Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Why Do People Label Others "Racist", If They Hold Conservative To Moderate Viewpoints?

A few of the blogs that I currently follow have touched upon that New York Post cartoon from last week.

For those of you who have not been following the national news because it's been too depressing, here is a brief overview: About a week ago, a chimpanzee viciously attack a middle-aged woman in someone elses home in Stamford CT. Last week, the NY Post came out with a cartoon that showed two policemen with a dead chimp oozing blood on the sidewalk. One comp says to the other, "Well, it looks like they'll have to find someone else to sign the stimulus package."

For the record, I found the cartoon to be in poor taste, insulting, and disgusting. In any event, most of the comments centered on what I just mentioned, but a few did the guilt by association thing.

What I mean is this: Because the cartoon is incredibly distasteful (and racial), and since it was published in the New York Post and since the Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, it must mean that it met with the approval of Rupert Murdoch, thus Rupert Murdoch is a racist.

Now I know that doesn't make any sense, but stay with me here, because I'll try to elaborate.

On another blog that I sort of follow (heavily female oriented) the blogger made a post about racism, which is fine. She used a picture of a Klan wardrobe, then followed the picture with the comment that "sometimes, racism isn't so easily spotted." Following that comment was a picture of FoxNews and Bill O'Reilly, a news organization and a person who admittedly have conservative to moderate viewpoints on everything.

Explain to me, how is this considered "racial"? Do these same intelligent people who find FoxNews (used to represent Rupert Murdoch) and Bill O'Reilly "racial" give other news organizations like the New York Times , CNN or the BBC the benefit of the doubt and treat them "pure as the driven snow"?

In my humble opinion, the answer to the last question is yes. These same intelligent people who find these organizations "pure as the driven snow", find the previous examples I stated (plus others either you or I can come up with) full of "racial hate".

For the record, I watch FoxNews for my national news and haven't watched Bill O'Reilly for months. I don't read the Times as I have my local version of extreme left-of-center news coverage called The Hartford Courant. I haven't watched CNN since FoxNews came on, and stopped listening to the BBC when I stopped listening to my shortwave radio.

So tell me, what is your opinion on my particular viewpoint?


  1. The BBC will never be classed as pure as the driven snow, but they are governed rather than letting them have a freeforall and write anything they want. If they write something, it is "supposed" to be unbias, but on the occassions that they are bias, boy do they know about it and are lambasted all over the place...which is good! But then you have SkyNews which is also a Murdoch job and I watch it a lot during the day at work, but I think it is just a UK thing that they are not allowed to go getting to bias either.

    But then, there is also free speech, and should be allowed to a certain respect to write what they want. If people dont like it, we have multiple other news channels here as you guys do.

    As for radio...I never listen to BBC radio stations for one reason. They are crap! I will listen to independant music stations 100% of the time. I listen to Virgin Radio over here which you can stram and listen to should you get the urge!

  2. Well, I did make a post about the cartoon (maybe one of the ones you're referring to), and basically my viewpoint is that the cartoonist drew something that turned out to be a little...I'll say questionable, but I don't think he meant for it to be. I mean, Obama didn't really even write the stimulus bill...Pelosi and that congressman yeah.

    But about Fox News and O'Reilly, a lot of people hate them and would never label them any thing near moderate.

  3. How bizarre. I hadn't heard of this incident, but to tie this into the stimulus package is a little bit of a stretch in my opinion.

    The word stimulus gives me a headache nowadays.

  4. Racism is easy to find when you look for it. But I think a lot of folks look a bit too hard. I tell my students, "sometimes a person is a racist. Other times they're just an asshole."

    It's an attack plan by the left wing to make the right wing out all to be racists. That in itself is some kind of "ism." Or it should be.

    There are good and bad folks on both sides.

  5. Sy: I kind of figured that with the BBC. I think it's a prime example of what one could expect here if any part of the stimulus package hits the media.

    As for radio, my speed is now the college stations. They are as about as close to pure free speech radio as you're gonna get. The only limits on them is no foul language until after 10p.

    Kyle: Yes, it is exactly the cartoon in question that you referred to in one of your posts.

    Whether or not that other people had a hand involved in creating the stimulus package, the final result was signed by the President. As such, with this cartoon it was very easy to put 2 + 2 together. There really was no other interpetation that could be given.

    I know with FoxNews and Bill O'Reilly that a lot of people hate them and wouldn't consider them moderate at all. But again, simply because you don't agree with a person's/organization's viewpoint is not a valid reaso to call them "racist". I certainly wouldn't call CNN or the New York Times as such, no matter how much I disagree with their viewpoints.

    Pink: It wasn't that much of a stretch for the cartoonist to try to tie it in. It was for the most part, tasteless. I'm a relatively open minded person, but for me that cartoon was about as tasteless as you can get. The way I see it, is that this might be an opening salvo for a "tit for tat" on the current President, after what was done to the prior President for the past eight years.

    It sort of gives me a headache as well, but unfortunately, my job's future is intricately tied into this "stimulus" package.

    Charles: I couldn't agree with you more.

    There are definitely good and bad folks on each side of aisle.

    And yes, sometimes an asshole is just that: an asshole.

  6. To be honest, I didn't even SEE the supposed racism in that cartoon. To me, all it said was "this stimulus package is so stupid, a bunch of monkeys could've written it." (I mean, isn't that what the point was supposed to be? As was already mentioned, Obama didn't even WRITE the stimulus package...)

    Sigh... it's going to be a loooong four years if everyone who criticizes the president is immediately labeled "racist."

    And yes, it DOES seem that conservatives are automatically called "racist." Also "homophobic," "intolerant," "narrow-minded," etc., etc. Interesting, isn't it, that those who are supposedly "open-minded" and full of "tolerance" are so quick to judge someone based on their political affiliation?

    And where is that puppy Obama promised me?? :)

  7. While it's true that he didn't "write" the stimulus package, he was very gung-ho for it and because he signed it, he bacame its most visible proponent.

    Thus, the interpetation of the cartoon being racist.

    Yes, it's gonna be a loooong four years, with everyone walking around on their tippy toes, trying not to offend the powers that be (and I'm not talking about the President either. Seems like he has a relatively thick skin about things. if he didn't, he wouldn't be where he is today, i guess).

    It's always a given that the people who claimed to be the "most open and tolerant" tolerant person on the planet, are often the ones who throw the first stones.

    In that political ideology's defense, I have met people of that persuasion, who are honestly tolerant of other's viewpoints, no matter how right of center they may be.

  8. I haven't watched the news in months but did watch FOX because thre is so much slant on all other channels, in my opinion.

    I think racism is each man's row to hoe and we have to set a good example for our kids.

  9. I'm not sure that this line from HUD applies but it jumped to mind after reading your post: If you separate the sinners from the saints, you're lucky if you end up with Abraham Lincoln.

    But to answer your question I agree with Charles that both sides carry their fair share of idiots.

  10. I believe that to be true, that racism is everyone's row to hoe.

    It just seems to me that the younger generation is putting so much stuff under a microscope that eventually everthing gets labeled as "racist", no matter if it deserves it or not

  11. Did Obama WRITE the stimulus. No. Was the cartoon tied to Obama in a round about way? Obviously. Was the whole point to get people's attentions, cause a big stink? Yup. Poor taste or not, people took notice and that I think is what they were going for.

  12. I believe from the get go that was the intent of the cartoon.

    Poor taste? Yup.
    Got people's attention for all the wrong reasons? You betcha.
    Will it happen again? As sure as I'll never grow hair again on my bald head.

    Many thanks for taking the time to stop by and grace my blog with your presence today.


Go on, give me your best shot. I can take it. If I couldn't, I wouldn't have created this wonderful little blog that you decided to grace with your presence today.

About that comment moderation thingy: While yes, it does say up above I can take it, I only use it to prevent the occasional miscreant from leaving thoughtless and/or clueless comments.

So remember, all of your comments are greatly appreciated and all answers will be given that personal touch that you come to expect and enjoy.

G. B. Miller

The Legal Disclaimer

All the content that you see here, except for the posting of links that refer to other off-blog stories, is (c) 2008-17 by G.B. Miller. Nothing in whole or in part may be used without the express written permission of myself. If you wish to use any part of what you see here, please contact me at