OH, NO, THEY DIDN'T!

You've probably already seen this. (0.00 / 0)

If not, enjoy.

Fox Attacks: Black America

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 20:41:44 PM CDT

Putrid. (0.00 / 0)

Distilled like that it makes me want to go postal.  Projectile Vomit.

---

by: Diane W @ Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 21:51:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

video rates a negative number (0.00 / 0)

Dear Curmudgette . . .

I had not seen this.  I have yet to view Fox; this is my first exposure.  Yikes! 

I thought America and its citizens' scary before this viewing.  Now I understand why George Bush says, "Be Afraid.  Be very, very afraid!"  I am_)(*&^%$#

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull . . . Betsy
BeThink.org

---

by: Betsy L. Angert @ Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 19:54:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Field negro's tip jar (10.33 / 6)

Righteous Rant, my friend.  Fuck Faux News.

---

by: Diane W @ Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 21:47:47 PM CDT

You really can turn a phrase, FN, (9.00 / 1)

Do you prefer FN, Field, Negro, or something else(short  ;-)

This had me cracking up

I don't care of they are running against the Geico fucking cave man, do not vote for those mother fuckers; they are fowl, and they are tainted by greed and money.

I feel that way when I'm told I have to vote for a democrat that sucks ass, like Bob Casey Jr, here in PA.

I agree with you about fox news and their content, particularly their commentary, and some subtle things with their graphics. I disagree with a lot of people about how dangerous they are. I don't think they're as big a threat as alot of others do. For one, I think most who watch it are already convinced, they are preaching to the choir.

The viewers watch to get their world view confirmed. This is why I disagree with the strategy of trying to marginalize them by not appearing. Our own blogmom (that's Maryscott) has appeared on fox news, and has made several appearances on Jonh Gibson's fox radio program. It's the perfect opportunity to expose peoples preconceptions to something that might give them cognitive disonance.

At least it might. In any case, I think you just marginalize yourself by limiting your options.

I should say I also share your outlook on politicians, in general. That their priority is getting re-elected seems an unavoidable conclusion. This leads me to some other political philosophy that you might not agree with, but this is long enough, and there's always another day ;-)

Cheers!

"Truth has no time of its own. Its hour is now -- always, and indeed then most truly when it seems most unsuitable to actual circumstances."

---

by: roysol @ Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 23:36:06 PM CDT

I'm inclined to agree somewhat with that point, roysol. (6.00 / 1)

"I disagree with a lot of people about how dangerous they are. I don't think they're as big a threat as alot of others do. For one, I think most who watch it are already convinced, they are preaching to the choir."

The above-quoted point from your point is an interesting point, which, I believe, is well-taken.  Perhaps the reallyi dangerous people are the people who're running this country right now!!

Ahhhh....Life goes on.

---

by: independentminded @ Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:05:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

roysol (0.00 / 0)

"... i feel that way when I'm told I have to vote for a democrat that sucks ass, like Bob Casey Jr, here in PA."

you might want to look at the ratings for progressive votes at mydd. as i recall bob casey jr. was at the top.

Cheers!

"This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness." ~Dalai Lama

---

by: Tuffy @ Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 22:35:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let me rephrase that, sombra, (0.00 / 0)

I think Casey sucks ass  ;-)

Since it's fait accompli, I could leave it at that, but to expand a bit, I voted for Chuck Penacchio in the primary, and also would have preferred Alan Sandals. It annoys me that the powers that be, in the DLC and DSCC decided Casey was the best candidate and essentially assured he would be the winner. As best as I can tell, the only rationale was that he had "electability".

I'm pro gun rights, but not a NRA member, and I don't care who they endorse. I'm pro abortion rights, but not a NARAL member, and I don't care who they endorse. I'm not a Democrat, or a liberal, and I don't care who MYDD thinks is "progressive". Casey has never cast a vote on a national level, so I'm not sure what they are looking at.

Casey's most recent job was as state treasurer, where he cast no votes. His votes on a state level are almost irrelevant to me, since I think that some things that are proper on a local level, are improper on a national level.

And that's the rub. I don't know WHAT he thinks. I watched many of his campaign speeches, and every debate. He did not answer a single question. In most cases, he simply answered the question he wanted to talk about, not what was asked. When he was even vaugely on point, he chose that carefully parseable language that would allow him to do whatever he wanted, and not contradict his statements.

I voted for him anyway, since the best thing he had going for him was that he was not Rick Santorum. I guess that was enough, but you can tell I'm far from happy about it. I'm hopeful that despite his poor showing as a candidate, he will turn out to be a decent Senator.

We shall see. I mean you no personal disrespect, and I do appreciate your pointing out my overly assertive statement  ;-)

Peace!

"Truth has no time of its own. Its hour is now -- always, and indeed then most truly when it seems most unsuitable to actual circumstances."

---

by: roysol @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 15:00:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Minor correction (7.50 / 2)

Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D- MD)

is really from Michigan.

Mayor Kwame's Mommy.

Like you said, all politicians care about is what is expediant for their own careers.  Not for the actual constituents.

They forget they serve at OUR behest.

---

by: Diane W @ Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:36:13 AM CDT

Yup!! You said it!! (0.00 / 0)

Ahhhh....Life goes on.

---

by: independentminded @ Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:06:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

except the great irony (0.00 / 0)

is that affiliating with FOX isn't even good for their own short term political prospects - both due to FOX and due to base reaction.

I'm encouraged by the color of change and related efforts to undo this nonsense.

sometimes you win. sometimes you lose. and sometimes.... it rains.

---

by: it's simple IF you ignore the complexity @ Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 19:05:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

field negro, excellent diary (0.00 / 0)

Dear field negro . . .

I thank you for an excellent diary.


It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull . . . Betsy
BeThink.org

---

by: Betsy L. Angert @ Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 19:52:56 PM CDT

There is a great story on this (0.00 / 0)

check out MYDD and look for Matt's story on this.  It's chilling.  This has to do with Neilsen ratings, Clintonistas and Fox News.
Nice little partnership here. 
www.mydd.com

---

by: vwcat @ Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 20:14:54 PM CDT

totally embarrassed! wish to rescind my earlier comment (0.00 / 0)

Dear field negro . . .

I am totally embarrassed and wish to rescind my earlier comment.  While the diary has great purpose, when reading it I was deeply distressed with your use of language.  I do not subscribe to using demeaning terms no matter what the reason.  I would never call those similar to me or those disparate, names that I would not wish to be called.

I was extremely distracted by the video Curmudgette offered.  I thought to write a comment only to that response.  However, I thought that rude.  Since the diarist inspired that disgraceful sharing, I concluded, after much distraction, I must thank the author of the essay.

Time passed.  I gathered myself together and found my senses.  Then I saw what I had done.  I remembered my initial impression.  Thus, I write.  For me offensive language is that!  It does not matter who uses it.

You might recall my reference to the dilemma in New York City, as discussed in Florida, My Florida. Citizens Wish to Change Their Racist Tune.  Sticks and stones and names do hurt!  In truth what we say does far more harm.  Souls are more fragile than our frail bodies.

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull . . . Betsy
BeThink.org

---

by: Betsy L. Angert @ Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 21:40:52 PM CDT

Betsy (5.00 / 1)

if nothing else, you are a good and caring person. i wish that more of could be like you.

"This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness." ~Dalai Lama

---

by: Tuffy @ Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 22:39:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

sombra, my deep appreciation for your response (0.00 / 0)

Dear sombra . . .

I thank you soooooo very much!  I was fearful many would not understand.  Many use words I do not; I say nothing for I grasp the significance or rationale.  However, racial slurs, no matter who says them,  I see no reason for these.  Yikes!

I wish I had not been so distracted by the awful statements, written and spoken on the video.  I wish I could delete my earlier comment; it embarrasses me. 

Sombra, you are soooo sweet.  Hugs, kisses, and my deep appreciation for your response.

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull . . . Betsy
BeThink.org

---

by: Betsy L. Angert @ Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 22:55:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Betsy; (0.00 / 0)

thanks for your response.

i grew up in oklahoma. i was in the army and went to viet-nam. cursing and racial hatred were learned, and i can turn the air blue with rage and hatred for twenty feet around me, but choose not to.

my own (earthly) father was very good at voicing hatred, but he was at heart a good man, which i know from helping him help the black and poor for many years.

i didn't see the video, don't have tv, for very much the reasons you mention. racism and hatred are not in my blood, and i choose not to witness them as some sort of entertainment.

"This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness." ~Dalai Lama

---

by: Tuffy @ Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 23:35:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

reciprocal reverence (0.00 / 0)

Dearest Sombra . . .

I thank you for your response. 

For me, reciprocal reverence is the best.  I think it is quite confusing when we spew hatred and act in love.  The contrast creates fondness and disdain simultaneously.  For me, it is challenging to trust without consistency.

I prefer to have no loathing expressed.  It is my experience that words give rise to what never was, if we say it often enough . . .

I can and do swear, though rarely in frustration.  When I was younger, I lived in a neighborhood where curse words were part of everyday speech.  The habit is learned.  I am working to unlearn it.  Fortunately, I never acquired the capacity for hatred.  I have no intention to train myself to be as I would not wish to be.  Admittedly, there are those I fear.  I have expressed my anxiety in ways that I am not always proud of.  Still, many words have never been part of my vocabulary.  They will not be.

The video I was referring to is within the first comment on this treatise.  I had never seen Fox until tonight, here at My Left Wing.  This compilation of clips was more than enough for me.

I understand the aversion to television.  I am so audio in my learning that I listen to news and then if I am intrigued, the combination of seeing and hearing helps me to understand.  I only view informative programs; however, even channels that feature these deviate far too often.

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull . . . Betsy
BeThink.org

---

by: Betsy L. Angert @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 00:15:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Words are important. (0.00 / 0)

Field Negro

I completely agree with you about CBC collaborating with Fox News in any way. It is a self-defeating, non-thinking and a lying with the enemy thing to do.

Unfortunately your essay loses me when you use the word "coon"

I cannot believe you use a word to describe the congressional black caucus that is racist and offensive. It is your right.

I do not understand how their actions justify its use.

Perhaps I am old fashioned. I think the use of hateful words even when people from within a group utter them is hateful. They stigmatize and demean an entire race.
To me your words write off this entire group as dull witted and sub human.

Is that your intention?

MaryScott I do not understand your promotion either. To me you have recently asked for moderation in the type of speech used on your site. I think you are wise to veer away from the snide rude and crude.

Thou art god
Bob

---

by: bob @ Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 23:30:34 PM CDT

This diary slipped by me, but now that I pay attention... (0.00 / 0)

I skimmed it when it was first posted, but I have to admit that the phrase "Congressional Black Coons" slipped right past me.

I defend the right of people to use any words they want to use, including racially offensive terms like "nigger" and "coon". 

However, the word "coon" used to describe any African American is loaded with offensive meaning.  The word "coon" has never had a positive context, and the context here was meant as a slur.

To me, the colour of the person hurling the epithet does not matter.

The members of the Congressional Black Caucus include many of Congress' most progressive members.

I'll post a list of the Congressional Black Caucus in full in a separate comment, but one of the CBC members is Representative John Lewis (D-GA), and that man is a giant not only of the civil rights movement, but of Congress as well.  John Lewis literally bled in the fight to gain equal rights under the law for his fellow African Americans, and no one has the right to be disrespectful to him. No one.

I do not think that the other members of the CBC deserve a racist insult simply because they have foolishly chosen to bargain with Fox News, either.  In fact, it's my position that there is never any justification to use a racial insult towards anyone.  I once defended Colin Powell after he was called "Uncle Tom" simply because there are ways to say that Powell was an unprincipled Secretary of State who was blindly loyal to an unworthy President without calling him a nasty, racist name.  I've no love for Colin Powell, but the remark was a low blow, and I'm not a fan of those.

And no, I would not stand idly by while somebody called Dick Cheney a "cracker", either.  I can heap scorn on somebody's head with the best of them, but I can do so without calling them vile names.

Field Negro makes many excellent points in this diary, and it is truly a righteous rant.  However, the use of the word "coons" truly does bother me.

However, it is every person's right to use the words that he or she feels are best suited to convey an argument.  Many people on MyLeftWing (and elsewhere) have used words like motherfucker, fucking, bullshit, etcetera--words that may offend others.

This is truly a place of free speech, and we are all free to register our objections over another person's choice of language. 

As for me, I really did miss that "Congressional Black Coons" remark the first time I read the diary and instead found myself agreeing with its righteous tone.  That righteousness is tainted by the use of the word "coons", which is unwarranted and its deliberate use disturbing.

Having said all that, I would like to thank Curmudgette for providing a video that amply proves how irredeemably racist Fox "News" truly is--and how Fox uses African Americans to "sell" its most racist statements.  I would rather that we had not been diverted from the true purpose of this diary--to protest the foolish decision of the CBC to do a deal with the devil--rather than arguing over an ill-chosen word.

I, for one, would like to know what Field Negro says about his choice of the word "coon" and his defence for using it.

Once again, I'm at the mercy of someone I wouldn't let pick my nose!--John Lithgow, "Third Rock from the Sun"

---

by: The BloggingCurmudgeon @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 02:37:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (0.00 / 0)

Senator Barack Obama, D-ILL.

House of Representatives:

The list can be found here:

http://www.answers.c...

Prominent members include:

Representative John Conyers of Michigan

Representative Barbara Lee of California

Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas

Representative John Lewis of Georgia

Representative Maxine Waters of California

Representative Charles Rangel of New York

I'm sorry, I can't see my way clear to calling anybody a "coon", especially these people.  They have made ONE bad decision.  The "coon" insult is just not right.

Once again, I'm at the mercy of someone I wouldn't let pick my nose!--John Lithgow, "Third Rock from the Sun"

---

by: The BloggingCurmudgeon @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 02:45:03 AM CDT

On closer examination, I find this diary begins to make... (0.00 / 0)

...some rather wild, unsupportable claims.

I am begging every black (or white) person who voted for these clowns to vote for the opponent in their next quests to return to Washington.

I'm not a resident of their district, but I would be proud to cast my ballot for John Lewis, John Conyers, Charles Rangel, Sheila Jackson Lee, and manh of the people who are members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

We're supposed to support the defeat of the CBC members simply because they want to promote debates on the crappy FOX network?

Sorry, I need a better reason than that to turn out some of the best representatives sitting in Congress today.

Or have we forgotten the monumental work that John Conyers, for example, has done to investigate electoral fraud? 

The more closely I read this diary, the less I agree with it and the more disturbing its claims become.

Here's another one:

They are a joke, and they couldn't care less about the people they serve. Most of them are looking out for themselves while trying to line their grubby pockets.

The CBC members are all accomplished people, and could easily triple or quadruple their salaries merely by resigning their congressional seats and taking a job in private industry. 

Do they even know who they are dealing with in Rupert Murdoch? Talk about making a deal with the devil. But I swear some of us will do anything for the almighty dollar.

My question for Field Negro is:  How are the CBC members profiting from their sponsorship of the debates on FOX?  You make this claim but provide no supporting evidence.

On second thought, I don't see a great deal about this diary to commend it (other than the fact that I, too, strongly disagree with the idea that Democratic Party debates should be hosted on the clearly racist, clearly pro-GOP FOX).  Many of Field Negro's claims are carelessly made; there is a broad accusation that the CBC have NEVER had the interests of their constituents at heart, not just in this case, and they should therefore be turned out of office.

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit.  I'd like the author of this diary to provide supporting evidence for his claims, but thus far he hasn't answered any of the questions people have raised in comments.  I hope those answers will be forthcoming soon.

Once again, I'm at the mercy of someone I wouldn't let pick my nose!--John Lithgow, "Third Rock from the Sun"

---

by: The BloggingCurmudgeon @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 02:55:37 AM CDT

mixed feelings about the Left appearing on Fox (0.00 / 0)

Dear BloggingCurmudgeon . . .

I have mixed feelings about the Left appearing on Fox.  The exchange might be distorted and thus, initially it could hurt the message or . . .

I have always believed I was an extremely peaceful Progressive subversive within very conservative political locales.  I have frequented many.  I understand the reason for avoiding a milieu where the motivation is to destroy.  Thus, I was fine with the topic.  However, in my experience, once exposed to way of thinking that is truly principled, many [formerly] dogmatic people realize, as they never have. 

It is my belief that if the conversation stays calm, love looms large.  This is why for me, forethought and intent in language is vital.  As I mentioned earlier, even when I use swear words, I do not spew them out in frustration.  Sadly, I learned to use these on a playground where they were delivered casually, with no emotion or intent to hurt.  I try to avoid the usage.  Habits are a challenge to change.  Nevertheless, I am thankful that when I am upset, these words rarely, occur to me.

The words that demean a group pf people have never been a part of my lexicon.  I do not wish to learn these.

Nonetheless, I find no fault with speaking to the supposed "enemy."  I guess that is for I do not see anyone as my foe.  Any person might be a possible friend.

Often when we engage peacefully, share fully, the best is realized.  I am fine with peaceful dialogues.  When we have these with those we disagree with, much is learned.  I trust people, all individuals, do evolve!

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull . . . Betsy
BeThink.org

---

by: Betsy L. Angert @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 09:27:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's a difference... (0.00 / 0)

...between being interviewed on Fox (which is something MSOC had done) and having them sponsor debates.  In a debate, Fox would select panelists and questions and have far too much control over the content for my comfort.

Other people, including Representative Kucinich, disagree.  Kucinich thought that it was wrong of the Democrats to cancel their appearance in the Fox-sponsored candidate debate that was to have taken place in Nevada next August:

"If you want to be the President of the United States, you can't be afraid to deal with people with whom you disagree politically," Kucinich said. "No one is further removed from Fox's political philosophy than I am, but fear should not dictate decisions that affect hundreds of millions of Americans and billions of others around the world who are starving for real leadership."

"I'm prepared to discuss the war, health care, trade, or any other issue anytime, anywhere, with any audience, answering any question from any media. And any candidate who won't shouldn't be President of the United States."

Kucinich has a point.  But Fox has trespassed from being a news organisation with a right-wing slant to being an out-and-out propaganda outlet.  Would Kucinich permit himself to be interviewed, or have his debate sponsored, by the Republican Party?  Because I now consider Fox to be one an owned-an-operated propaganda department of the GOP, almost wholly lacking in the independence required for a television network to label itself "news" and not expect people to laugh.  The fact that Fox News is run by Roger Ailes, a former (and I would say CURRENT) GOP operative, is a damning bit of evidence we mustn't ignore.

Once again, I'm at the mercy of someone I wouldn't let pick my nose!--John Lithgow, "Third Rock from the Sun"

---

by: The BloggingCurmudgeon @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 10:40:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

peace prospers (0.00 / 0)

Dear The BloggingCurmudgeon . . .

The source of the quote is apt, since I am supporting Kucinich.  If Kucinich believes as I do, he trusts that love and truth always survive.  Actually, they thrive. 

Try as the warring factions might to supplant goodness and grace, peace and purity always rise to the surface.  Consider the last election.  Think about why Bush was not able to successfully change what he calls an evil regime.  [I do not believe in the concept of evil.]  Language can shade the discussion and doings for a time; however, Karma is strong!

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull . . . Betsy
BeThink.org

---

by: Betsy L. Angert @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 15:39:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That evil fox (0.00 / 0)

I have mixed feelings about the Left appearing on Fox.

And yet you've actually seen it once.  Small sample, I'd say.  Normally n of 1 experiments are frowned upon.

However, in my experience, once exposed to way of thinking that is truly principled, many [formerly] dogmatic people realize, as they never have.

I wish i were as optimistic as you are.  To me,of course, principled thinking means non-dogmatic thinking, not, as some think, adopting a new set of dogmas that one likes better.  To mer, a free thinker, a principled thinker is judged by method, not result.  Principled thinkers don't judge on the bsasis of comparison of ones own dogmas with theirs.

Am I right in describing your thinking here?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:51:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, I am embarrassed by this (0.00 / 0)

As for me, I really did miss that "Congressional Black Coons" remark the first time I read the diary and instead found myself agreeing with its righteous tone.  That righteousness is tainted by the use of the word "coons", which is unwarranted and its deliberate use disturbing.

I don't think the tone is righteous at all, and wish to retract that praise.

The tone, quite frankly, is hysterical.

Once again, I'm at the mercy of someone I wouldn't let pick my nose!--John Lithgow, "Third Rock from the Sun"

---

by: The BloggingCurmudgeon @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 03:01:16 AM CDT

the "C" word. the "N" term (0.00 / 0)

Dear field negro . . .

I dreamt about this discussion all night.  I fear I was not explicit enough.  Sombra mentioned swearing and I realized curse words, for me, are not offensive per se.  If your essay offered that type of questionable language, I did not even notice.  I am writing this without going back to look. 

I do not struggle with many or most identifiers that offer a shade of feeling for an individual.  While a blogger regularly reprimands me for calling George W. Bush an Emperor, by definition, I do believe he is.

What is and was troubling for me, and was the reason I withdrew my earliest comment was the use of the "C" word.  Referring to the dictionary definition, the "C" word is synonymous with the "N" term.  I do not wish to use any of these "labels."  The terms are extremely derogatory and to me, offensive!  They exist for every group.  All of my life when I hear these I do as I did when I read your article, I physically cringe!  For me, terms such as these are hate speak.  I do not wish to promote prejudice, ever!

I hope this explanation clarifies.  I have yet to return to My Left Wing as of this writing to see what is being said.  I went to bed at 2 AM, awoke, and turned on the computer before I did anything else just to settle my haunted heart and mind.  I hope you will understand my distress.

The intent of your treatise, I applaud.  The "language" leaves me languished.

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull . . . Betsy
BeThink.org

---

by: Betsy L. Angert @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 09:03:32 AM CDT

I Hadn't Said Anything (11.00 / 3)

In response to this diary -- about a subject that I am a bit more sanguine about than FN -- because of the language that several folks have now finally noticed.  My Sapphire would have been too up to be productive a few days ago.

I'm glad some folks belatedly realized it was there, and reacted accordingly.  I have many -- and I do mean many -- beefs with the Congressional Black Caucus and some of its individual members in particular, but I could not cosign onto calling any of them "coons" merely because they went in a direction on this issue of where to sponsor their debates, which I remind folks are *supposed to be intended to maximize African-American engagement and discussion during the debates of issues that disproportionately impact African-American voters*, that is different than what the left believes "is best for them."

Indeed, anytime the CBC does what the left believes "is not best for them" we get a hue and cry.  No biggie.  But to see a brother parroting without thinking that same hue and cry and not only that, but going to the well on dissing his own folks as if they are ignorant, the same as them other huers and criers who don't have front and center as their motivation what the CBC has always admitted was their primary motivation? I can't go there.

On the merits, this is what I wrote at DailyKOS in several threads huing and crying over the past couple of weeks, most notably Markos' front page accusation of the CBC "being in bed with Republicans" (which considering Markos' previous anti-Black fuck-up promoting an anonymous Donna Brazile hit piece to the front page, a maneuver that cost him Kid Oakland as an FPer, you'd have thought he would have learned better).  Personally, I too wish they had decided not to go with Fox.  But unlike the diarist, I can come up with at least an explanation for why they might have decided differently that does not require a conclusion that the CBC membership wholesale is "ignorant", "in bed with Republicans" and definitely not "coons."  Here are the various comments I wrote, take them for what they are worth.

In response to Markos' front page story called "CBC to Get in Bed with Fox?"

Sad, Pitiful and Depressing

Because it seems that nobody, not one of the over 100 folks who have commented so far, has bothered to ask this question:

Is there a legitimate reason that the CBC, when planning to sponsor a debate, might have chosen Fox News as the host despite what all can agree is the normal disposition of Fox News to be about as antithetical in its viewpoint to progressive Black interests as possible?

The most likely answer seemed obvious to me, but then again I have no actual fact to support my view than any other person who has posted so far, Markos at the top of the list.  But the most likely answer is this:  because Fox News will draw more Black viewers to their planned debates.

A debate intended to reach African-Americans needs to take place where the largest number of African-Americans actually are.  Thus, a televised debate - such as those being proposed by the CBC - needs to actually be on a channel that many Black people watch.  While admittedly a huge percentage of Black folks watch UPN (the horror), UPN is not a news station and nobody turning into UPN is going to expect to see this type of material, or keep it on if they accidentally stumble onto it.  Thus, that leaves the CBC with two choices:  BET on Cable (not that this is a Black channel, having been reduced to Butts Every Time almost from its birth), or a mainstream news channel.  A huge number of Black folks don't have cable, so that won't maximize the audience.  Thus, it has to be a maintstream news channel.

But why?

Well, IME, (at least until I have explained to them why it is important NOT to do so as a matter of protest), a huge number of Black folks in America watch Fox News - and NOT because they are "wingnuts" (as too many folks assume about Fox News' audience here).  Not because these viewers agree with 1/2 of it - indeed, when I've gone off screeching I've been schooled about the fact that to most it contains just as much bullshit as every other other news channel -- but simply because it's there, early in the dial in many markets.  And it's a habit, as is often the case with news viewing and news viewers.

Seems to me that until someone actually asks the CBC why they made this decision when they know that Fox is full of shit generally, they should deserve the benefit of the doubt that they actually know how to best reach their core constituency.  My gut tells me that this is the primary if not the only reason for this choice.

If that is in fact true, then the burden is on others to make the case to the CBC about why despite that, it should host their sponsored debates elsewhere.  Hopefully the case will be made in a little less insulting language than has been used in this thread (and generally for a while here on DailyKOS where the CBC is concerned, not that I have all that much love for some of its individual members.)

(DO review some of the other comments in response to that diary, and you'll begin to understand clearly why I have little patience with the left, at times - the presumption that when Black folks don't do what the white political orthodoxy says they should do, that the Black folks are not just making a different decision, they are stupid/ignorant/don't know what is best for them.  Thinking that is the hallmark of white supremacy, which is why I call it out every time I see it, since most who engage in it have no idea what lies behind their readiness to call these folks ignorant as the *first* explanation for everything that occurs.)

In response to another front page story by Markos talking about Color of Change's 3/12 petition to the CBC to choose CNN, not Fox, in which the "insidious Clinton hand" is advanced by some diarists as the reason that CBC was considering this action -- again based on the white supremacist notion that somehow, these savvy politicians can't think for themselves if they are doing something we don't like -- in addition to the usual bleatings about all Fox News viewers being "dumb" and "ignorant" even though IME a HUGE number of Black folks who are staunch Democratic party voters watch Fox News, just because it's there:

I Said this (11+ / 0-)

In response to Markos' front page post of a few days ago, but it bears repeating:

I suspect this entire thing is because the CBC division handling these debates knew full well something that most mainstream politicos did not:  a huge number of Black people -- lifetime, staunch party loyalists -- watch Fox News.  Thus, if you're having debates targeted at a Black audience, you go where they are likely to actually see you.  (I discussed previously why neither BET nor UPN is an apt substitute.)

None of this likely has anything to do with whether people, including CBC, are "real democrats".  It is almost certain that none of it has anything do with Hillary Clinton.  Until Color of Change got involved a couple of days ago and sent out its e-mail campaign, very few Black people were involved one way or the other in the "freeze out Fox" campaign that has been brewing here and other majoritarian sites.  And you notice that Color of Change bothered to do the necessary homework to make its case rather than just carp "OMG only ignorant people watch Fox" (unlike the pattern demonstrated here)  -- because it knows just as well that asking the CBC to make the switch matters for more than just proving a "Democratic point" to Fox News.  It will require different strategies for advertising, etc and may well impact the success of these particular debates in terms of reaching viewers.  Most Black folks that vote do not watch CNN, IME.

As I said before, a complicated matter, that it behooves folks to actually look at before just going off the rails about how obvious it is that nobody has any legitimate reason to see Fox's News outlet as a possible vehicle to send a political message on the left.

And, in response to those who argued that it did not matter what might, or might not be the truth about this subject, the CBC should boycott Fox just like everyone else in support of the larger cause since Black viewers would just change the channel to follow the debates wherever they were:

That's just the way it is.  But the strategy of maximizing viewership changes when you are no longer showing your program on a channel that has high participation rate from your targeted group, wouldn't you agree?  That's all I'm saying:  that the reasons for this may have nothing to do with all the nefarious reasons every one is considering -- from "Hillary" to "ignorant" to "sell-out" -- and everything to do with those completely innocent, and very important issues.

And saying to folks that they can "just change the channel" is a bit glib.  Do you care more about putting the shiv to Fox News than about information about this upcoming election and the candidates we have to choose from in the primaries most broadly reaching the party's most loyal voting demographic that such a dismissive approach is called for (I read what you're saying as basically:  "I just refuse to believe you, since it's inconvenient with what I want to happen, unless you meet my standard for absolute proof."  I've mentioned somewhere else why I feel that's troubling in this context.) I would like to think not, but your comment suggests quite differently.

For the record, there were lengthy discussions in both threads about (a) whether my sense that a large number of African-Americans who are Democrats watch Fox News is accurate (we discovered that there is no published data, so all I can give you is IME), and whether or not despite this sense, it would still be better to go with CNN.  Productive ones, I think. 

For the record, when it was then reported later that CBC *had* chosen CNN, not Fox, I like everyone else was happy about that choice since I am not a fan of Fox News anymore than anyone else is, and said so.  I haven't yet checked to see what the DailyKOS reaction is now that I have learned (from this diary) that this is not in fact the case.  I'm sort of afraid to do so, given the reaction the last time.

This final part is to FN:  I dig your writing.  I dig your attitude.  And dig your willingness to fight.  But dissing wholesale the only representatives in Washington D.C. that at least titularly have the primary interest of our people as a central reason for their political engagement is something I don't understand.  We can certainly agree that there are some members of the CBC who are definitely not about us, but about the Benjamins, or who are so clueless that even though I would never use the word "coon" to describe them, I would call ignorant in a heartbeat. But all of them? I defy you to make that case against Maxine Waters - a Field Negro if ever there was one, otherwise given her seniority she'd be Queen of the Hill.  John Conyers? John Lewis? Barbara Lee?  Heck, even though I'm irritated as hell with Barack Obama's willingness to push back hard against every BS thing the noise machine is throwing at him *except* for those things involving his own commitment to Afrocentric issues, he ain't a "coon."

Please.  Do not let your passion get in the way of your reason.  We need more Black voices on the net, of all political stripes.  But not if they are going to spout the same old unthinking reactions to when Black folks do something different than what the majority political will says they should do.  It is my considered opinion that as Black folks, we owe our own people more than that. 

All IMO and YMMV, of course.

You can find my meanderings on all things Black and political at Maat's Feather

---

by: shanikka @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 10:34:51 AM CDT

Where do I begin? (0.00 / 0)

Let me start with the last poster. Shanikka, this "brother" will always speak his mind no matter how uncomfortable it makes you or anyone else. As for painting the CBC with a broad brush, f**k them, (I am trying to watch my language)if they didn't want to be painted with a broad brush every member should have made damn sure that their organization did not co-sign with a bunch of racist over at the FAKE NEWS NETWORK. 

And yes, I called them all coons, and I would do it again. In fact, I have an entire post on my blog on a regular basis about "coons, and my own personal "coonie awards" for those who I think fall into that category. Which.....never mind, I will try to be nice. 

I think I mentioned that I was scared to post initially on this subject because I was so pissed off, and as it turns out my post reflected my emotions at the time. But again, I would not take back one single thing I said, because IMHO, I was correct. 

Now do I feel bad that Rep. John Lewis is with that crowd, and I lumped him in with them? Yes I do. Because as I have written many times before, he is a man I have a great deal of respect for and a true field negro in my book. But honestly, I don't need people preaching to me and telling me how passionate I should or shouldn't be about a subject.If my rantings offend you, move to the next fucking essay. (whoops, sorry Maryscott I tried)

And to the poster above who would imply that FOX is insignificant in the larger scheme of things; nothing could be farther from the truth. They (FOX) were the main cheerleaders for a war that has cost over 3,200 young Americans their lives, and they have served as the propaganda arm of the most corrupt administration in the history of this country. So please don't tell me it's not important to call FOX on their bull shit.

Finally,someone also wanted me to give cites to some of my statements and opinions. To you I say this: Unless you are my professor and I need a grade from you for a thesis or some sh**, I don't have to give you a damn thing. It's called an opinion, and if you have an issue with some of the facts that I stated, you might want to look it up yourself. I am sure you have access to google just like I do. So go look it up, find where I was wrong, and post it!

In the mean time I will stick with my original thoughts and statments. This was all about money and the greed of those individuals. They are not looking out for me or anyone else, they are looking out for self, and that's a shame. 

I would like to make one correction. Rep. Kilpatrick is from Michigan as a poster above pointed out, and not maryland. I apologize to the people of Maryland for that mistake. 
 

Silence is never golden!

---

by: field negro @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 12:26:15 PM CDT

That was me (11.00 / 1)

Finally,someone also wanted me to give cites to some of my statements and opinions. To you I say this: Unless you are my professor and I need a grade from you for a thesis or some sh**, I don't have to give you a damn thing. It's called an opinion, and if you have an issue with some of the facts that I stated, you might want to look it up yourself. I am sure you have access to google just like I do. So go look it up, find where I was wrong, and post it!

Field Negro, you made the assertion that the members of the CBC were ALL corrupt and encouraged everyone reading your words to vote them out of office.  You also lashed them for being out of touch, unresponsive to their constituents, and implied that they were somehow profiting from the Fox deal.

If you want to make unsupported accusations and say well, it's just your opinion, that's fine.  You've no evidence to support your claims?  Then please stop calling them "facts".  You seem to be confused about the difference between "opinion" and "fact":

It's called an opinion, and if you have an issue with some of the facts that I stated...

I'm confused.  To which category do your statements belong, "opinion" or "fact"?  They are separate categories.  Facts require proof, and you've offered none.

I am sure you have access to google just like I do. So go look it up, find where I was wrong, and post it!

Yes, I do have Google.  And no, I'm not your research assistant.  You made the claims of CBC mendacity and corruption, and the burden is on you to back them up with proof that you provide.  If you don't provide proof, then I must assume that you either have none, or don't respect your audience enough to support your accusations with easily Googled evidence.

Once again, I'm at the mercy of someone I wouldn't let pick my nose!--John Lithgow, "Third Rock from the Sun"

---

by: The BloggingCurmudgeon @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 12:35:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well (10.00 / 3)

Shanikka, this "brother" will always speak his mind no matter how uncomfortable it makes you or anyone else.

And did I ask you to do something else?

Nope.

It's not about discomfort.  It's about my opinion, just as you expressed yours.  I think what you wrote was incorrect, no matter how strongly you feel about Fox News.  For two reasons:

(a) A "coon" is a word reserved for step'n fetchit, bowing and scraping, ass-kissers.  You have not made the case that this is what this situation actually *is*, as opposed to a deliberate tactic for legitimate reasons that you just don't agree with.  Not agreeing is all good, and I'd never say differently.  But then the burden is on you to make the case. 

(b) I believe that painting 42+ Black folks people with a singular unified brush of deep insult, accusing them basically of being slaves to the man just because in this particular case they made a decision that you don't agree with (and we have no idea what discussion went on amongst that group before it was made) given the track records of some of the individual members fighting for our people is just wrong.

But you're free to write your views, and I'm free to write mine.  Nobody's trying to silence you, least of all me.  I didn't ask you to "take back" anything.

You can find my meanderings on all things Black and political at Maat's Feather

---

by: shanikka @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 12:47:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

shanikka's Important P.S. (0.00 / 0)

(shanikka, I deleted field negro's double post -- would have let it slip by to retain your p.s., except that his double post in this case was a really LONG one, so if you don't mind, I'm going to repost your comment here.

If you prefer to repost it yourself, please do -- and please, no one respond to this comment of MINE, as I will delete it if shanikka chooses to repost her own comment.)

An Important P.S.

In fact, I have an entire post on my blog on a regular basis about "coons, and my own personal "coonie awards" for those who I think fall into that category. Which.....never mind, I will try to be nice.

Feel free not to be nice, if that backhandedness was directed at me.  I am all about telling it straight.

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

---

by: Maryscott O'Connor @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 13:00:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

FN (6.00 / 1)

No need to watch your language here...MLW is all about the cursin'. :)

ProgressiveHistorians: History For Our Future

---

by: Nonpartisan @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 13:08:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Damn hell fuckin' right (6.00 / 1)

It's just like my high school debate club, but with more less cursing (we were a foul-mouthed lot).

Once again, I'm at the mercy of someone I wouldn't let pick my nose!--John Lithgow, "Third Rock from the Sun"

---

by: The BloggingCurmudgeon @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 13:12:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

field negro, (7.50 / 2)

NOTE -- I do not intend this to be ironic in the least, nor, I'm sure, did you intend to be ironic when you said this:

"As for painting the CBC with a broad brush, f**k them, (I am trying to watch my language)..."

Please, DON'T watch your language.

I mean, yes, watch your language -- as you can see, we're all having a FINE time here, discussing whether it is apropos or appropriate or both or neither to use the word "coon" or to declare the CBC ought to be turned out en masse -- so, certainly we are watching our language, in the proper sense.

And in the semantic sense, we all enjoy ourselves from time to time mucking about in the verb/noun/adjective/preposition grab bag.

So yes, we DO watch our language in those senses.

But as far as "watching our language" where the use of so-called "profanity" is concerned, I have to say, I am FAR more offended by the use of asterisks in place of actual letters than I am by the letters and the words those letters create.

I don't wish to derail the conversation too much (and I knew this was a conversation that would be fascinating and heated -- and I'm grateful, so far, to see a mature, thoughtful and passionate dialogue taking place without hostilities and namecalling. Refreshing, no?) -- but, derail it I must, for just a moment...

Adam and I stayed up rather late one night last week to watch a poignant, painful, fascinating documentary -- Richard Engel: War Zone Diary, a must-see, by the way -- and we were riveted throughout.

Except... One thing distracted me throughout. This documentary, a shattering examination of one journalist's ongoing, 4-years-and-counting coverage of the war in Iraq, captured everything a Western journalist could possibly get on film or audiotape -- with one glaring exception: "profanity."

It was painfully, insultingly absurd. Before us, onscreen, we saw brutal images of the war: mangled, rotting bodies being eaten by dogs, crawling with maggots; American soldiers intact one moment and limbless the next; puddles of human blood in streets where moments before a suicide bomber wrought his deadly deed; on and on, the images bled from one to the next. But the audio was pocked with the familiar "bleep!"  "bleep!"  "bleep!".

Wouldn't want the folks at home -- who'd been warned repeatedly about those graphic images -- watching this documentary at THREE IN THE MORNING -- to have their delicate sensibilities disturbed by hearing the word "fuck" coming out of the mouths of babes in uniform, now, would we?

So, please, please, please, field, and anyone else reading -- don't watch that language. I'm personally offended that in this day and age Big Brother is still telling me I can't handle a four letter word -- but they've been sending my father home in body bags for eons.

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

---

by: Maryscott O'Connor @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 13:27:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kind of like (6.00 / 2)

watching the Sopranos on A&E, huh?

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 13:35:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't get HBO, (0.00 / 0)

and when A&E picked up Sopranos, I thought I'd give it a watch. I made it through 15 minutes before the modified audio track got too absurd to continue.

Cheers!

"Truth has no time of its own. Its hour is now -- always, and indeed then most truly when it seems most unsuitable to actual circumstances."

---

by: roysol @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 14:40:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Get it on DVD. (5.00 / 1)

It's so worth it. But without the profanity, graphic violence, and nudity, it's nothin.'

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 14:44:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

On Bill O'Reilly's show? (7.00 / 1)

Oh wait, that was his home video..."Bill O'Reilly's Falafel Party"...

Once again, I'm at the mercy of someone I wouldn't let pick my nose!--John Lithgow, "Third Rock from the Sun"

---

by: The BloggingCurmudgeon @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 14:46:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obscure O'Reilly joke explanatory link (0.00 / 0)

Sorry if it offends.  He is as God made him.

http://www.thesmokin...

Once again, I'm at the mercy of someone I wouldn't let pick my nose!--John Lithgow, "Third Rock from the Sun"

---

by: The BloggingCurmudgeon @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 14:49:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You should post a more severe warning.. (0.00 / 0)

Bill O' sex in a shower.  That is the very definition of yuck.  Don't read while eating...

Obama 2012.  Because he didn't piss off enough people the first time around.

---

by: Joools @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 14:58:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry, dude (7.00 / 2)

I thought the words "Bill O'Reilly" were sufficient warning in and of themselves.

Once again, I'm at the mercy of someone I wouldn't let pick my nose!--John Lithgow, "Third Rock from the Sun"

---

by: The BloggingCurmudgeon @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 15:49:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah. (7.00 / 1)

Generally they are, but for some reason this time, I got a really good (in a completely horrifying way)image of Bill O'...acting out, shall we say, his little scenario.  I need to bleach my brain now.

Obama 2012.  Because he didn't piss off enough people the first time around.

---

by: Joools @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 16:13:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"F" is fine. "C" cuts like a knife! (0.00 / 0)

Dear field negro . . .

I feel as though you believe I am saying swearing is my concern.  That was never my contention.  I again direct you to the source I spoke of earlier and why I was concerned.  "C" is synonymous with "N."  "F" is fine. "C" cuts like a knife!

"You hear it 10 times within two minutes," says Councilman Leroy Comrie.

On Wednesday, Comrie will urge the council to approve a symbolic resolution calling for New Yorkers to voluntarily stop using the N-word.  The effort began weeks ago at the start of Black History Month, and has gradually gained nationwide notice and support.

Comrie and other backers of the nonbinding measure say its purpose is to call attention to what they say is a troubling trend among entertainers and youths to try to repackage the N-word as a term of endearment and camaraderie.

Hip-hop artists in particular have been singled out for weaving the term into music and entertainment, which some say waters it down and convinces younger audiences that the word is acceptable.

Some argue that doing so is empowering, and that reclaiming a slur and giving it a new meaning takes away its punch.

Comrie disagrees, saying it is impossible to paper over the N-word's long and hurtful history.

"This was derived solely from hate and anger, and you just can't recreate it," Comrie said.

The word has received increased attention since the incident last year in which actor Michael Richards, who played the nutty Kramer on "Seinfeld," used the word while blowing up at audience members during a standup routine.  Richards later apologized and said that the outburst was motivated by anger, not racism.

After the Richards episode, black leaders including the Rev. Jesse Jackson and California Rep. Maxine Waters challenged the public and the entertainment industry including rap artists, actors and movie studios to stop using the epithet.

Other municipalities are considering measures similar to New York City's, and a historically black college in Alabama recently held a four-day conference to discuss the word.

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull . . . Betsy
BeThink.org

---

by: Betsy L. Angert @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 15:49:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've read about this legislation (6.00 / 1)

and I consider it idiotic -- even as an unenforceable, symbolic law. I have gone on record saying so, twice. Even well-intended thought policing is still thought policing. You can't change a culture by lopping out words that represent aspects of it. We should be having more dialog, not less.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 16:17:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

no one can legislate behavior, (0.00 / 0)

Dear Curmudgette  . . .

I am not advocating the legislation at all.  I only use the article as an illustration of how accepting we are of derogatory language.  The use of the "N" word is pervasive and for many, it is considered just fine [depending on who says it.] 

We, as humans, can and do justify whatever it is we wish to believe.  I totally agree, no one can legislate behavior, nor do I think the idea of attempting to dictate dialogue wise.

We should be having more dialog, not less.

Amen!  Still, I want people to aware of how words can hurt in ways mechanical weapons cannot.  The pain may last longer and create greater repercussions throughout society.

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull . . . Betsy
BeThink.org

---

by: Betsy L. Angert @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 19:26:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I heard Maya Angelou speak (0.00 / 0)

many years ago. One of her stories was about convincing Richard Pryor that the "n" word was just too poisonous to be repeated, even in humor. I understood her point. I still think Richard Pryor's riffs on the word are some of the funniest, most brilliant, and socially relevant comedy ever. The "n" word was not allowed in my lily-white, WASP family. It was an obscenity to us. And it is an obscenity. But, like most obscenities, there are times when nothing else will make the point, or carry enough emotional charge to convey the meaning. The only slurs I use mock the extremely white, because that is the only group I feel l have the right and experience to mock. I just don't jet offended when I hear black people use the "n" word, or the "c" word, as in the famous story about Gene L. Coon's secretary: "I"m Gene L's..." you get the idea. So I, personally, wasn't offended by FN's use of the word, any more than by Richard Pryors extensive use of the "n" word. It's not my reality. It's not my place to judge it, either way. I hope some days these words will be cleansed of any semantic charge and fall out of the lexicon naturally.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 21:10:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The hissy fit about Fox news (7.67 / 3)

seems off kilter.  All the new gets spun no matter who is presenting it.  I have seen no reason to be pleased with the presentations on any network.  Fox is simply more obvious in the way it goes about doing the spinning.

Vigilance is the price of freedom. That means us citizens, and not our professional military or its industrial complex bleeding us for every dollar they waste protecting corporate hegemony. That is part of what weakens citizens and puts us in danger.

---

by: Silverbird @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 13:38:19 PM CDT

I agree with you that all the news channels (6.00 / 1)

are biased. But Fox News is in its own category. What bothers me about the CBC's venture with FNC is not that they will be at a disadvantage in getting their message across, but that they are legitimizing the channel. Fox News is to news what professional wrestling is the martial arts. A lot of people believe pro wrestling is not staged and they believe that Fox News is something other than other a propaganda machine. Sad but true. And a lot of headway has been made in exposing Fox for what it is, but that is undermined when the CBC treats them like a news organization. They are not a news organization. A newsman doesn't call a woman who gave 29 years of her to the Army a blame-America-firster and cut her mic. A news man doesn't do a report on how the white race had better start propagating because we're being over-run by minorities (see above). That's not news it's propaganda. Roger Ailles is a dangerous ideologue and he should be treated as such. Now it looks like the CBC has given Fox  their imprimatur. Utterly self-defeating. I would not use the "c" word  to describe them, but I absolutely got fn's point in doing so.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

---

by: Curmudgette @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 14:30:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are correct. (6.00 / 2)

Perhaps the difference between you and me is I see them all being as bad as Fox, just in different ways.  What you say about Fox is accurate.  The Bill/Monica news coverage taught me they were all spin all the time.

Vigilance is the price of freedom. That means us citizens, and not our professional military or its industrial complex bleeding us for every dollar they waste protecting corporate hegemony. That is part of what weakens citizens and puts us in danger.

---

by: Silverbird @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 14:56:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No one can force another (0.00 / 0)

Dear Silverbird  . . .

Exactly.  It is all spun.  We as viewers need to be vigilant and discerning!

No one can force another to think as they do.

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull . . . Betsy
BeThink.org

---

by: Betsy L. Angert @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 15:53:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I emailed Shanikka (7.50 / 2)

and since the conversation has gone there anyway...here's what I said:

Just read your response and I am so glad you wrote it.  The "Coon" part bothered me, but for the fact that my ass is white, I felt it was not my place to point that out.

I mean, I get it when my friends have used "nigger" with eachother.  I *get* that I do not *get* why it is comforting to them to take the ugly out by using it lovingly to eachother; and (so they say) it is a way of claiming it. I know I cannot, and truly, never want to. 

So I figured, he wants to use coon, its his business, and his community's(the part of which i can never be a part of) business what to think about it. 

But I get it isn't all about me, in fact NONE of it is about me, and I respect that.  My face cringe factor is lower around my friends; but still internally I cringe when I hear racially charged words.

It was a righteous rant, overall, and had any group come out in favor of Fox, I am fairly positive they would get equal beatings on MLW.  But your counter argument was equally valid.  (although if they show it on Fox News Network, not the affiliates, it will be cable only)

But anyway, just wanted to thank you, and felt if I threw this out there, it would hijack the discussion away from their choice about Fox...into one about who can use what words.

I didn't want to do that, and add ugliness to the page.  It ain't my call, ever.

I have called the entire body of Democrats douchebag motherfucking Bushass sucking bastards when they signed off on the Pat Act.

Now is that fair of my to disparage fine congresscritters with a broad brush cuz I am angry?  Nope.  Do I care? Not a bit.

Thing is, Field Negro's words may have made me uncomfortable, but they are his to use at his discretion. 

Op/Eds are just that, and rants are rants.

---

by: Diane W @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 14:15:59 PM CDT

no one has the right to tell another (0.00 / 0)

Dear Diane . . .

Field Negro can and will do as s/he does.  We can all do that, and we will.  I was just saying for me, I was mistaken, when I said the diary was what I do not think it is.  I was only speaking for me!  The word choice for me lessened the quality and intention.  It was bothersome to me alone.  That is the only person I can ever speak for, and at times, I do not do that well! 

I was not condemning anyone.  No one, in my mind, has that power.  I was only saying, my earliest evaluation was written in error.  I never claimed to suppose what others thought, felt, or did.

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull . . . Betsy
BeThink.org

---

by: Betsy L. Angert @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 19:39:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Perhaps an interesting question is why most of us, (0.00 / 0)

(including me) read past what is now being discussed. I have my thoughts, I'm wondering about everyone else.

Cheers!

"Truth has no time of its own. Its hour is now -- always, and indeed then most truly when it seems most unsuitable to actual circumstances."

---

by: roysol @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 15:04:35 PM CDT

i said why roysol (6.00 / 1)

It will NEVER be my place to tell a black person what they can call another black person. 

It is not my business, as a lily white chick to stick my nose in that.  It is for them to debate and decide without my white ass trying to tell them what to do.

So I read the article and cringed past the one word.

I know my place, and sticking it in another race's business while having no inherant concept of what it is to be black in america...that is not my place.

I'd rather really listen.

---

by: Diane W @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 15:57:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Point taken, not "most, (0.00 / 0)

So 2 for "read it and didn't comment"

And 2 for "Read right by it".

Still an interesting question tho, no?

Cheers!

"Truth has no time of its own. Its hour is now -- always, and indeed then most truly when it seems most unsuitable to actual circumstances."

---

by: roysol @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 16:33:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are right, I said this: (7.50 / 2)

"It's called an opinion, and if you have an issue with some of the facts.." 

"bloggingCurbudgeon", you are right in that the above statement does seem somehwat contradictory. But that's propably my ego running away with me. You see, I honestly believe that 99% of my opinions are based on facts.

As for my assertion that the CBC folks are debased in character, I stand by that. And I don't have the time nor the patients to get into why I do with you. Let's just say that I when I see the shit happening out here on these streets on a daily basis, and those sell outs sit on their asses in D.C. doing nothing, it pisses me off! And please don't tell me about all the money they could be making in private industry, that's bull shit! (True for a few maybe, but not most)They do quite well with their hustle in Washington, and trust me, they ain't trying to give it up anytime soon.

Now I don't expect you to understand that, nor do I expect you to bring the passion I do to this argument. Which is why your position probably seems more trenchant than mine. The ability to be objective gives you that. I, on the other hand, cannot be, because I have too much at stake in the shit that the CBC does. When they are supposed to be representing my interest and make deals with FOX NEWS and their ilk, that pisses me off. And yes, I am going to talk about it, no matter who I might upset in the process.

 

Silence is never golden!

---

by: field negro @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 15:57:39 PM CDT

Sorry you don't have the time (0.00 / 0)

I don't have the time nor the patients to get into why I do with you.

It's very disappointing that you don't have the time or the patience to explain the reasons why you think so many of the Congressional Black Caucus members are "debased" in character.  I was honestly interested in understanding your reasons.

I take it that if you don't have the patience to explain it to me, then you don't really think it's necessary to persuade me to come over to your way of thinking. 

If you feel that matters are so desperate in America that we require immediate action, then yes, I agree.

But action requires alliances, and allies must be persuaded.  You say you don't have the time or the patience to persuade me--so I remain unconvinced.

I'm a bit puzzled by another statement of yours:

...your position probably seems more trenchant than mine.

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "trenchant".  The dictionary definition of the word is "vigorous, effective, energetic"--if that is your intended meaning, then I thank you for the compliment.

Once again, I'm at the mercy of someone I wouldn't let pick my nose!--John Lithgow, "Third Rock from the Sun"

---

by: The BloggingCurmudgeon @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 18:38:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, No, They Did Not! (5.00 / 1)

Dear roysol and Shanikka . . .

I repeat, I did NOT read past it.  I cringed!!!  I was Not going to write a comment to field Negro at all. 

I was planning to remark to Shanikka minutes ago, my notice was NOT belated! 

For me, after seeing the first comment, the video, I was floored and compelled to write.  Meanwhile, I was taking care of other life events and infinitely distracted.  Still overwhelmed by the vile video, I began to feel guilty that I left a comment for the writer of the comment and not the diary. 

I offered the shortest single line statement I could.  My thought by then was wow, this is an important discussion.  My reasoning related to having never once viewed Fox before.  I realized there is much I must know in order to speak to it.  Thus, I mistakenly forgot what had trouble me many minutes earlier.  In hopes of correcting an etiquette error, I wrote an extremely erroneous statement.

As the evening progressed and I could calmly sit at the computer, I reviewed what I had done and thought agh!!!!!!!!!!  _)(*&^%$#@!~  My own desire to be discreet and ample distractions in between caused me to write a comment that if I could, I would have deleted IMMEDIATELY!  It is in moments such as that I hate being human.

No roysol, I did not read past it. 

No, Shanikka my notice was not belated.

I imagine my desire to forget such a slur was strong.  Successfully, for a moment I put it out of my mind.  Sadly, as I stated earlier, peace and purity always rise to the surface.  I recalled the remark and retracted my huge mistake!

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull . . . Betsy
BeThink.org

---

by: Betsy L. Angert @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 16:20:01 PM CDT

I get the sarcasm in your tone (0.00 / 0)

but it was meant ot be just that, a compliment. Trenchant can also mean incisive and pointed, which is what I acknowledged that your post was compared to mine, because mine was clouded by passion.

Although quite frankly, I am not sure why I have to explain the meaning of my words, or my use thereof to you. Is this something we do at MLW? Just curious.

As for my patients to explain my issues with the CBC; maybe if my bullshit meter wasn't in the red with you I would consider it. But somehow I doubt seriously if my struggle could ever be yours.


Silence is never golden!

---

by: field negro @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 20:48:36 PM CDT

Thanks again for the compliment (0.00 / 0)

I don't think they were all that trenchant, but your passion is clear--I just think it may be a bit misguided.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Once again, I'm at the mercy of someone I wouldn't let pick my nose!--John Lithgow, "Third Rock from the Sun"

---

by: The BloggingCurmudgeon @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 23:09:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

After watching that Fox Attacks: Black America video...<br> (4.00 / 1)

I watched one of the others in the line-up in the column to the right of it...

Fox is beyond belief, man.

It really DOES give me pause when I consider going back on the air with them again...

I doubt I'll ever be asked back on their television programming, but I'm thinking of the radio appearances; and yeah, I know it's just "entertainment" and all that...

I think I gotta have a talk with the producer.

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

---

by: Maryscott O'Connor @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 00:34:50 AM CDT

Go on Fox, MSOC... (6.00 / 1)

...and then bring it up.

Ask them, "Why does Fox pursue a racist, white supremacist, xenophobic agenda?"

I'm all for liberals and progressives being interviewed on Fox--as long as the liberals and progressives show up with shield and sword, ready for battle.


Once again, I'm at the mercy of someone I wouldn't let pick my nose!--John Lithgow, "Third Rock from the Sun"

---

by: The BloggingCurmudgeon @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:37:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You should try...wait, the devil himself (0.00 / 0)

O'Reilly.  Jown kerry and his wife were on O;Reilly's show tonight, and seemed to have no problems.  Not really the ideal venue for kerry, since O'Reilly thinks that if you can't make your point in 60 seconds, you can't make it, but Kerry made his points.

And since I'm here, and Betsy thinks our thinking shold be non-dogmatic, I am going to utter a heresyu:  it is quite possible that a debate on Fox could be fair.  After all, it would not only be Fox picking the rules and questionaers, but the CBC. 

Oh, wait, were you just tking for granted that the CBC were biased and unfair, and it was so obvious to you (all) that it need not be stated?  never occurred to me.

But trust me not.  I'm not a believer.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:59:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"We will just have to agree to disagree on this issue." (6.00 / 1)

Fair enough, and I look forward to more discourse with you. Maybe down the road we will see eye to eye on some other issues.

Silence is never golden!

---

by: field negro @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 07:36:07 AM CDT