News extremist and radio talk show nut Glenn Beck is on the attack and this time his victim is Malia Obama, the 11-year-old daughter of President Obama and Michelle Obama.

What a tough guy Glenn Beck is these days. This is a man with a dark heart who has a serious, serious problem.

What kind of loser of a human being makes fun of an 11-year-old concerned about stopping the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico?

Once again, it shows the dark soul behind the shows that Beck puts on whether he is on Fox News or he is on the radio.

BECK: This is such a ridiculous — this is such a ridiculous thing that his daughter– (imitating Malia) Daddy?

GRAY: It’s so stupid.

BECK: How old is his daughter? Like, thirteen?

GRAY: Well, one of thems, I think, thirteen, one’s eleven, or something.

BECK: “Did you plug the hole yet, daddy?” Is that’s their — that’s the level of their education, that they’re coming to — they’re coming to daddy and saying ‘Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?’ ” Plug the hole!

This man is a coward who has no character and seems almost less than human.

I wonder when Bill O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity and others will speak out against Glenn Beck and condemn him the way he and so many others did David Letterman for cracking jokes about the Palin girls.

Don't expect a whole lot from hypocritical bigots like O'Reilly, Dennis Miller, Hannity and others.

I can hardly wait to see and hear how Beck turns himself into the victim.

UPDATE: Beck has issued sort of an apology that is posted on his Web site:

In discussing how President Obama uses children to shield himself from criticism, I broke my own rule about leaving kids out of political debates. The children of public figures should be left on the sidelines. It was a stupid mistake and I apologize--and as a dad I should have known better.

Weak.

Gingrich Has Nerve To Accuse President Obama Of Racism

Fox News right-wing mouthpiece Newt Gingrich is at it again attacking President Obama using race as his weapon of choice. Like so many conservatives on Fox News, Gingrich comes unhinged when he begins to talk about President Obama.

As documented by Crooks and Liars:

Gingrich: Well, look, I assume that somewhere after he [Obama] attacked Arizona, engaged in what I think was a racist dialogue to try to frighten Latinos away from the Republican Party, stood next to the president of Mexico and said borders don't matter because we have strong bonds, had the president of Mexico get a standing ovation from Democrats for attacking an American state, and has his own State Department apologize to the Chinese for the Arizona law -- somewhere in that process his pollster came in and said, 'You know, maybe you're positioned a little bad on this issue.'

President Obama did not attack Arizona. He simply disagrees with the law, and seems to see it as (at best) divisive, problematic and counterproductive.

Gingrich is working from the Glenn Beck playbook ... or maybe vice versa. Does it really matter with these two men who have made a career out of hateful and divisive rhetoric?

A racist dialogue? The man disagrees with the law and is considered to be engaging in a racist dialogue. But, to extremists like Gingrich, those who are in favor of the law just care about their country. The bigot (Gingrich) is intolerant of those who disagree and that is proven by his own words in an effort to attack our president.

Once again, conservatives like Gingrich act as if Latinos are stupid and are simply going to follow orders because they are not smart enough to rationally judge the law.

Note to Gingrich: Latinos who oppose this law have done so because they have evaluated it and see it as wrong for them, wrong for Arizona and wrong for the country.

Democrats do not have to do anything to frighten Latinos away from the Republican Party. Republicans have done a proficient job of that on their own.

Crooks and Liars:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/newt-defends-az-law-obama-engaged-ra

A Letter From Media Matters For America Regarding Stossel's Hostility To Civil Rights Act

Dear Sandy,

For the second time in less than a week, Fox News' John Stossel has used his platform at Fox to stick up for "the right to discriminate."

Tuesday night on The O'Reilly Factor, Stossel continued to call for the repeal of a portion of the Civil Rights Act -- the section that protects people from racial discrimination in public accommodations and businesses.

That's right: Instead of apologizing for his inflammatory comments about the Civil Rights Act, Stossel doubled down, praising his own "consistency" on a "complicated" issue.

The truth is, it's not that complicated. Fox should fire John Stossel instead of continuing to give him a megaphone for his out-of-touch views. We at Media Matters for America are joining with Color of Change to send this message to Fox and News Corp.

Tell Fox News: John Stossel has to go.

"Private businesses ought to get to discriminate," Stossel told Fox host Megyn Kelly last week. He also claimed -- against the evidence of history -- that we should wait for "free-market competition" to take care of racial discrimination. Stossel is sticking up for the rights of those practicing racial discrimination, not those who have been discriminated against.

Tell Fox News: John Stossel has to go.

Civil rights activists fought hard and braved real danger to end segregation and pass the Civil Rights Act, and the fight for equal justice and civil rights continues today. By promoting abhorrent comments like Stossel's, Fox disrespects that struggle.

What's more, Stossel's comments show ignorance not just of history, but of the ongoing challenge of racial discrimination. Stossel's opposition to this key civil rights protection would take us back to a time when restaurants, movie theaters and swimming pools could pick and choose who they let in based on race. He'd protect the right of racists to actively discriminate, and oppose basic rules to ensure fairness for everyone.

Fox has a troubling history of racially-charged statements by hosts and guests. Now, Stossel has made it clear where he stands -- but where does Fox stand? Does it support its employee's comments about the "right to discriminate" and his insistence on rolling back a critical portion of the historic Civil Rights Act?

As a Fox contributor, Stossel represents the network, and Fox bears responsibility for what it airs. By airing Stossel's repugnant comments, Fox legitimizes his indefensible position and treats it as a valid point of view. That's a disservice to those who still consider Fox a legitimate news outlet.

Thousands have already spoken out against Stossel's comments, but he isn't getting the message. Please join us in holding Fox and News Corp accountable. They shouldn't provide a platform for Stossel to promote the right to discriminate. Tell them to fire John Stossel.

Tell Fox News: John Stossel has to go.

Thank you for your support.

Eric Burns
Media Matters for America

The Ill Doctrine On Rand Paul

What Does A Cocaine Dealer Look Like To Bill O'Reilly ... Marc Lamont Hill, Apparently

It was a rare time that I watched a broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor, and this caught my attention even though I was not sure I heard what I thought I heard.

What was Bill O'Reilly trying to say when he jokingly said to Marc Lamont Hill (pictured), "Say you're a cocaine dealer - and you kind of look like one a little bit ..."?

It was an awkward exchange. Hill replied with a joke about O'Reilly to try and lighten it up, but I sensed some tension at that very moment. Clearly, O'Reilly put Hill in a tough position with what could be construed as an offensive remark. Hill, it seemed, let O'Reilly off the hook at that moment.

Question for Bill O'Reilly: What does a cocaine dealer look like that would make you ask that question of Hill?

Media Matters for America:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005260073

Field Negro Right On The Money About Les Phillip

Field Negro is one of the better bloggers out there. One of his eye-catching features that I always look forward to is his "House Negro Of The Day."

The latest is a man named Les Phillip, who is running for U.S. Congress from Alabama. In that old tradition of the house Negro, Phillip attacks President Obama using the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to inflame.

He is trying to get in good with conservative whites by attacking President Obama using Wright. This is evidence of a man who will do whatever it takes to get to Congress.

That's the last thing we need already with the possibility of Rand Paul making it to D.C.



Phillip will win some votes with this ad. If his conscience can handle it then he should be able to sleep well at night.

Sadly, he thinks because he is black he can't be considered racist. Perhaps Phillip should familiarize himself with Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson.

Those you seek to impress will laugh at you behind your back.

Gingrich Wants To Lead U.S. Down A Dark Path Of Divisiveness

The far right and disgraceful Newt Gingrich is using Fox News (he was interviewed by Greta Van Susteren, masquerading as a "Democrat") as a platform to continue to divide Americans ... essentially yelling fire in a crowded room.

This is dangerous talk as Crooks and Liars points out:

VAN SUSTEREN: Continuing with former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. He has a brand-new book, "To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular Socialist Machine." Speaker Gingrich writes, in part, "The America in which we grew up is vastly different from the America the secular socialist left want to create, and that's why saving America is the fundamental challenge of our time. The secular socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did."

Speaker Gingrich is here with us. All right, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Go a little far on that one?

GINGRICH: No. Because I'm not talking about moral equivalence of the people, I'm talking about the end result. If the Nazis had defeated us, then America as we know it would have disappeared. If the Soviet Union had defeated us, the America as we know it would have disappeared. I argue in this book -- and I think it's a pretty reasoned and compelling argument -- that the fact is, the values of a secular socialist movement are antithetical -- and you hear from President Obama all the time.

You know, we're a country that says we're endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. The secular socialist left doesn't want God anywhere in public life and doesn't want to acknowledge God anywhere in public life, to such a degree that the Democratic candidate for the Senate of Massachusetts said maybe if you're Catholic, you shouldn't work in an emergency room, OK? That's a fairly radical statement.

Similarly, we believed historically you get to go out and work as hard as you want. You get to dream as big as you want. And then you get to keep it. Now you have a president who says openly, you know, some people make too much money, and maybe he should decide. Now, I mean, his idea of redistribution is that politicians decide how much you ought to get to keep of what you earn.

Gingrich is irresponsible and speaks to a growing number of angry Americans who are attempting to take this country down a sinister and radical path.

Color Of Change Calls Attention To John Stossel's Irresponsible, Divisive Comments About Civil Rights Act of 1964

Here is a letter I received from Color of Change:

On Wednesday, Rand Paul, the GOP’s US Senate candidate for Kentucky repeated his claim that a central piece of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was wrong, and that businesses should be free to discriminate against whomever they please.¹ Paul and his supporters don’t seem to care that without federal intervention, Black people might still be second-class citizens in many aspects of American life: where we eat, where we work, even where we live.

Then, on Thursday, FOX anchor John Stossel went even further, calling for the section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that applies to business to be repealed.² And he’s refused to back down.

While Paul may have started this outrage, he can be taken care of at the ballot box — FOX News can’t.

Stossel’s position is an affront to Black America and everyone in this country who believes in racial progress. It’s one thing to be a candidate with backwards views. It’s another to be employed by a supposed news network and to use that platform to push hateful ideas that our nation repudiated decades ago.

It’s time that FOX drop Stossel. If people like you stand up in huge numbers and FOX does not act, it will be clear that FOX stands with Stossel and his values — and we'll go directly after the network with a public campaign unlike anything we’ve pursued to date.

Can you add your voice to the call to fire Stossel? And please ask your friends and family to do the same. It takes only a moment — just click below:

http://www.colorofchange.org/stossel/?id=1651-835564

FOX has a history of providing a platform for bigoted views and race-baiting. Most recently you helped us hold FOX accountable by stripping Glenn Beck of more than 100 of his advertisers, after Beck called President Obama a “racist” with a “deep-seated hatred for white people.”³

But Stossel has arguably gone beyond Beck, echoing segregationist arguments from the Jim Crow era:

"It’s time now to repeal that part of the law because private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won’t ever go to a place that’s racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I’ll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist."

Stossel went on to argue something that history has disproved time and again — that private business will do the right thing, without being compelled by laws, because no one would patronize a business that discriminates. It’s a blind belief in market fundamentalism that just isn’t in sync with reality. In the '60s, white-owned businesses that allowed Blacks as customers lost business. Market forces actually perpetuated discrimination; they didn’t combat it. Simply put: segregation would still be active in parts of this country if government hadn’t stepped in.

And recent history has shown that the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act is still needed. In 1994, it was used to hold Denny’s Restaurants accountable, after the chain repeatedly refused to seat Black customers.⁴ Just last year, it was used to go after a Philadelphia pool that prevented Black children from swimming there.⁵

It’s time for FOX News to make a choice. Are they going to give Stossel a platform to revive dangerously outdated perspectives? Or will they move with the rest of the nation into the 21st century? Please call on FOX News to fire John Stossel. And once you do, please ask your friends and family to do the same:

http://www.colorofchange.org/stossel/?id=1651-835564

Thanks and Peace,

-- James, Gabriel, William, Dani, Milton and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
May 22nd, 2010

Help support our work. ColorOfChange.org is powered by YOU -- your energy and dollars. We take no money from lobbyists or large corporations that don't share our values, and our tiny staff ensures your contributions go a long way. You can contribute here:

https://secure.colorofchange.org/contribute/

References:

1. “Rand Paul On ‘Maddow’ Defends Criticism Of Civil Rights Act, Says He Would Have Worked To Change Bill,” Huffington Post, 5-20-10
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/246?akid=1465.868165.C2m-Nl&t=7

2. “Stossel calls for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights Act,” Media Matters, 5-20-10
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/247?akid=1465.868165.C2m-Nl&t=9

3. “Beck’s UK broadcast runs without ads; over 100 companies have ditched Beck,” Jack and Jill Politics, 2-16-10
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/248?akid=1465.868165.C2m-Nl&t=11

4. “Denny’s Restaurants to Pay $54 Million in Race Bias Suits,” 5-25-94
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/251?akid=1465.868165.C2m-Nl&t=13

5. “Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania, Country Club Alleging Discrimination,” US Department of Justice press release, 1-13-10
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/252?akid=1465.868165.C2m-Nl&t=15

Additional:

“Dancing with the Devil,” ColorOfChange.org, 3-14-07
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/249?akid=1465.868165.C2m-Nl&t=17

Summary on FOX News and coverage relating to Black Americans
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/250?akid=1465.868165.C2m-Nl&t=19

Join FAIR In Calling Out Bill O'Reilly For His Anti-Immigration Fearmongering

Source: FAIR

Fox host Bill O'Reilly has repeatedly defended Arizona's draconian new immigration law by pointing to the state's exploding crime rate. But there is no documented crime wave in Arizona, and immigrants have generally been found to commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens. Please join me in calling on O'Reilly to retract his falsehoods--sign FAIR's petition today:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/592/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=3806

ACTION ALERT:
Stop O'Reilly's Immigrant Crime Slurs
Blaming immigrants for nonexistent Arizona crime wave

Fox New Channel host Bill O'Reilly has repeatedly singled out one reason to support Arizona's draconian new immigration law: the state's exploding crime rate. But there is no documented crime wave in Arizona, and O'Reilly's attempt to link immigrants to crime is equally unfounded.

O'Reilly's record of overheated rhetoric is clear:

May 3:
"Arizona had to do something. In the capital city, Phoenix, crime's out of control. For example, last year, New York City, with six times as many residents as Phoenix, had just 16,000 more reported crimes."

May 4:
"The Arizona authorities say we're desperate. We don't have the money. Our crime problem is through the roof. Phoenix one of the most dangerous cities in the country. We got to do something."

May 6:
"So the state of Arizona faced with an overwhelming crime problem, social chaos and a bankrupt treasury had to do something."

May 13:
"Arizona's bankrupt. The crime's through the roof. Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the United States now."

May 14
"Arizona's already won the war of public opinion.... Americans understand, look, here's a state where the federal government will not do its job. The state has 500,000 illegal aliens. It's bankrupt. Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the United States. Crime is through the roof. Drugs are coming across the border all the time. So what do you expect Arizona to do?"

In reality, there is no rising crime rate in Arizona (AP, 5/10/10; CNN, 4/29/10). The same is true of Phoenix--despite the oft-repeated (and thinly sourced) description of the city as a kidnapping haven. The city of Phoenix reported that crime in 2009 was at its lowest rate in 15 years, and violent crime had dropped 18 percent from 2008. Mayor Phil Gordon told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (4/20/09) that "crime is actually down, in every category."

What's more, there is no evidence linking immigrants (documented or undocumented) to increases in crime, in Arizona or anywhere else. In fact, much of the research indicates the opposite--that immigrants commit crime at a lower rate than the population at large (Immigration Policy Center, 4/28/10).

As for the state being "bankrupt," Arizona does face budget shortfalls--along with some 46 other states (CBPP, 2/25/10).

Thanks to people like Bill O'Reilly, laws like Arizona's SB 1070 are discussed in a media environment of fear-mongering and bigotry.

Stand up and demand that O'Reilly show his evidence--or retract his slurs.

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/592/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=3806

***
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986.

www.fair.org

Divisive Rand Paul Echoed By Fox News' John Stossel

Tea Party candidate Rand Paul, a radical Republican heavily influenced by the Tea Partiers, is showing his true colors. And, those true colors of Paul are frightening.

Paul has already inexplicably taken shots at the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and seemingly advocated that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate against black people. While he has since tried to walk back his comments, those words were a window into his heart. Paul might have been in the clear until moronic and irresponsible Fox News commentator John Stossel, another right-wing extremist, came on to not only back up Paul but go beyond. Stossel, best known to me for getting slapped around by former wrestler Dr. D David Schultz (after Stossel had insulted him by saying wrestling as fake right to his face), through gasoline on Paul just as the fire was beginning to be put out.

This all brings me to a column I was reading at Salon.com written by Joan Walsh, one of my favorite writers and television personalities.

Walsh had this to say as she was discussing what some people view as her perceptions of the Tea Party movement. In particular, I am highlighting Paul's comments defending a big business and foreign oil company (British Petroleum) while attacking President Obama:

But I don't see a lot of room for cooperation between left- and right-wing libertarians, or the Tea Partiers and left-wing critics of corporate control over the government. One problem, of course, is Rand Paul's controversial approach to civil rights. But I think it's potentially bigger news that he called President Obama "un-American" for criticizing British Petroleum over the Gulf oil spill, rather than merely saying "accidents happen." Unbelievably, he expressed similar feelings about a coal mining accident in his own state that killed two men. "We had a mining accident that was very tragic," Paul said. "Then we come in and it's always someone's fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen."

Is that the Tea Party philosophy at work: "Accidents happen," people die, and private industry should be left alone, not even criticized, when they do?

So, Paul is defending an oil company.

Paul is defending a foreign oil company.

Paul is defending a foreign oil company responsible for a devastating oil spill the likes of which we have probably never seen.

Paul is attacking President Obama for calling out the oil company.

Paul is defending the foreign oil company responsible for a disastrous spill in the Gulf of Mexico and then calling President Obama "un-American" for holding BP responsible.

As Walsh said, he could have said accidents happen and left it at that, but no...

Paul had to take an opportunity to attack President Obama.

It seems Rand Paul is more interested in protecting rich companies and criticizing our president and less interested in the victims: real people and the environment.

Imagine if President Obama was defending BP.

President Obama, Dems Are Wrong About Jesse Jackson

Editor's note: This blog will surprise some people who think that I am never critical of Democrats, in general, and President Obama, in particular.

I could not agree more with a particular portion of a column I saw written by Boyce Watkins on Black Voices.

Now, there was a lot to the column written by Watkins, but one part I want to point to was a part where the author discusses how the Rev. Jesse Jackson seems to have become an outcast for some in the administration of President Obama. These days, it's difficult to earn a lot of friends defending Rev. Jackson.

I'm not altogether sure why, but I've been reading and studying more about Rev. Jackson to try and understand him a little more. Currently I am reading a biography on him, and I've listened to several of his speeches, including his 1988 speech at the Democratic National Convention as he had again attempted to run for president.

In 20 years, however, Rev. Jackson has gone from being one of the most important black figures in America to largely marginalized (sadly, even by a large number of Democrats).

I find it disappointing and sad. For a lot of people, Rev. Jackson is associated with the so-called "race card" and is accused of trying to essentially make up racism to profit from it (if you believe far-right commentators like Bill O'Reilly, who I strongly believe has a personal disdain for Rev. Jackson). Still, I had not written about it for some reason. Then, this weekend, I read an article by Watkins in which this excerpt caught my attention.

Making matters worse is the Obama Administration's commitment to continued marginalization of Rev. Jesse Jackson. I am not sure if Jackson was marginalized for his verbal mishap on Fox News two years ago or something else. Either way, Jackson should be brought back into the fold of the administration and appreciated as a significant figure within the African American community. With all due respect to Obama, I am not sure how his conscience can allow him to undermine 40 years of committed service just because Rev. Jackson has become an inconvenience to him. If there is room in White House meetings for unqualified Harvard chums like Elena Kagan and Lawrence Summers, then there must also be room for committed Civil Rights veterans like Jackson, who've put their lives on the line to protect American freedoms.

For the record, here is the "mishap" that Watkins mentioned.

That aside, Rev. Jackson has meant too much to the black community to be kicked aside as has been done by Democrats. I don't agree with Watkins that Elena Kagan is unqualified, but he is entitled to his opinion. But I do think Watkins has a great point about the White House wrongly turning its back on Rev. Jackson, who is a good man and who has done so much for the good of people of all races.

I echo Watkins' call for the Obama Administration to bring Rev. Jackson into the fold. However, I do not plan to hold my breath until it happens. These days, Rev. Jackson is not too popular and is seen by some Democrats as political poison. That is sad and perhaps shows Democrats are not strong enough to stand up against that kind of B.S.

Republicans can stand up for Rand Paul, but Democrats will not stand up for Rev. Jesse Jackson. That is sad.

A good man, and Rev. Jesse Jackson is, is being treated like yesterday's news by a new age of people who fail to appreciate his outstanding contributions to society and are instead paralyzed by fear of how Rev. Jackson is perceived by conservative haters.

Black Voices:
http://www.bvonmoney.com/2010/05/22/jesse-jackson-aiyana-jones/

Who Is Bill Kristol Talking About?

On Fox News, far-right conservative commentator Bill Kristol referred to a person with the following adjectives: attractive, complicated, honest, plainspoken and thoughtful.

Was Kristol talking about:

A: Gretchen Carlson
B: Kim Kardashian
C: Rand Paul
D: Megyn Kelly
E: Greta Van Susteren

The answer is: C (Rand Paul)

Visit Crooks and Liars for the details: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/bill-kristol-rand-paul-sophisticated-compl

Fear Drives The Movements In Arizona And Texas

I'm going to stick with the craziness in Arizona and Texas for quite a while; so, get on board.

Lately, I've been discussing the draconian law being forced upon Latinos in Arizona by a far-right governor and state legislature. Also, perhaps less discussed but no less significant, is a movement in Arizona to ban ethnic studies courses (black history, Latino history, etc.). Tonyaa Weathersbee, writing for Black America Web, has a very compelling commentary that discusses both of the issues and really gets to the heart of what I've been attempting to tell people for some time now. What is happening in Arizona is related to the movement in Texas to (forgive the expression) whitewash history and put it through a conservative filter so it doesn't make conservative whites feel so bad about what has happened in the past in this country (and, to some extent, what is happening in the present).

Specifically, the misguided attempt to ban ethnic studies courses is a way to distract from the realities of what some people refer to as white privilege.

Here is part of what Weathersbee wrote:

In other words, any courses in which the facts are too inconvenient for white folks to deal with.

The arrogance here is staggering.

First of all, it’s no secret that black people and Latinos have, throughout their history, struggled against the subjugation of a U.S. government that was run by whites. For us, it was slavery and Jim Crow, and years of being legally barred from opportunities that would have enabled us to build wealth and to create new opportunities. Latinos have also struggled with displacement, segregation and other forms of discrimination.

Yet the Texas education board and Arizona lawmakers care more about protecting the feelings of white conservatives – who never experienced the pain of legal segregation – than telling the stories of the black and Latino people who are, in many ways, still struggling with the aftereffects.

That logic only makes sense in White Privilege Land.

The thought that such ethnic studies courses may make white Americans who take them uncomfortable is precisely why we need them and why white students should take them.

These movements in Arizona and Texas are the product of fear. The fear is that this country is a changing one that is becoming more diverse by the day.

For many conservative white Americans, this is scary. What is taking place in Arizona and Texas is just the beginning of the lashing back we will increasingly see in this country as, in 40 years or so, whites are expected to no longer be the racial majority.

Black America Web:
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/?q=articles/news/baw_commentary_news/18802

Fox News Commentator Steve Doocy Out Of Touch With Racial Profiling Reality

Fox News host Steve Doocy, maybe because he is a white guy, seems pretty confident that there will be no racial profiling in Arizona as a result of the the state's draconian new law that clearly seems poised to target members of the Latino community.

DOOCY: Let's talk a little bit about some big doings at the joint session of Congress yesterday. Felipe Calderón, the president of Mexico went to the well of the House, stood there in front of everybody, told a gigantic lie and the Democrats in the House and the Congress gave him a standing ovation. Watch this.

[Begin video]

CALDERÓN: I strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in Arizona. It is a law -

[Applause]

It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree, but also introduce[s] a terrible idea, using racial profiling as the basis for law enforcement. And that is why I agree -- I agree with the president who say[s] the new law carries a great amount of risk.

[End video]

DOOCY: The specific part that was a gigantic lie is that he said that the Arizona law introduces the terrible idea of racial profiling as the basis of law enforcement. That simply is not true. It is forbidden in Arizona law.

I am pretty sure police brutality is illegal in Seattle, but tell that to the Latino young man who had his beating (at the hands of police) caught on tape in a stunningly under-reported story.

I wonder if Steve Doocy was still comfortable when the officer told the young man: "You got me? I'm going to beat the f***ing Mexican piss out of you homey. You feel me?"

Oh, there is nothing racial there, right Steve? You feel me?

So, while Doocy is attacking the president of Mexico, he and his cronies at Fox News continue to ignore the realities of racial profiling that strikes fear in many minorities.

Steve Doocy is dangerously out of touch.

Media Matters for America:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201005210026

Rand Paul Is A Disgrace ... Republicans Must Publicly Call Him Out

Rand Paul is a disgrace for his awful comments made in an attack on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He has not only disgraced himself, but he also has disgraced the state of Kentucky.

Paul will probably become a U.S. senator, and that is a sad commentary on those who will vote for him (and the Republicans and tea baggers who will support him).

Paul is in apology mode right now, but he showed his true ugly colors and has proven that he is not a man who will represent all people if he is willing to essentially support private businesses that would choose to discriminate against black people (he seemed to indicate that it would be OK because they are private businesses.

Rand Paul must strongly be rebuked by Republicans. If the Republicans are too cowardly to stand up to one of their own then how can they claim to be ready to lead this country?

Rachel Maddow, an MSNBC commentator, shredded Paul. The Republicans must do the same for this man, who appears to be seriously flawed.

Part 1



Part 2



Paul blabbed his talking points about being opposed to racism, but his unwillingness to answer simple questions spoke far louder than his hollow claims of opposition to racism.

Obama Burned In Effigy In A Symbolic Lynching

It's not an actual lynching, but it sure sounds like a symbolic lynching that is a frightening reminder of an era that many of us thought was long gone.

NBA Must Restore Law And Order ... Not The TV Show

NBA Commissioner David Stern's league has an image problem with officials that I am sure he would love to forget.

Far less significant, in the grand scheme of things, was an intriguing incident that happened Tuesday night during the Eastern Conference Finals Game 2 between the Boston Celtics and the Orlando Magic in Orlando, Fla.

The officials were having a less-than-stellar performance calling the Celtics-Magic game and the Orlando fans made sure the three-man crew fully understood their displeasure in the closing minutes and seconds of the first half. While at the scorer's table, a fan (who according to the Orlando Sentinel is Wyndham Vacation Ownership CEO Franz Hanning) apparently got into a verbal altercation with referee Joe DeRosa, who threw the ball at the man. The man threw the ball back at him and it appeared DeRosa attempted to have the man ejected from the game. Apparently, the fan was reassigned to a different seat in the arena.

Had the man been thrown out I would have come down far more aggressively on DeRosa and the NBA, but since he was not I will let up a touch.

I think Stern needs to reign his officials in just a little more. Incidents like that are hardly criminal, but do seem indicative of a lack of discipline and focus on the part of at least this one official. That harms the integrity of the game when officials display a lack of self control.

If NBA officials want fans to be in control (and a lot of them need to get themselves under more control) then it must make sure its officials can control themselves (some need it).

It will be interesting to see what the NBA's investigation turns up.

Who Dealt Gretchen Carlson A Race Card?

Apparently, when white women lose beauty pageants to women of color something has to be wrong according to Fox News morning show commentator Gretchen Carlson, one of the hosts of the dreadful and right-wing Fox and Friends program.

This whole controversy started when Miss Michigan Rima Fakih was named Miss America. By now, her name alone probably tells you how a lot of conservative white people in the media are bound to react.

I found this little clip from Gretchen:

"A lot of people are going to parse this today and ask did she (Miss Oklahoma) Morgan Elizabeth Woolardlose - was she first runner-up - because she supported the Arizona immigration law, and did the Muslim-American win because of the whole PC society that we find ourselves in," said Carlson, who was Miss America in 1989.

Apparently, in Carlson's world, when white women win beauty pageants it's because they're pretty, well spoken and talented. But, when women of color win ...

Check out Steve Pendlebury's article and see all of the hatred coming out from the right toward this young woman from Michigan (from the likes of Michelle Malkin and Debbie Schlussel, a pair of right-wing media extremists).

Also, on Planet Gretchen, when women of color win it's because of the "whole PC society" thing.

By the way, here is what Pendlebury has about Schlussel's hateful attack:

The harshest attack on Fakih so far has come from conservative blogger and talk show host Debbie Schlussel. She claimed that Miss USA has "many relatives" who are terrorists and that a Hezbollah supporter helped bankroll her pageant run. In contrast, Schlussel described Woolard as "classy" and said she gave a "good and somewhat educated answer" about the Arizona law.

That is despicable (read the full version of what she said). It shows how disgusting a bigot like Debbie Schlussel truly is most of the time she opens her mouth or starts typing.

These Republicans Are Confusing On Affirmative Action

Pat Buchanan has an interesting column about President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Buchanan, who is so much of a right-wing extremist he almost makes Fox News look fair and balanced, seems to have an interesting perspective when it comes to affirmative action.

Of course, I always thought conservatives were opposed to affirmative action, quotas and preferences.

I thought that until I read this excerpt of a recent column written by Buchanan as pointed out by Media Matters for America as Buchanan seemingly objected to too many Jews on the high court:

Indeed, of the last seven justices nominated by Democrats JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, one was black, Marshall; one was Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor. The other five were Jews: Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats.

Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?

But while leaders in the black community may be upset, the folks who look more like the real targets of liberal bias are white Protestants and Catholics, who still constitute well over half of the U.S. population.

Not in living memory has a Democratic president nominated an Irish, Italian or Polish Catholic, though these ethnic communities once gave the party its greatest victories in the cities and states of the North.

What happened to the party of the Daleys, Rizzos and Rostenkowskis?

And not in nearly half a century has a Democratic president nominated a white Protestant or white Catholic man or woman.

It seems that Buchanan is OK with affirmative action as long as it is different ethnic white or religious groups (he doesn't seem as open to Jews right now).

But, when it comes to people of color and Jews, individuals like Buchanan all of a sudden become opposed to preferences, quotas, affirmative action and all of the other stuff they attack.

Does this mean Pat Buchanan will now advocate for black women who have been completely excluded from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Nah.

Support Cuéntame's Effort To Move MLB All-Star Game From Arizona

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
Martha de Hoyos
(310) 204-0448, ext. 225
martha@bravenewfoundation.org

In Response to Arizona SB 1070, Cuéntame Launches “Move the Game” Campaign & Releases Statement

Campaign Aims to Move the Major League Baseball All-Star Game from Phoenix in 2011, Baseball Players Begin to Speak out Against Law

Los Angeles, Brave New Foundation’s Cuéntame, launches the “Move the Game” as part of its ongoing effort to force Arizona to repeal the most draconian anti-immigrant law passed to date, SB 1070. “Move the Game” will focus its efforts on getting baseball fans to pressure Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig to move the All-Star Game from Phoenix, Arizona in 2011.

Over 30 percent of Major League baseball players are Latinos and some of them are coming out against the law. To view the video that highlights what various baseball players on SB 1070, please click the link below:

http://act.bravenewfilms.org/go/107?akid=1099.781577.TLaUk1&t=3

Cuentame’s Statement to the Major League:

Brave New Foundation’s Cuéntame demands that Bud Selig move the 2011 All-Star Game from Phoenix, Arizona. While we applaud your accolade-receiving efforts for your diversity hiring practices, the real issue remains: 30% of all Major League Baseball players are Latino, as are a great majority of your fans. By keeping the All-Star Game in Phoenix, you are effectively condoning the law and sending a strong message to your players and fans that it is okay to discriminate against a group of people. The All-Star game will leave behind this legacy of discrimination. Cuéntame strongly urges you to move the 2011 MLB All-Star Game

“Arizona insists on legalizing racial profiling and discriminating against Latinos. We are sending a strong message that they can't play a double game, on one hand profiting from a sport that has a huge Latino following and a league where one-third of all players are Latino and on the other hand institutionalizing a persecution against our community.” Axel Woolfolk, Cuentame Co-Founder

The All-Star Game represents the most high-profile and prestigious game every season in baseball. It has been reported that as much as $60 million will be spent on the host region during the All-Star Game weekend.

Selig Shows His Weakness In Arizona Controversy

Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig has shown his weakness in refusing to deal with the growing problem with Arizona's draconian immigration laws.

Here is an excerpt from a CBS News (Sports)-published story from Associated Press:

Baseball commissioner Bud Selig is ignoring calls to move next year's All-Star game from Phoenix because of Arizona's new immigration law.

Asked about such demands at a news conference Thursday following an owners meeting, he responded with a defense of baseball's record on minority hiring.

"Apparently all the people around and in minority communities think we're doing OK. That's the issue, and that's the answer," he said. "I told the clubs today: 'Be proud of what we've done.' They are. We should. And that's our answer. We control our own fate, and we've done very well."

What is Selig talking about?

Selig's response is gutless and weak. He needs to step up and at least be man enough to discuss the issue head on. Instead, he starts going off on a strange track about minority hiring.

What the hell does minority hiring have to do with the issues of Arizona's outrageous law that dangerously targets Latinos?

Officer Threatens To Beat The F--king Mexican Piss Out Of Suspect ... The Wrong Suspect

For those of you who still think there is no problem with racial profiling, here is an example of what happens when a person is targeted because of race and attacked physically and verbally (with the use of racial slurs).

This video, shot in Seattle, is highly disturbing and speaks to why a lot of people of color have a lack of trust with police (not to say all police are bad or all people of color are guilty-until-proven-innocent criminals).

This video is damning evidence of what appears to be a heinous attack.

Are Conservatives Ignoring/Supporting Slavery With Attacks On Marshall, Kagan?

Republicans, in an effort to attack U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, are declaring open season on anyone in their path: including the late, great Thurgood Marshall, the first black man to serve on the Court.

I had a chance to check out Media Matters for America to take in its research on an attack that conservatives are now engaging in as they attack Justice Marshall.

First, the background. Kagan, who clerked for Marshall, cited a statement by the former justice, who stated that the Constitution, as it was originally composed, was "defective." Right wingers have now begun to attack Marshall to try and suggest that he was some kind of an anti-American radical (a familiar tactic for conservatives who attack minorities). And, as is usually the case, Republicans are completely misguided about Marshall and have taken his comments out of context in a deliberate effort to portray him in the most negative light possible.

When Marshall talked about the Constitution as "defective" he did so because it permitted slavery and denied women the rights that they deserved. But, why would conservatives let the facts get in the way of a good smear.

Below is what Media Matters for America wrote as it documented the full context of what Marshall had to say.

Marshall: Original Constitution was "defective," required amendments to end slavery, guarantee women's suffrage. In his May 6, 1987 speech to the San Francisco Patent and Trademark Law Association, Marshall -- the first African-American Supreme Court justice -- stated:

I cannot accept this invitation, for I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever "fixed" at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today. When contemporary Americans cite "The Constitution," they invoke a concept that is vastly different from what the Framers barely began to construct two centuries ago.

For a sense of the evolving nature of the Constitution we need look no further than the first three words of the document's preamble: 'We the People." When the Founding Fathers used this phrase in 1787, they did not have in mind the majority of America's citizens. "We the People" included, in the words of the Framers, "the whole Number of free Persons." On a matter so basic as the right to vote, for example, Negro slaves were excluded, although they were counted for representational purposes at threefifths each. Women did not gain the right to vote for over a hundred and thirty years.

These omissions were intentional. The record of the Framers' debates on the slave question is especially clear: The Southern States acceded to the demands of the New England States for giving Congress broad power to regulate commerce, in exchange for the right to continue the slave trade. The economic interests of the regions coalesced: New Englanders engaged in the "carrying trade" would profit from transporting slaves from Africa as well as goods produced in America by slave labor. The perpetuation of slavery ensured the primary source of wealth in the Southern States.

Despite this clear understanding of the role slavery would play in the new republic, use of the words "slaves" and "slavery" was carefully avoided in the original document. Political representation in the lower House of Congress was to be based on the population of "free Persons" in each State, plus threefifths of all "other Persons." Moral principles against slavery, for those who had them, were compromised, with no explanation of the conflicting principles for which the American Revolutionary War had ostensibly been fought: the selfevident truths "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Marshall was not randomly attacking the Constitution as some black radical, who hated America. To the contrary, Marshall believed in the greatness of America to right wrongs over the course of time.

Historically, righting the wrongs has helped make the Constitution stronger today than it was when blacks were held as slaves and women were treated unfairly.

But, the fact that the Constitution allowed slavery and women to be treated as less than equal was lost on the mind of far-right talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who rarely wastes an opportunity to attack black people.

LIMBAUGH: I wanted to go even further, so here the last paragraph, we find out even more about Thurgood Marshall, who Elena Kagan idolized:

"During the year that marked the bicentennial of the Constitution, Justice Marshall gave a characteristically candid speech. He declared" -- this is a law review article that she wrote -- "he declared that the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was 'defective'; only over the course of 200 years had the nation 'attain[ed] the system of constitutional government, and its respect for . . . individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental today.' The Constitution today, the Justice continued, contains a great deal to be proud of. '[B]ut the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of "liberty," "justice," and "equality,'" and who strived to better them.' The credit, in other words, belongs to people like Justice Marshall. As the many thousands who waited on the Supreme Court steps will know, our modem Constitution is his."

So, this is who Elena Kagan idolizes, Justice Marshall, who said the Constitution as originally drafted and conceived was 'defective,' and only over the course of 200 years with people like him on the Supreme Court had it become worth anything.

Notice the attempt to demonize Marshall and Kagan through Marshall?

Limbaugh seems to leave out the parts about slavery and women's rights.

Was this an oversight on his part?

Limbaugh is an individual conservatives love, who relishes taking a shot at a great man like Justice Thurgood Marshall who did so much for so many people.

I am no law scholar, but what Marshall said about the original Constitution being "defective" was right on the money, and is obvious.

Long Island, N.Y. Newspaper Compares Obamas To Fred Sanford and Aunt Esther

A Long Island, N.Y. newspaper, the Smithtown Messenger, took a racially-tinged shot at President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama.

In an apparent attempt at satire, the weekly newspaper portrayed recent former presidents and their spouses in before-and-after photo contrasts. In fact, the header on the page was titled "Before and After." Portrayed are President Jimmy Carter and first lady Rosalyn Carter, President Ronald Reagan and first lady Nancy Reagan, President George H. W. Bush and first lady Barbara Bush, President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Clinton and President George W. Bush and first lady Laura Bush. In these photos, there are nice and flattering photos of the couples.

Then, the final photo shows President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama next to a photo of Fred Sanford with sister-in-law Aunt Esther, who are black, fighting in the old 1970s sitcom Sanford and Son.

Was this an intentional and racially-tinged shot at the Obamas using negative stereotypes of black people as a weapon.

Here is a statement released by the newspaper's publisher as the controversy blew up:

The publisher of the Smithtown Messenger regret[s] any offense taken by our readers at the photographic political satire depicting the current and past presidents on the editorial page in the April 29th, 2010 issue. While we have grave disagreement with the policies of the current Administration, we hold the office of President of the United States in great respect.'

We also hold dear the principles of freedom and tolerance upon which our great Nation was founded. We are mindful that the satire seemed to some in poor taste. At the same time, we reject the notions that elected officials, at any level of government, or any race, creed, or color, can hold themselves above the law… or immune from satire. This week the President himself caused some controversy by joking about sending deadly 'predator drones' against the Jonas Brothers. We are confident he was not serious, as we are that our satiric content meant no disrespect. We Thank you for your continued readership, and as always, invite your comment or constructive criticism. Our apologies to all concerned.

The beginning of the statement confirms the political bias that might have been somewhat obvious.

This, however, is more than political bias.

What is interesting is that there were two white Democrat presidents (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) who were not attacked with disparaging "after" photos. There were also white Republicans (Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush who were not portrayed negatively in photos). Had the newspaper attacked all of the Democrats then they might be able to skate by on a charge of political bias. This, however, seems to move behind mere political bias.

The paper's statement offered little in the form of an apology, and was more so defiant.

The outrageous comparison to President Obama's jokes at the White House Correspondents Dinner would seem to indicate a true lack of remorse, and that includes the hollow apology at the end. (As a side note: I deem it outrageous because the president joked about people from both sides of the political middle.) On the one hand, it appears that the newspaper is apologizing, but then defends itself by attacking the victim as if to say, "see, they did something very similar so what we did is not so bad."

Is satire, in this case, a shield to attack President Obama in a racial way?

It's quite likely the editor(s) and publisher of this paper new exactly what they were doing.

Considering the other president's were not attacked it would seem to indicate one of two things: 1., there was a racial motive or 2., the paper had no "grave disagreements" with the policies of presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George. H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

That is a wide range of political agendas swinging from left to right.

As for this paper, I saw little regret in that statement.

Conservatives Predictably Attack Phoenix Suns

Conservatives, many of which whined because the mean mainstream media was tough on the poor ole Tea Party protesters, now are attacking the Phoenix Suns who have decided to make a stand against Arizona's terrible anti-immigration law.

Media Matters for America has outlined how conservative media members have gone on an attack fastbreak against the NBA's Suns, who decided to where their "Los Suns" jerseys to commemorate Cinco de Mayo and protest Arizona's draconian anti-immigration legislation.

Red State Revolution referred to the Phoenix Suns this way: "Los Suns = LOSERS"

Anyone remember all of those conservatives who were crying like sissies when people were critical of the Tea Party protesters? Those who were critical of the Tea Party people were accused of attacking Americans, being intolerant of opposition, suppressing protest and more.

Now, many of these same conservative hypocrites, are the first ones in line to attack the Phoenix Suns in all of the predictable ways.

Here are some samples compiled by Media Matters for America:

Malkin: "[O]pen-borders sympathizing Phoenix Suns." In a May 5 blog post titled, "Los Moochers," Michelle Malkin referred to the Suns as "open-borders sympathiz[ers]," calling the team's move a "stunt." She wrote: "And basketball and baseball fans who support immigration enforcement, national security, and the rule of law should consider taking the proper steps to protect their rights and interests -- by voting with their feet and refusing to do business with open-borders sports organizations. Perhaps Phoenix Suns owner Robert Sarver should stop shoving politics down his ticket-buyers' throats, mind his own business -- and stop using our taxpayers dollars to keep him afloat." She concluded: "New uniform proposal: Los Moochers. If the shirt fits..."

Allahpundit suggests Suns are "responsible" for this "climate of hate." In a May 4 post on HotAir, Allahpundit called Sarver a "tool," writing: "First, shouldn't 'Los Suns' be 'Los Sols'? Second, if this tool wants his team dudded out in protest gear, it's his dime, but I wonder how smart of a marketing strategy it is to make a show of opposing a law favored by 60 percent of the public. Amnesty shills will love it but a larger number of amnesty opponents will hate it, and a swath of people in the middle will wonder why they're being treated to political propaganda when all they want to do is watch hoops." He concluded: "Since 'Los Suns' feel comfortable injecting politics into sports, I'm going to feel comfortable injecting this story into this post: Earlier today, Jan Brewer got an envelope filled with white powder from some unknown member of the Lords of Progress. Exit question: Who's responsible for this 'climate of hate'?"

Red State Revolution: "[W]hat the hell are the Phoenix Suns thinking?" In a May 4 post titled, "Los Suns = LOSERS," the blog Red State Revolution wrote: "[W]hat the hell are the Phoenix Suns thinking? I am 100 percent positive about the following, the players and owner know nothing of what I just wrote and have not read one page of the Arizona bill! Most importantly any professional sports team is fan supported, the Suns just decided to go against what 70% of Arizonans approved! Whoops, that means you pretty much just pissed off 70% of your fan base, because of your decision and lack of knowledge. What smart business model did this decision come from." The post concluded: "Just because you have athletic skills DOES NOT MAKE YOU SMART! Just because you have money DOES NOT MAKE YOU SMART!"

In other words, it is OK for conservatives (Tea Party protesters) to attack President Obama and liberal politicians, but many of those same conservatives feel it is wrong for the Phoenix Suns to protest.

Conservatives cried like babies when Tea Party people were called out for their racist minority and for condoning that racism. Now, many of these same conservatives are badmouthing the Suns for exercising their rights.

Conservatives are falsely implying that those who are against this dangerous legislation are for essentially opening the borders and letting all people into the country.

Such a suggestion is ridiculous.

I commend the Phoenix Suns for this protest and hope more professional organizations and athletes take this lead.

This dangerous xenophobia needs to be halted.

Media Matters for America:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201005050045

Media Matters For America Illustrates A Tired Trend

I should have picked up on this little nugget, but for whatever the reason I did not.

Media Matters for America noticed a hysterical trend on the part of trying to portray everything that has happened even remotely bad as "Obama's Katrina." MMA has pointed out eight different times that far-right conservative media have tried to portray the latest thing bad as "Obama's Katrina" once again.

Here is the list:

• The gulf oil spill
• The H1N1 flu outbreak
• The Fort Hood shooting tragedy
• The Kentucky ice storms (I had not heard this one linked to President Obama)
• Haiti earthquake
• GM bankruptcy
• Christmas Day underwear bomber
• Housing policies in Chicago (I had not really heard this one linked to the president either)

For a full breakdown, visit Media Matters for America:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201004300043

Chilling Poll Speaks To Increasing Xenophobia In The U.S.

Reading a recent blog entry, regarding Arizona's extremist anti-immigration law, on Think Progress was nothing short of disturbing.

Here is a brief excerpt:

A new NYT/CBS poll shows that “the public broadly agrees that the Arizona law will result in racial profiling, overburden local and state law enforcement agencies, and decrease illegal immigrants’ willingness to report crimes for fear of deportation.” Nevertheless, a slim majority of Americans still supports it ...

This is a sad state of affairs, but shows the paranoia of people who see the demographics of the country changing ... the browning of America.

Ernie Harwell: 1918-2010

Growing up in Detroit, Ernie Harwell was the voice of the Detroit Tigers. His voice was second-to-none for a man who was a living and breathing encyclopedia of baseball.

Mr. Harwell, A Hall-of-Fame announcer and man, truly was a living legend.

Tonight, at the age of 92 following a yearlong bout with cancer, Mr. Harwell has passed away. It's a sad day for those who loved baseball and Mr. Harwell's greatness that extended well beyond the baseball diamond. His contributions to baseball and his contributions to society will forever be missed.

We will miss you terribly Mr. Harwell, but you will never be forgotten.

Detroit Free Press:
http://www.freep.com/article/20100504/SPORTS02/100504087/1321/Ernie-dies-at-92

The Phoenix Suns Will Make A Bold Statement Against Unjust Arizona Immigration Law

It is not an official NBA move, necessarily, but the Phoenix Suns are doing their part to combat an unjust (some say racist) law designed to target illegal immigration in Arizona.

The Suns, the professional basketball team based in Phoenix, will be wearing “Los Suns” jerseys (with the name in Spanish) on Wednesday when they host the San Antonio Spurs in Game 2 of the Western Conference semifinals round of the playoffs on Cinco de Mayo. From a protest standpoint, this is a good start and the Suns are to be commended for their willingness to step forward and make this gesture. Although, it will be interesting to see how it is received when the team takes the court. Generally, in sports, when the home team wins - all is forgiven. Still, what is perhaps most interesting about this move is that the owner of the Suns, Robert Sarver, is apparently a Republican.

Here is what Sarver said in a statement released by the franchise:

"The frustration with the federal government's failure to deal with the issue of illegal immigration resulted in passage of a flawed state law. However intended, the result of passing this law is that our basic principles of equal rights and protection under the law are being called into question, and Arizona's already struggling economy will suffer even further setbacks at a time when the state can ill-afford them."

Sarver has stated that this move is indeed a political statement. It's fantastic to see individuals involved in professional sports taking a stand against issues of great importance. This issue is too important for those involved in professional sports to sit on the bench or rest in the dugout.

The Arizona Republic: The bill, SB 1070, makes it a crime for a person to not have immigration documents and empowers law enforcement

agencies to question about the status of people based on "reasonable suspicion."

Major League Baseball Must Take Lead Against Dangerous Arizona Immigration Law

San Diego Padres star Adrian Gonzalez and Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen have been among the most outspoken Major League Baseball critics of Arizona's draconian anti-immigration law that opens the door to legalized racial profiling against people of Latin American descent. It is a good start to have high-profile baseball people such as Gonzalez and Guillen taking strong stands against this reckless legislation, but that is all it is - a good start. In the time since Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed this garbage into law (April 23), and it was adjusted (though not nearly enough), an increasing number of people have expressed outrage and disappointment.

It also is heartening to hear that the MLB Players Association also has come out and strongly condemned this law in the state of Arizona that is xenophobia at its worst.

New York, NY, Friday, April 30, 2010 … The following statement was issued today by Major League Baseball Players Association Executive Director Michael Weiner regarding the immigration law recently passed by the state of Arizona.

“The recent passage by Arizona of a new immigration law could have a negative impact on hundreds of Major League players who are citizens of countries other than the United States. These international players are very much a part of our national pastime and are important members of our Association. Their contributions to our sport have been invaluable, and their exploits have been witnessed, enjoyed and applauded by millions of Americans. All of them, as well as the Clubs for whom they play, have gone to great lengths to ensure full compliance with federal immigration law.

“The impact of the bill signed into law in Arizona last Friday is not limited to the players on one team. The international players on the Diamondbacks work and, with their families, reside in Arizona from April through September or October. In addition, during the season, hundreds of international players on opposing Major League teams travel to Arizona to play the Diamondbacks. And, the spring training homes of half of the 30 Major League teams are now in Arizona. All of these players, as well as their families, could be adversely affected, even though their presence in the United States is legal. Each of them must be ready to prove, at any time, his identity and the legality of his being in Arizona to any state or local official with suspicion of his immigration status. This law also may affect players who are U.S. citizens but are suspected by law enforcement of being of foreign descent.

“The Major League Baseball Players Association opposes this law as written. We hope that the law is repealed or modified promptly. If the current law goes into effect, the MLBPA will consider additional steps necessary to protect the rights and interests of our members.

“My statement reflects the institutional position of the Union. It was arrived at after consultation with our members and after consideration of their various views on this controversial subject.”

First, a brief snapshot of the law from AllGov.com:

Count professional baseball players and their union among the growing chorus speaking out against Arizona’s new immigration law. The law, which will require anyone stopped by law enforcement on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant to show proof of legal status or citizenship, has been criticized by numerous Major League Baseball (MLB) players of Hispanic origin, who make up nearly 28% of the players on MLB teams.

This is an unjust law that people must stand up against. Here is what Gonzalez had to say to MLB FanHouse:

"I'll support the Players Association 100 percent," said Gonzalez, who grew up in both Tijuana and a suburb south of San Diego. "If they leave it up to the players and the law is still there, I'll probably not play in the All-Star Game. Because it's a discriminating law.

"I know it can't be done, but they should take spring training out of (Arizona) if it's possible."

Gonzalez is to be commended for his courage and leadership in standing up to this unjust law Arizona is trying to impose in what is fast becoming a police state that is hostile to people of Latin American descent. He could easily stay quiet, count his money and not rock the boat. The same can be said for Guillen, who insists he will not participate in the 2011 MLB All-Star Game that is scheduled to be played in Arizona.

Guillen said this as quoted by the New York Post:

"I’m not going. I have to support my people, people I believe in. If those people were bad people, hell no I wouldn’t support them; but they’re good people," Guillen said. "I’m very proud to be a [U.S.] citizen, but meanwhile I ask, "Wow, why did this happen?’ We didn’t do anything wrong here. We support this county and this country supports us. That’s why I’m confused about this thing.

"As a coach, no [I won’t go]. As a player it’s a different thing. If the commissioner wants to play the All-Star game in Arizona, we have to show up. As a coach, I’m not going. They don’t need me. The show’s going on without me."

Here is what Guillen added (rather strongly) in the New York Daily News:

"Most (immigrants) are workaholics," Guillen said. "This country can't survive without (them). I'm sorry but a lot of people from this country are very lazy. We aren't. A lot of people from this country want to be on the computer and sending e-mail to people. We do the hard work. We're the ones who have to go out and work in the sun all day long."

This law is foul and targets a specific group of people. It is unjust and immoral and people must speak out against it.

MLB can make a huge difference that extends well beyond the baseball field. Those who are involved in MLB can take another big step toward disproving the myth that athletes are dispassionate people who only care about sports and making money. This is an important cause and our professional athletes and those involved in professional sports can lead the fight for justice on an issue that is far too crucial to be ignored.