Charles Blow’s ‘Minstrel Show’

An African-American columnist for the New York Times, Charles Blow, decided that he would attend the Dallas area TEA Party event. Although he did not see any overt signs of racism displayed by the largely white crowd, he saw something that was even worse, in his estimation.

He saw a conservative African-American speaker, Alfonzo “Zo” Rachel, addressing the crowd.

“It was a farce,” Blow wrote. Rachel was only trying to show that he was one of “the good ones” to the whites in the crowd.

It was, Blow maintained, “ … a political minstrel show devised for the entertainment of those on the rim of obliviousness and for those engaged in the subterfuge of intolerance.”

Well, Zo has replied.

Blow, his liberal white handlers at the New York Times and progressives in general are right to fear Zo and others like him. Zo demonstrates that when people of color think for themselves, they leave the Democrat plantation.

And so, they savage any minority who dares stray from the party line. Just look at the abuse heaped on people like Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice and others. No slander, no insult, no racially inflammatory phrase such as “minstrel show” is off limits to them.

But the worst, most vile and vicious verbal assaults come from other African-Americans like Blow who is trying very hard to show his bosses that he is one of “the good ones."

In 2010

Next year is an election year for the entire House and one-third of the Senate (including Barbara Boxer). Conservatives are mobilizing and we vote.

Jogging Robert Gibb's Memory

Friday, Nov. 6, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, speaking about offensive signs carried by some anti-Obamacare protestors, said, "People -- imagine five years ago somebody comparing health care reform to 9/11. Imagine just a few years ago had somebody walked around with images of Hitler."

Well, actually, yeah, I can imagine it. Here's why:

Rachel Maddow: Constitutional Scholar -- Not!

The incredibly arrogant Rachal Maddow of MSNBC, speaking with the assurance of the profoundly ignorant, proclaimed that the U.S. Constitution has no preamble. Perhaps if she'd have consulted a Midwestern middle school social studies student, she's have know better. I guess Ms. Maddow didn't have the benefit of a public education in Missouri, such as I had.




In case she still doesn't get the point, here's the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And for some reason, people take this creature seriously?

ZOMBIES!!!

Beware! They walk among us!

Fashion Statement

If Your Mother Says She Loves You, Check It Out

Back in The Day when I was in journalism school (Northwestern University, M.S.J., ’77) we had a saying, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” This was part of an effort to instill in us would-be journalists a healthy skepticism. We were taught to check out every fact and if it couldn't be verified, leave it out of the story.

Apparently that is no longer the case.

I’m referring specifically to the media’s coverage of Rush Limbaugh and his attempt as a minority party of a consortium to purchase the St. Louis Rams National Football League team.

As soon as the story of Limbaugh’s interest in the team broke, stories surfaced in the media about Limbaugh’s racist statements on his radio show, such as praising slavery and saying Martin Luther King’s assassin James Earl Ray deserved a medal.

The problem is that Limbaugh never said any of these things. He wasn’t misquoted or taken out of context; he simply never said them. The most cursory check would have revealed the untruth of these statements.

Yet, the mainstream media, not to mention left-wing bloggers, accepted these outrageous allegations as Gospel truth.

In the wake of the firestorm created by these false accusations, the consortium asked Limbaugh to withdraw his offer. He refused. The consortium fired him.

Another subject covered in journalism school was libel law. One aspect of libel is what’s known as the public figure doctrine. That means that it’s not enough to demonstrate that the story was untrue, malice had to be demonstrated as well as damage.

Rush Limbaugh is certainly a public figure.

So, can he demonstrate malice?

In this context, malice means either knowing that the information was untrue or that the reporter displayed careless and reckless disregard for the truth.

For example, if I were to report a story from the Associated Press that later turned out to be untrue, I'd be protected from libel because I would have every reason as a professional journalist to assume an AP story was accurate. But if I us to cite such an unreliable source as the neighborhood gossip, Wikipedia or someone with a history of libel such as Al Sharpton, I’d be in serious trouble.

But this doesn’t prove libel against a public figure. It’s not enough to demonstrate that the story was maliciously untrue, the libeled party must also show loss.

Rush lost the St. Louis Rams

I’m a “recovering journalist,” not a lawyer. I can’t speak to what will happen should Limbaugh seek judicial relief.

But I will say from what I know as a journalist, some journalistic careers will be ended by this shameful episode.