Media Research Center claims that the AP called Harriet Miers’ school “too white”. Nowhere in the story cited by MRC does it say “too white”.
This is what they do. They make s*** up.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
MSU Brigade: Newsbusters attacks AP
October 26th, 2005
40 Comments
Why does the story compare her “all white” school to the “racial and social upheaval” in other areas of the country? It’s the first sentence of the article. It’s in the title of the article. The AP must think the comparison is important.
I’ll give you that it is a bad headline. “Too white” should not be in quotes. But the jist of their criticism is well founded. The story seems to blame Miers (or her parents) for the Dallas schools being segregated. It is bad journalism.
There is so much going on to be pissed off about that matters, I’m really surprised a bad headline warrents ablip on your radar. Honestly, the original story is far more misleading than anything in the criticism.
The real story in the AP piece, and what they should have emphasized, is that Miers was a mediocrity in high school. You would think the best possible candidate in the nation for a seat on SCOTUS would at least stand out a little at that point.
This is the exact same thing that they tried with Justice Roberts about his neighborhood when he was growing up.
Oliver, you are correct, the original artical did not say “too white”, it said “all white”.
“Too white” and “all white” are completely different things in the context of the story. “All white” in reference to the school is stating a fact about where she studied. “Too white” in reference to the school is editorializing.
You dress in all brown.
You dress in too much brown.
I really don’t see why anyone would care what Ms. Miers was like in high school.
Seems like there’s enough for the MRC to criticize without having to improve the facts.
The phrase “he protests too much” (I’m bastardizing the Shakespeare quote, I know) was made for situations like this. The sensitivity of the right to certain issues is hilarious.
Yes, and you ignore the context. They compare the whiteness of her school to what? Racial upheaval.
Lets expand your limited “brown” example to include some context: “You spend your time dressed in all brown, which is far removed from the fashionable catwalks going on in other areas.”
Context adds meaning.
The AP article could have just stated the fact that Miers went to an all white school. Instead they compared her upbringing to “racial and social upheaval” that took place in some other areas of the country.
As I predicted:
Miers Withdraws Supreme Court Nomination
With the Miers withdrawal at least now Fox will have a news story to harp on, since they really don’t like to direct anyone’s attention to RoveLibbyGate.
…at least now Fox will have a news story to harp on…
Naw…they’ve been back to harping on the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal. They LOVE it, since, you know…[whisper]the French are involved![/whisper]
What an incredibly huge mistake it was to nominate a lightweight like Harriet Miers. Now, maybe we can have a real conservative appointed to the Supreme Court.
Never had an opportunity to do so. She could have chosen to not withdraw and then I would have hoped that the Senators would have proceeded to vote her down, for a variety of reasons.
What? No “up or down vote”?
Well, if you want to call a black man a racist because of what he says about another black man, it doesn’t matter at all. But I don’t see how you’d make the case that race motivates the remarks in question.
How does that matter ?
You can state that with a straight face ? Calling him Little Sambo had nothing to do with his race. It is clearly an endearing nickname from his childhood years. This is such an incredible double standard. Were a conservative to have done the exact same thing, people on the left would be having aneurisms and coronaries.
Meanwhile, Steve Gilliard pictures Michael Steele as a minstrel and calls him “Simple Sambo.”
Racist ass winds up losing his ad revenue from Steele’s Democrat opponent’s campaign.
Where’s the outrage, Oliver?
I guess it’s okay to be a racist if you’re a Democrat.
I assume you know, Tuco, that Steve Gilliard is black?
If I call my white cousin a “cracker” does that make me a racist?
Deal with that.
Well, allrighty, then. That makes his use of offensive racists stereotypes okay. Thank you for clearing that up, Quaker.
Oh, I forgot this little gem:
Yes, of course. If a white man uses the “n-word” it has a very different meaning than if a black man uses it.
Deal with it.
Stick to the subject, Tuco. We’re not discussing “offensive,” we’re discussing “racist.” That was your charge that you made against Steve Gilliard back upthread.
Let’s go to Webster’s, shall we?
When a black writer calls a black politician “Simple Sambo,” I doubt the writer is claiming that the politician is inferior because he is black. My understanding would be that the writer feels the black politician holds positions that are deferential to whites.
I similarly doubt that Steve Gilliard, a black writer is motivated by prejudice or discrimination against black people. He seems to have a problem with the politician and his views.
Now go ahead and holler “racism” all you like. I’m done trying to keep you from making a fool of yourself.
You’ll also note that nowhere in his post does Mr. George refer to Mr. Gilliard as a racist.
Deal with it? Who made you the authority on race relations that you peddle such trite nonsense.
Why are you not condemning Tim Kaine as well?
Robert A. George is also black:
Yes, actually I did. But unlike you, I’m colorblind when it comes to judging people for using symbols that are offensive to the majority of Americans.
One man’s racist is another man’s “hostile,” is that it?
I, for one, know how to express hostility without using racist symbols. What’s Steve Gilliard’s excuse?
Democrat Tim Kaine pulled his ad from Gilliard’s site because of the picture and description. I guess Kaine’s not as sophisticated as you and doesn’t know that it’s just good old healthy “hostility.”
Not an authority on race relations. An authority on my own opinions and observations. The passage you provided from Mr. George seems to support what I wrote earlier, doesn’t it? The same word, used by different people, is charged with different racial overtones, right?
Nevertheless, if you wish to continue to insist that the black writer Steve Gilliard is racist and biased against black people, please do be my guest.
Dang! Not a good day for my posts.
Yes, of course I can.
Be clear on this: I’m not addressing, pro or con, the appropriateness of the post. I only asked Tuco if he was aware that Steve Gilliard is black. Racial insults between members of the same race can be motivated by all sorts of different hostilities. Calling it racism is a difficult case to make.
frank;
You said Miers would withdraw before Halloween, but you didn’t say how soon before or what year.
Technically, you were not correct. Almost, but not quite.
Oh god .. this is another classic example of
It depends what the definition of is, is.
Leo, you’re trying to steal the Putz title from JadeGold, aren’t you?
I said “Before Halloween” and I obviously could not have meant next Halloween, because by then she would have been voted down or sworn in.
No, I didn’t say how soon bofore. So, as much as you are spoiling for a fight, you won’t get one from me. I predicted it, and I was right. Period.
You really do have some kind of problem with me, don’t you?
I remember I bumped into somebody in a bar on June 11, 1978, and they spilled their drink, and got real upset about it.
Was that you?
C’mon now, ‘fess up; what’s your problem?
Wait, I’ve got it! Were you in that rock fight I was in back in the Projects, in the summer of ‘56 or ‘57?
Maybe I bloodied your nose?
Quaker – technically, he did not call Gilliard a racist. He says that he was trading in racist imagery to attack another black man because he had the audacity to choose to be a Republican. Whether or not he overtly calls him a racist, it is clear that he finds the entirety of the attack repulsive.
There’s nothing “technical” about it, JD. George was quite precise in addressing that term to the imagery, not the motives, character, or actions of Gilliard.
Whether Mr. George or anyone else finds the attack repulsive is of no relevance to my point. I address only the charge of racism.
Is there a problem?
Which means you’re really not interested in addressing the underlying point, but would rather focus on parsing irrelevancies, and peddling illogicial fallacies (albeit illogical fallacies held dear by certain liberals) such as “blacks can’t be racists toward other blacks.”
Meanwhile, please notice that none of the liberals here is either defending or condemning Galliard.
That’s very telling.
I remarked on something you brought up in the first place! If you wish to plead irrelevance at this point, you’re levelling that charge at your own remarks.
As of my “illogical fallacy” that blacks can’t be racists toward other blacks, perhaps that would be a worthy topic of discussion. I’m sorry that you have chosen not to engage on that point.
Next nominee to the SC (from Stage Right):
Samuel Alito Jr.
Hide the women and children — get out the bloody coat hangers — nurn, witch, burn!
The Christians are coming! The Christians are coming!
Hehe
It flows from a logical fallacy. Usually in the form of a belief that African-Americans have permission to use racial epithets and symbols when addressing other African-Americans.
So, tell me? Did all of the African-Americans have a meeting and decide unanimously that it’s okay to portray certain other African-Americans as minstrels?
No, it’s usually the case that liberals (both black and white) appoint jackasses like Galliard to be spokespersons for all African-Americans, when the truth is that there are substantial numbers of them who are outraged by stunts like this.
Not worthy of discussion.