Now that MSNBC has pulled the plug on talkshow host Don Imus for his overtly bigoted remarks, will Newsweek yank away Howard Fineman’s editorship for his overtly bigoted logic?

Five days after Imus opened his mouth and let the ugliness inside show for the umpteenth time, Newsweek editor Howard Fineman appeared on Imus’ show, like all the other willing abettors who came before, and with a tone of a lecturing grade school teacher offered pearls of wisdom to the besieged casual racist and smiling misogynist. Fineman had this interesting observation:

The environment, politically, has changed. And some of the stuff that you used to do, you probably can’t do anymore…. You just can’t. Because the times have changed. I mean, just looking specifically at the African-American situation. I mean, hello, Barack Obama’s got twice the number of contributors as anybody else in the race…. And the kind of — some of the kind of humor that you used to do you can’t do anymore.

Note that Fineman doesn’t say you can’t get away with as much racism any more because people are more sensitive, more easily offended, more likely to complain, and so on. No. Fineman says you can’t get away with as much racism as before because people aren’t as racist. Why else would he bring up Obama’s contributors? People don’t give money to Barney Frank because they’re offended by homophobia. The only possible relevance of the money given to Obama is that a lot of white people are now capable of being so energized by a black man, they’re actually willing to give him some of their hard earned cash. God damn it, that makes life tough for poor, hardworking folks who like to spew racist filth every time they open their mouths. Even if they’re actually rich and paid to gab.

In other words, Fineman — not me — but Fineman is acknowledging that Don Imus’ ability to get away with this kind of stuff before depended on the fact that the social climate used to be more racist. This wouldn’t have been quite so bad if Fineman hadn’t preceded this observation with a ramble about the work Imus did in the past, saying things that range from kind to apologetic:

I would like to continue to enable you to do a lot of the good things you do. Including, you know, talking about stuff happening in the world, which you do a very good job of on this show.

You know, the form of humor that you do here is risky, and sometimes it runs off the rails. Most of the people who listen to this show get the joke most of the time, and sometimes, you know, as David Carr said in The New York Times this morning, sometimes you go over the line so far you can’t even see the line. And that’s what happened in this case. And I think of all the stuff you’ve done and do do, and, you know, you make your mistakes — we all make our mistakes.

Okay, boys and girls — let’s put together Fineman’s syllogism. An asterisk (*) denotes a step Fineman declined to state explicitly:

1. Barack Obama is getting contributions from more people than anyone else.
   
2. Therefore, people aren’t as racist as they used to be.
3. Therefore, you can’t get away with racist remarks as easily as you could before.
4. This explains why you’re getting in really bad trouble for the kind of thing you used to do routinely before.
5. * Therefore, what you used to do routinely was racist.
6. I like what you did before, and regard the bigoted parts as a pushing of the envelope that sometimes got out of hand.
7. * Therefore, I, Fineman, condone racism — as long as you know when to stop before you get into trouble.

Is this passive racism, which accepts and appreciates prejudice for making life easier on the good old boys’ circuit even when one says nothing prejudiced oneself, the mentality that has allowed so many celebrities, politicians, and pundits to be a part of Imus’ “club” over the years?

Here is the relevant part of the exchange in full:

Read the rest of this entry »

No, I am not exaggerating. Not even slightly. See for yourself:

CARACAS, Venezuela, April 3 — Many Venezuelans shrug off President Hugo Chávez’s increasingly frequent calls to create a New Man through a Socialist revolution. But a decree severely limiting alcohol sales for much of Holy Week has certainly gotten their attention.

“Don’t Mess With My Hooch!” read the main headline in Sunday’s El Nuevo País, an opposition newspaper.

That was one of the more restrained comments heard on this city’s streets after the surprise decree, which Mr. Chávez’s government says is needed to diminish fatalities from drunken driving, went into effect on Friday.

…The measure prohibits the sale of alcohol altogether along highways and busy streets until after Easter. That may sound unobjectionable, but legions of street vendors here earn money by selling cold beer to drivers advancing at a snail’s pace on traffic-congested roadways.

(“A New Decree From Chávez: Less Elbow-Bending” by Simon Romero, April 4, 2007 — emphasis added)

Can you imagine anything published in the New York Times, or any remotely respectable corporate media outlet, presenting the need of street vendors in the U.S. to make money selling booze as an arguably legitimate reason to allow them to sell it to bored drivers caught in traffic? Can you imagine the outrage that would explode if such a thing were published? But of course, that would threaten American lives…this only threatens Venezuelan lives.

Romero and the Times would no doubt claim, if asked, that they are not legitimating anything, just reporting people’s reactions, but people “reacting” the same way as these vendors within the USA or an American ally would be treated by these same journalists as lowlifes. (Instead, the Times dubs Caracas residents “resourceful” for “finding ways around the restrictions.”) Hiding behind what is purported (often with little evidence) to be either popular or expert opinion is the #1 trick corporate media use to express their (institutional, not individual) opinions while claiming to be neutrally describing. They’ve been pulling that one in a consistently right-leaning manner on domestic issues since at least the early Reagan if not the late Carter era (on world affairs, they’ve been spinning right since Truman).

Actually, the Times piece does more than treat the vendors’ plaint as arguably legitimate. The whole way the article is framed consistently presents Chavez as the problem and those objecting to him as the good guys. So, they want to sell a little booze to drivers, a small minority of whom will eventually get plastered and kill themselves somewhere further down the road. “Consecomercio, a national group of business owners, complained that the measure could lower liquor sales by 60 percent during the important vacation period,” says the Times. Isn’t Chavez’s greatest failing that he doesn’t understand the Coolidgian principle that business is business?

Read the rest of this entry »

But GOP Representatives on Court vote 4-1 in Bush’s favor

A major U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week concerning the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases that affect global warning came down as a split decision. The four Justices on the Court unanimously ruled that Bush’s EPA had violated the Clean Air Act by refusing to control vehicle emissions that contribute to global warming. However, the five officials who represent the Republican Party on the Court voted 4-1, with Party Representative Kennedy dissenting, that the EPA was entitled to ignore such emissions if it wants to.

All across the Beltway, analysts agreed that this ruling sent a mixed signal. Those charged with producing just decisions on the Court and upholding the Constitution took a strong stand against Acting President Bush. These “Justices” include two appointed by Democratic presidents (Ginsburg and Breyer) and two by Republicans (Stevens and Souter). But the Acting President found strong support among those whose role is to make sure that the Court gives a voice to the Republican Party’s official positions.

“On the one hand, Bush will be under strong pressure to act on the Justices’ ruling,” one celebrity pundit said, “especially since their position was actually upheld by a majority of the whole Court. On the other hand, Bush can always point to the GOP reps and say, ‘Well hey, 80% of those people supported me.’ That’s not easy to argue with, especially when so many conservatives commentators have effectively demonstrated that justice has a liberal bias.”

Another pundit, equally widely quoted by those who like to appear impressive, agreed. “It’s not like the media, where you also have a split between those who represent the Right and those who are supposed to be fair. In the media, those who are supposed to be fair pretty much cave in to the Right at every opportunity anyway. But it seems like the four Justices make some effort to actually be fair, at least within the limits of the system. They sometimes rule against even very large corporations, with effectively unlimited pockets. That’s why so many people have questioned whether Justices should continue to occupy nearly half the seats on the Court.”

It was the five GOP Representatives who in December 2000 awarded Bush the presidency, or the right to pretend to it, in the first place, despite the fact that he wasn’t elected, saving American democracy from the dreaded scourge of itself in the celebrated Bush v. Gore decision, despite the opposition of all four Justices. The legal reasoning behind the ruling established the fundamental American principle that the appearance of legitimacy must always be preserved, even at the cost of making actual legitimacy impossible.

After Bush was re-selected as Acting President in 2004 by means of extensive electoral fraud, two of the Bush v. Gore majority left the Court and were replaced by Representatives Alito and Roberts. Some objected that they had no right to serve on the Court, having never been appointed by an actual President. But few heeded this objection since, elected or not, Bush was clearly still the leading figure in the Republican Party, giving him the responsibility of ensuring it continues to get its fair share of five seats out of nine on the Court.

The other three Representatives who made up the Bush v. Gore majority, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas, have continued to serve on the Court as Party Representatives to this very day.