[Grovenet] Stoking Racial Antagonism

Ed Davie edavie at verizon.net
Wed Sep 24 11:02:03 PDT 2008 

I don't think anyone was saying conservatives were 
necessarily racist, only Rush. And I think the 
evidence there is clear.
Ed
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Carol Morgan
  To: Forest Grove local interests list
  Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:29 AM
  Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Stoking Racial 
Antagonism





  So this post to me seems to be another example 
of "the facts don't matter when the spirit of the 
criticism is accurate."  Basically what is being 
alleged here is that Rush wasn't actually taken 
out of context because we know in our heart of 
hearts that because he is conservative he is 
racist and no actual facts need exist to prove 
that, despite the ongoing effort to come up with 
those facts, apparently.

  In the quotes that WERE taken out of context, 
even if they serve someone's purposes that way 
better than being quoted accurately, Rush was 
reading the Mexican immigration laws, temporarily 
allowing people to assume as he did so that they 
were the laws of the United States because Mexican 
laws are very racist and intolerant.  Mexico, 
unlike the United States, IS institutionally 
intolerant and racist toward those immigrating 
from the south and groups within their borders 
that comprise part of their citizenry. (They are 
openly disdainful of those immigrating from 
Guatemalla and other more southern countries and 
even people inside the country, calling the more 
Inca-raced people that are indigenous the 
Ouaztecos and target them for the equivalent of 
"Pollock jokes" and pride themselves on deying 
them social services because they lack any 
Castillian or Spanish blood that most in power 
claim to have).  Anyone who thinks the U.S. is 
racist needs to actually be exposed to this kind 
of racism. It is bad, and no one needs to quote it 
out of context to allege it exists.

   Does anyone need the specifics here?  I would 
be happy to provide them, because I actually do 
feel that it is important to quote people 
accurately before I make assertions about serious 
deficits in their character.  These Mexican laws 
include things like there will be nothing in a 
foreigner's language, they will not expect to use 
any of Mexico's social services without paying for 
them, no political demonstrating or foreign flag 
waving, and if you don't like it then don't come. 
If they break Mexico's laws they will go to jail 
and the key will be thrown away, etc. Mexico's 
immigration laws are everything the United States 
gets unjustly accused of but without the facts to 
back up the claim.

  Another reason that it is frustrating to be an 
American conservative. The people who are ACTUALLY 
racist and intolerant aren't the targets of 
criticism, so they get a pass.

  This was part of what he read, and therefore it 
had nothing to do with United States' intolerance 
or his own.  The other was some kind of quote 
about 'stupid and unskilled'  workers, and the ad 
had these words vaguely in quotes without 
specifying where they came from. It was in no way 
actually racist because he was pointing out that 
there are 'stupid and unskilled' labor positions 
in BOTH countries, and that NAFTA would only send 
the jobs for 'stupid and unskilled' Americans 
south to be performed by the Mexican equivalent.

  If Rush apologized it was for calling anyone 
'stupid and unskilled' and it had nothing to do 
with race or immigrants.  Liberals call 
conservatives that all the time, so if Rush is 
apologizing for doing so, sincerely or not, he is 
going a step further than is normally expected on 
the other side.

  I find it very likely that the person who stated 
the following is doing the mainstay of the left 
which is to assert that because you all know in 
your heart of hearts that Rush is a racist because 
he is a conservative, it is fine to go ahead and 
assert that even in absense of the facts and using 
an example that is far from being indicative of 
that.  The ends justify the means when the means 
are not caring about accuracy and the ends are 
branding conservatives as racists.

  "The intent is plenty clear to the target of the 
criticism, and the
  insincerity of the apology is equally clear. 
Only those who want to
  "give the benefit of the doubt" miss it. "

  I would be interested to hear what this person 
thinks is Rush's intent by his very interesting 
and relevant exercise of pointing out that Mexican 
immigration laws ARE racist and intolerant despite 
the fact that people from Mexico protest U.S. 
policy as being so. What is Rush's 'target of the 
criticism' ? If the target of his criticism is 
clear, then you would think this person could 
actually identify it.   Conservatives get RAKED 
OVER THE COALS for vague assertions like this, but 
in the other direction there is no one to either 
do the checking or hold them to any standard of 
accuracy.

   Is there no standard of being specific in 
allegations or needing actual facts to back them 
up? Does no on need to be actually correct as long 
as their politics are? It is astounding to me that 
people continue to be fine with saying the basic 
'it is true I have no evidence, but since it is so 
obvious, I really don't need any.'  And clearly, 
this person has no interest in giving the benefit 
of the doubt, and actually seems to assert that 
the people that do so become the ones that are 
intolerant, not the ones that DON'T give the 
benefit of the doubt.  Not giving the benefit of 
the doubt, here, is preferable it seems because 
doing so correctly labels racism and intolerance 
in absence of the facts, which only slightly 
inconveniently don't exist.  It is fascinating to 
me that he admits all of these things so boldly, 
even though it is very common to do so.

  21/2008
  From: David Morelli <jo.david at verizon.net>
  To: Forest Grove local interests list 
<grovenet at rdrop.com>
  Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Stoking Racial 
Antagonism


  Steven,

  Based upon my listening to Rush and his general 
distain for anything
  that isn't conservative, I am not certain that 
Obama's campaign
  missed the context.

  It appears to be very close to the person who 
says, "You are
  ugly. ... Just kidding!"

  The intent is plenty clear to the target of the 
criticism, and the
  insincerity of the apology is equally clear. 
Only those who want to
  "give the benefit of the doubt" miss it.

  Perhaps it should be compared to the courtroom 
tactic of asking an
  improper question expecting that the judge will 
direct the jury to
  overlook it. The jury members don't really wipe 
the mental slate
  clean, the question has been raised in their 
mind, and that was the
  intent of the question, not the answer.

  "Rush Limbaugh is a lying, drug abuser. ... Just 
kidding!"

  See what I mean? Obviously I have no malice 
toward Rush, I
  apologized. Yeah ! Right!

  IMHO, Rush is not a buffoon, he is a calculating 
demagog. We have
  sufficient examples of his words and 
presentations, these words
  should be taken within the context of the Rush 
Limbaugh's collect
  works. And it sure appears to be taken 
accurately within that context.

  David

  On Sep 21, 2008, at 7:52 AM, Steven wrote:

  > It was OK or the Obama campaign to use the 
quotes out of context in a
  > commercial?
  >
  >> -----Original Message----- 
  >> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com 
[mailto:grovenet-
  >> bounces at rdrop.com]On
  >> Behalf Of David Morelli
  >> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 11:15 PM
  >> To: Forest Grove local interests list
  >> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Stoking Racial 
Antagonism
  >>
  >>
  >> Steven,
  >>
  >> That is great humor. I do hope that you are 
not expecting anyone to
  >> take Rush Limbaugh seriously. He is the 
proverbial "boy who cried
  >> wolf". I have listened to his radio programs 
and I can't take
  >> anything that he says as accurate on his say 
so. If he said that the
  >> world revolved around the sun, I would want 
to check with an
  >> astronomer to confirm it.
  >>
  >> Rush Limbaugh is complaining that someone 
took his verbal a
  >>
  >
  > 
_______________________________________________
  > GroveNet mailing list
  > GroveNet at rdrop.com
  > http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

  _______________________________________________
  GroveNet mailing list
  GroveNet at rdrop.com
  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet








------------------------------------------------------------------------------



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  GroveNet mailing list
  GroveNet at rdrop.com
  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

More information about the GroveNet mailing list