Perfect Example Of An Insincere Apology: Featuring Eric Bolling Of Fox News

I chose this photo of Eric Bolling because of the caption that attacks MSNBC talk show host Ed Schultz. When Schultz made offensive comments about right-wing radio talk personality Laura Ingraham, he offered a sincere apology. He was truly sorry. Eric Bolling is sorry as a human being, but he is not sorry for the racially offensive comments he made in reference to President Barack Obama.

Fox News has a long and well-documented history of hosts and guests making hostile and offensive comments about people of color.

So, when the Eric Bolling (who seems to be auditioning to replace Glenn Beck) started making racially offensive comments about black people it was hardly a big surprise. If he is indeed sort of auditioning for the Glenn Beck role then this kind of racially offensive mentality would be totally expected, if not encouraged.

I am going to start with his apology expressed by this guy Bolling, first:

One editorial note. On Friday, we did a story about the president meeting with the president of Gabon. We got a little fast and loose with the language, and we know it's been interpreted as being disrespectful, and for that, I'm sorry. We did go a bit too far.

"Interpreted as disrespectful" sounds a lot more benign than calling it what it was, in my opinion: "racist." That alone should be indicative of a lack of sincerity.

It almost sounds like he is sorry it is being (not been) interpreted as disrespectful. Does this guy have a heart or a conscience in his body? This man seems as an arctic icecap.

First off, why is this man discussing this topic and using such offensive language on the so-called Fox Business channel?

Now the comments expressed by Bolling. This is an excerpt from News Hounds:

In other words, Bolling is not apologizing for using such offensive language as "It's not the first time (Obama has) had a hoodlum in the hizzouse" or posting a photo of Gabon’s leader with a shining tooth or the repeated use of a banner saying, "Hoods in the House." No, he's apologizing for how that language has been interpreted.

You think he would have said this about George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush or even Bill Clinton? There is no way he would have said this about a white president.

He is flat out not sorry for what he said. It was not his first time making offensive comments and it will not be his last time. He is almost certainly making his case to replace Beck as the host of one of the Fox News hours of hate.

Look, this is a weak, WEAK "apology" from Bolling. It is completely insincere and sounds every bit the part of a man forced to apologize for something he is not the least bit sorry about.

Fox News Uses Black Fringe Groups To Portray Blacks As Angry, Dangerous, Scary

Fox News has a history of portraying black people as angry, dangerous, hostile and racist in many of its broadcasts (news and commentary alike).

The most recent example of this has been this massively over-hyped and B.S. story about the New Black Panther Party and alleged voter intimidation. Fox News has been pushing this story hard to its largely white and conservative audience to push an image of scary black people threatening white people and being allowed to do so by a black president (Barack Obama) and a black attorney general (Eric Holder) in spite of the fact this happened during the George W. Bush Administration. Fox News also has a dubious history of using black people to attack black people. We have witnessed that over and over again with the likes of the pathetic Jesse Lee Peterson, Sean Hannity's boy (that's right, I said it that way).

Republicans have a history of this and used the tactic of the scary black man in the famous Willie Horton ad from the late 1980s used by George H.W. Bush against Michael Dukakis.



From Wikipedia:

Republicans picked up the Horton issue after Dukakis clinched the nomination. In June 1988, Republican candidate George H.W. Bush seized on the Horton case, bringing it up repeatedly in campaign speeches.^[6] Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, predicted that "by the time this election is over, Willie Horton will be a household name."^[6][7] Media consultant Roger Ailes remarked "the only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it."^[8]

It's an effort by the far right to show scary black hoods coming to get you and Democrats will not protect you, but Republicans will take care of these dangerous black thugs.

Fox News frequently has used fringe black groups to attack black people. One of its favorite examples of this is the use of the New Black Panther Party and, most frequently, Malik Zulu Shabazz.

Media Matters for America has showcased the effort by Fox News to use fringe black groups to negatively showcase black people (rarely do they do it with, say a Ku Klux Klansman, and think of how they bend over backward to defend racist tea party morons).

For weeks, Fox News has been hyping J. Christian Adam's discredited allegations that the Department of Justice has "a hostility in the voting section and in the civil rights division to bringing cases on behalf of white victims for the benefit of national racial minorities." Predictably, right-wing media quickly used the phony controversy to race-bait, attempting to connect the Obama administration to the New Black Panther Party -- a designated hate group. Fox News' Glenn Beck, for example, said on his radio show that the New Black Panther Party represented "the kinds of people that our president aligns himself with," and Fox News' David Asman accused Obama of "defending racists" by "letting the Black Panthers off." More recently, Megyn Kelly, the biggest Adams cheerleader of them all, devoted airtime interviewing New Black Panther President Malik Shabazz. This episode follows a pattern of Fox highlighting this radical fringe group over the years.

Research posted by Media Matters shows more than 50 instances of Fox News hosting someone from the New Black Panther Party:

Date	Show	Guest
6/24/1998	Hannity & Colmes	Quanell X
8/31/1999	Hannity & Colmes	Quanell X
6/21/2000	The Edge with Paula Zahn	Quanell X
6/22/2000	Hannity & Colmes	Quanell X
6/23/2000	Hannity & Colmes	Quanell X
2/19/2001	Hannity & Colmes	Malik Shabazz
3/19/2001	Hannity & Colmes	Quanell X
4/12/2001	Hannity & Colmes	Malik Shabazz
5/3/2001	The O'Reilly Factor	Malik Shabazz
5/18/2001	Hannity & Colmes	Malik Shabazz
7/30/2001	The O'Reilly Factor	Malik Shabazz
9/7/2001	Fox News Edge	Malik Shabazz
11/1/2001	Hannity & Colmes	Malik Shabazz
1/16/2002	Hannity & Colmes	Quanell X
2/18/2002	Hannity & Colmes	Quanell X
7/7/2002	Fox Wire	Malik Shabazz
7/8/2002	Hannity & Colmes	Quanell X
7/18/2002	Hannity & Colmes	Quanell X
8/16/2002	Hannity & Colmes	Quanell X
10/24/2002	The O'Reilly Factor	Malik Shabazz
10/28/2002	Hannity & Colmes	Quanell X
7/9/2003	Hannity & Colmes	Malik Shabazz
2/28/2004	Big Story Weekend Edition	Malik Shabazz
6/21/2004	Hannity & Colmes	Malik Shabazz
5/3/2005	Hannity & Colmes	Malik Shabazz
5/5/2005	The O'Reilly Factor	Quanell X
5/25/2005	Hannity & Colmes	Quanell X
9/19/2005	Hannity & Colmes	Hashim Nzinga
9/27/2005	Hannity & Colmes	Quanell X
10/13/2005	Hannity & Colmes	Malik Shabazz
10/17/2005	The O'Reilly Factor	Malik Shabazz
10/17/2005	Hannity & Colmes	Hashim Nzinga
11/29/2005	Hannity & Colmes	Quanell X
2/9/2006	Hannity & Colmes	Malik Shabazz
3/10/2006	The O'Reilly Factor	Malik Shabazz
4/10/2006	Hannity & Colmes	Hashim Nzinga
5/1/2006	Hannity & Colmes	Hashim Nzinga
5/1/2006	On the Record with Greta Van Susteren	Malik Shabazz
6/7/2006	Hannity & Colmes	Hashim Nzinga
8/11/2006	Hannity & Colmes	Hashim Nzinga
11/16/2006	Hannity & Colmes	Malik Shabazz
11/30/2006	Hannity & Colmes	Malik Shabazz
12/5/2006	Hannity & Colmes	Hashim Nzinga
1/5/2007	The O'Reilly Factor	Malik Shabazz
2/26/2007	Hannity & Colmes	Malik Shabazz
3/9/2007	Hannity & Colmes	Hashim Nzinga
4/13/2007	Hannity & Colmes	Hashim Nzinga
7/16/2007	Hannity & Colmes	Malik Shabazz
10/19/2007	Hannity & Colmes	Quanell X
12/4/2007	Hannity & Colmes	Quanell X
3/19/2008	Hannity & Colmes	Malik Shabazz

Again, this is no accident with Fox and its mostly white and conservative audience. This is a calculated effort to fear monger and make white people afraid of black people.

Media Matters for America:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007140028

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.

Clarence Thomas Reminds Us Of The Pain Of Losing Thurgood Marshall

The more I think about it, it’s sad to think that someone who has done so little for civil rights (Clarence Thomas) replaced someone so great (Thurgood Marshall) who did so much for civil rights. It’s almost unforgivable that George H.W. Bush, in 1991, nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court to replace one of the important figures in black history, Thurgood Marshall.

Here is a lengthy excerpt from Wikipedia:

Marshall won his very first U.S. Supreme Court case, Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940), at the age of 32. That same year, he was appointed Chief Counsel for the NAACP. He argued many other cases before the Supreme Court, most of them successfully, including Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948); Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950); and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950). His most famous case as a lawyer was Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the case in which the Supreme Court ruled that “separate but equal” public education was unconstitutional because it could never be truly equal. In total, Marshall won 29 out of the 32 cases he argued before the Supreme Court.

During the 1950s, Thurgood Marshall developed a friendly relationship with J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In 1956, for example, he privately praised Hoover’s campaign to discredit T.R.M. Howard, a maverick civil rights leader from Mississippi. During a national speaking tour, Howard had criticized the FBI’s failure to seriously investigate cases such as the 1955 killers of George W. Lee and Emmett Till. An FBI informant reported that Marshall had “no use for Howard and nothing would please him more than to see Howard completely crushed.” Ironically, two years earlier Howard had arranged for Marshall to deliver a well-received speech at a rally of his Regional Council of Negro Leadership in Mound Bayou, Mississippi only days before the Brown decision. ^[4]

President John F. Kennedy appointed Marshall to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1961. A group of Democratic Party Senators led by Mississippi’s James Eastland held up his confirmation, so he served for the first several months under a recess appointment. Marshall remained on that court until 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed him Solicitor General.

On June 13, 1967, President Johnson appointed Marshall to the Supreme Court following the retirement of Justice Tom C. Clark, saying that this was “the right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man and the right place.” Marshall was confirmed as an Associate Justice by a Senate vote of 69-11 on August 31, 1967.^[5] He was the 96th person to hold the position, and the first African-American.

Meanwhile, Thomas fought against civil rights and continues to fight against civil rights.

From The Daily Voice:

In an 8-1 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Justice Clarence Thomas cast the lone vote against a key provision of the Voting Rights Act on Monday (June 22).

The Court, in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder (PDF link) declined to overturn the 1965 Voting Rights Act that has often been challenged by conservative critics as unnecessary. Instead it avoided the “difficult” question about the constitutionality of the law. But the Court did allow a tiny Texas municipality to be exempted from a requirement to provide advance notice before making changes to its election procedures.

In his dissent, Thomas seemed to argue that the Voting Rights Act is no longer necessary because the explicit racial segregation of the Jim Crow era is gone.

”The violence, intimidation and subterfuge that led Congress to pass Section 5 and this court to uphold it no longer remains,” Thomas wrote. He admitted that in 1965, “Congress had every reason to conclude that States with a history of disenfranchising voters based on race would continue to do all they could to evade the constitutional ban on voting discrimination.” But, Thomas added, “The extensive pattern of discrimination that led the Court to previously uphold Section 5 . . . no longer exists…And the days of ‘grandfather clauses, property qualifications, ‘good character’ tests, and the requirement that registrants ‘understand’ or ‘interpret’ certain matter,’ are gone.”

Some things change, but other things remain the same.

It hurts to think this man replaced the great Thurgood Marshall.