From Congressman James Clyburn's accusation that stimulus opponents are racist to President Obamarx's kid glove treatment from editorial cartoonists, we just can't get away from race. Specifically, we can't get away from those who dig for racism like the grave robbers of the 19th century, only their (the robbers') quarry was much less odious and much more productive.
As I understand the story, Obama cultists and reparations proponents--I'm aware that one of these groups may entirely encompass the other--have a problem with Obama being drawn as he looks. I guess the don't realize that cartooning isn't portraiture. Cartoonists aren't the best artists; the only way to make their subjects recognizable is to exaggerate prominent features. To be fair, anyone who voted for the most petulant, socialist, and obstructionist President in history must have had his head deep enough in the sand never to have noticed that Obama has ears like Albert Neuman and lips like Angelina Jolie. If it was racist to point that out, get me my pointy white hood.
Why is it acceptable to draw George W. Bush as a gibbering simp, and not to make Obama recognizable? Because he's black? As he's half white, I still wouldn't call him black. But treating someone different based on race is racist. Worse treatment due to race is racist. Better treatment, as is the case here, is also racist. Once again, this society's biggest issue with skin seems to be not its color, but its thickness.
On to Rep. Clyburn. What a freaking idiot. Isn't this the same cretin who objected to parasol-wielding girls wearing ruffled, hoop-skirted gowns in Obama's inaugural parade, because those costumes were reminiscent of antebellum Southern plantations? Never mind that most of the girls were black. Apparently the Rep has gallantly added race-baiting to his duties as a Democratic congressman, in addition to the party standards of setting earmarks, grabbing his ankles for unions, insulting our military, and just furthering political corruption as a whole.
Brainless mouths such as Clyburn actually foment more racism than they fight. How? Through the injustice of their claims. Many Americans never really think about race--it doesn't concern them; they don't judge anyone primarily by skin color. And they don't appreciate someone like James Clyburn putting them on the defensive with repugnant and baseless accusations. Injustice breeds anger, and anger breeds prejudice. People of other races look at a black man reducing their concerns about government spending and fiscal responsibility to a motive as troglodytic as bigotry alone, and they are angry. We'll never be colorblind enough for race-baiters like Clyburn--so why bother? The James Clyburns, Jesse Jacksons, and Al Sharptons of the world portray black people as self-centered, vindictive, ungrateful whiners who demand special treatment and will never be satisfied. Would you reach out to a group like that, or even care what they think?
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Serious Good From a Frivolous Lawsuit?
If you're a regular reader of Hill of Hope, you probably need professional help, but you're also aware that we don't support people being offended, and we especially don't support offended people filing lawsuits.
However, I think Lucie J. Kim's suit against Miley Cyrus is a good idea, in fact one that's overdue.
Like Margaret Cho, I want why racism against Asians isn't taboo. Because we were never enslaved by wealthy white Americans? Because we don't tend to be illegal migrant workers? Because the government never stripped us of our ancestral lands and herded us onto reservations?
Because most Asian stereotypes are positive? Because, as a group, we don't tend to lack in education or in economic status, and we're not filling up prisons and producing two-thirds of our offspring out of wedlock?
It's partly our fault. It's true, that most Asian people don't really like to rock the boat--yellow is a little too mellow; we have no Jesse Jackson to seize upon any incident that may conceivably appear to display the tiniest bit of prejudice and harangue the perpetrators for outlandish reparations and outrageously servile acts of penitence.
I'm not saying that Ms. Cyrus deserves to lose $4 billion for her incredible idiocy, because I don't think that's what this is about. I don't think Ms. Kim or any Asian person in Los Angeles will see a penny, nor is any of them interested in a possible payout.
No, this is all about teaching Ms. Cyrus--and Hollywood and the rest of America--a lesson, which is that chink eyes need to go the way of blackface, because nobody, not even the "model minority," appreciates a racist gesture. The pop phenom may have thought she was just being "goofy," but she was rudely exploiting the insecurity of every little Asian girl (and some bigger Asian girls) who feels constantly snubbed by the cult of beauty and popularity. Who are the Asian pop stars? *Crickets* Who embodies the Hollywood ideal of Asian beauty? Sandra Oh, a woman who looks as if she was hit squarely in the face with a hot cast-iron frying pan. Asian athletes? Forget it. My sister once auditioned for a Shakespeare festival in a part of the country generally considered progressive, and was told that, while she was extremely talented, they couldn't give her a large role because of all of the "average-looking white people" who tried out.
So not only is discrimination against Asians very real, it's perfectly acceptable. Miley Cyrus has the opportunity to start effecting a change by first offering an honest apology for her ignorant and appalling behavior. That would be worth $4000 to me, and I'm sure one million other Asians would agree.
However, I think Lucie J. Kim's suit against Miley Cyrus is a good idea, in fact one that's overdue.
Like Margaret Cho, I want why racism against Asians isn't taboo. Because we were never enslaved by wealthy white Americans? Because we don't tend to be illegal migrant workers? Because the government never stripped us of our ancestral lands and herded us onto reservations?
Because most Asian stereotypes are positive? Because, as a group, we don't tend to lack in education or in economic status, and we're not filling up prisons and producing two-thirds of our offspring out of wedlock?
It's partly our fault. It's true, that most Asian people don't really like to rock the boat--yellow is a little too mellow; we have no Jesse Jackson to seize upon any incident that may conceivably appear to display the tiniest bit of prejudice and harangue the perpetrators for outlandish reparations and outrageously servile acts of penitence.
I'm not saying that Ms. Cyrus deserves to lose $4 billion for her incredible idiocy, because I don't think that's what this is about. I don't think Ms. Kim or any Asian person in Los Angeles will see a penny, nor is any of them interested in a possible payout.
No, this is all about teaching Ms. Cyrus--and Hollywood and the rest of America--a lesson, which is that chink eyes need to go the way of blackface, because nobody, not even the "model minority," appreciates a racist gesture. The pop phenom may have thought she was just being "goofy," but she was rudely exploiting the insecurity of every little Asian girl (and some bigger Asian girls) who feels constantly snubbed by the cult of beauty and popularity. Who are the Asian pop stars? *Crickets* Who embodies the Hollywood ideal of Asian beauty? Sandra Oh, a woman who looks as if she was hit squarely in the face with a hot cast-iron frying pan. Asian athletes? Forget it. My sister once auditioned for a Shakespeare festival in a part of the country generally considered progressive, and was told that, while she was extremely talented, they couldn't give her a large role because of all of the "average-looking white people" who tried out.
So not only is discrimination against Asians very real, it's perfectly acceptable. Miley Cyrus has the opportunity to start effecting a change by first offering an honest apology for her ignorant and appalling behavior. That would be worth $4000 to me, and I'm sure one million other Asians would agree.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Believe It or Not--It's in the Stimulus!
We here at Hill of Hope are performing a public service: wading through the stimulus bill like a retarded egret through molasses, so you won't have to--although we're sure you wade more like an inebriated flamingo. Yes, we are risking both productivity and sanity to look directly at all 434 pages of the January 27 version of this monstrous disaster, downloaded from the website of Alabama senator and true Republican Jeff Sessions.
First observation: Can you believe the size of this print? It's like in 10th grade composition when your assignment required 10 pages, so you triple-spaced it, widened your margins to three inches, and used Wide Latin in 24-point font. How much of your money could the government save if they only refrained from printing this behemoth? Not to mention the trees--where's the eco-denunciation from Al Gore? I guess he's too busy turning up the heat in that Hummer of a mansion.
Page 8: $198,000,000 (read: 198 million dollars) for the National School Lunch Program. I'm in favor of school lunches. Remember that square spongy pizza, dripping grease and topped with what looked like boogers? One of my favorites. I'm sure they don't serve anything like that anymore; the "pizza" in today's schools is probably some flaxseed crust topped with tomato skins and spinach, and kids just throw it away and go home so hungry that they scarf down an entire box of Ding-Dongs while deftly navigating past the parental controls to the Russian amateur porn. See, if you attempt to inject some logic into this three-ring debate, socialist Obamabots come back with accusations that you're in favor of poor children being too hungry to completely fill in the little bubbles on their standardized tests, which, at my last investigation, are only administered in public schools on days ending with "Y."
And I am aware that "socialist Obamabots," is redundant. But I want to know, President Marx and Comrade Pelosi, how do school nutrition programs create jobs and stimulate the economy?
Page 35: Hereafter, in this section, the term "nonambulatory disabled cattle" means cattle, other than cattle that are less than 5 months old or weigh less than 500 pounds, subject to inspection under section 3(b) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603(b)) that cannot rise from a recumbent position or walk, including cattle with a broken appendage, severed tendon or ligament, nerve paralysis, fractured vertebral column, or a metabolic condition.
I'm not a legislator or meat inspector, so I didn't have the stomach to root around the outskirts of this depressingly hilarious paragraph to figure out why the hell it was in there. But you know that with a thorough definition of "nonambulatory disabled cattle," this bill is strictly focused on improving your economic outlook!
Unless you're a bovine of more than 500 pounds with a broken appendage or metabolic condition. Look out, Barney Frank!
First observation: Can you believe the size of this print? It's like in 10th grade composition when your assignment required 10 pages, so you triple-spaced it, widened your margins to three inches, and used Wide Latin in 24-point font. How much of your money could the government save if they only refrained from printing this behemoth? Not to mention the trees--where's the eco-denunciation from Al Gore? I guess he's too busy turning up the heat in that Hummer of a mansion.
Page 8: $198,000,000 (read: 198 million dollars) for the National School Lunch Program. I'm in favor of school lunches. Remember that square spongy pizza, dripping grease and topped with what looked like boogers? One of my favorites. I'm sure they don't serve anything like that anymore; the "pizza" in today's schools is probably some flaxseed crust topped with tomato skins and spinach, and kids just throw it away and go home so hungry that they scarf down an entire box of Ding-Dongs while deftly navigating past the parental controls to the Russian amateur porn. See, if you attempt to inject some logic into this three-ring debate, socialist Obamabots come back with accusations that you're in favor of poor children being too hungry to completely fill in the little bubbles on their standardized tests, which, at my last investigation, are only administered in public schools on days ending with "Y."
And I am aware that "socialist Obamabots," is redundant. But I want to know, President Marx and Comrade Pelosi, how do school nutrition programs create jobs and stimulate the economy?
Page 35: Hereafter, in this section, the term "nonambulatory disabled cattle" means cattle, other than cattle that are less than 5 months old or weigh less than 500 pounds, subject to inspection under section 3(b) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603(b)) that cannot rise from a recumbent position or walk, including cattle with a broken appendage, severed tendon or ligament, nerve paralysis, fractured vertebral column, or a metabolic condition.
I'm not a legislator or meat inspector, so I didn't have the stomach to root around the outskirts of this depressingly hilarious paragraph to figure out why the hell it was in there. But you know that with a thorough definition of "nonambulatory disabled cattle," this bill is strictly focused on improving your economic outlook!
Unless you're a bovine of more than 500 pounds with a broken appendage or metabolic condition. Look out, Barney Frank!
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
And Why Don't I Get Paid for Blogging?
I really like the show CSI, but I really can't watch it anymore because it's become so realistically graphic. I mean, I can listen to it and glance at the screen every now and then, but I can't watch it anymore.
I also can't watch politicians speak. I couldn't do it with President Bush (the Younger). As effectively as he governed this country and protected us for seven years from jihadists, the man was a train wreck at speaking. But at least he spoke of American values and the respect he had for this country and its people...Comrade Obama's speeches are like a trainload of maggot-infested corpses colliding with a flaming garbage barge driven by a Holocaust-denying leper with diarrhea.
So of course I didn't actually see this shameless freeloader at Pres. Obamarx's Fort Meyers town meeting; I read about him on Rush Limbaugh's website. It's too bad we don't know this guy's name...we had Joe the Plumber; now we can have Bob the Whiner or Dan the Sponge. In deference to political correctness, though, sponges are not completely inert. All that seawater isn't going to filter itself.
Anyway, Joe the Jobless Wonder got laid off, or fired. He says he got laid off and then he says he got fired. He should be an Obama spokesperson, or at least a speechwriter. His unemployment benefits are less than a third of what he was making when he was gainfully employed--you know, a productive member of society? Remember that, Joe? Remember when you actually contributed something besides carbon dioxide, Cheeto crumbs, and blog fodder? I hope this guy was employed in some industry that doesn't require any logic or critical thinking skills whatsoever--like Ivy League graduate student, or, even better, tenured professor--because he asked the President, on live television, in front of most of his friends and neighbors, "How come when I lose my job, the government doesn't pay me what I was making when I got fired or laid off?"
Oh, gosh, I don't know, Joe. Maybe it's because...you're not working!! Does that make any sense to you?? Should I say it more slowly? You do not get paid as much for not working as you do for working because you're NOT WORKING.
Even the President who ran on a platform of giving everything to those who have and do nothing was taken aback by this amazing display of ignorance and shameless entitlement. Of course he couldn't tell the truth, which is that how America works, and why America works (at least until Obama's socialist agenda comes to fruition) is that work gets paid more than non-work; effort is rewarded over inertia. Nor could he tell the lies he believes, which is that everybody is entitled to everything, except those who worked for it. In Obama's SSA (Socialist States of America), earning is the same as stealing. We have a President who can't tell the truth about the way it is, nor about the way he wants it to be, because he is going to spend the rest of his first and only term in office campaigning. It's all he knows how to do.
I haven't said much about the orgy-of-spending bill because I don't have a lot of original ideas about it. I did have an insight today about those three repulsive turncoat RINOs. I respected Sens. Specter and Collins a lot for acting in a truly bipartisan manner and working on behalf of their employers, the taxpayers, to shave some fat from this outrageously bloated piece of pork. However, when they put lipstick on this pig, it became their pig, and damned if they're going to let anyone call it a pig. They are so proud of themselves for playing nicely with the other senators, and for their make-up job, that they're selling out their constituents for this delusion.
I also can't watch politicians speak. I couldn't do it with President Bush (the Younger). As effectively as he governed this country and protected us for seven years from jihadists, the man was a train wreck at speaking. But at least he spoke of American values and the respect he had for this country and its people...Comrade Obama's speeches are like a trainload of maggot-infested corpses colliding with a flaming garbage barge driven by a Holocaust-denying leper with diarrhea.
So of course I didn't actually see this shameless freeloader at Pres. Obamarx's Fort Meyers town meeting; I read about him on Rush Limbaugh's website. It's too bad we don't know this guy's name...we had Joe the Plumber; now we can have Bob the Whiner or Dan the Sponge. In deference to political correctness, though, sponges are not completely inert. All that seawater isn't going to filter itself.
Anyway, Joe the Jobless Wonder got laid off, or fired. He says he got laid off and then he says he got fired. He should be an Obama spokesperson, or at least a speechwriter. His unemployment benefits are less than a third of what he was making when he was gainfully employed--you know, a productive member of society? Remember that, Joe? Remember when you actually contributed something besides carbon dioxide, Cheeto crumbs, and blog fodder? I hope this guy was employed in some industry that doesn't require any logic or critical thinking skills whatsoever--like Ivy League graduate student, or, even better, tenured professor--because he asked the President, on live television, in front of most of his friends and neighbors, "How come when I lose my job, the government doesn't pay me what I was making when I got fired or laid off?"
Oh, gosh, I don't know, Joe. Maybe it's because...you're not working!! Does that make any sense to you?? Should I say it more slowly? You do not get paid as much for not working as you do for working because you're NOT WORKING.
Even the President who ran on a platform of giving everything to those who have and do nothing was taken aback by this amazing display of ignorance and shameless entitlement. Of course he couldn't tell the truth, which is that how America works, and why America works (at least until Obama's socialist agenda comes to fruition) is that work gets paid more than non-work; effort is rewarded over inertia. Nor could he tell the lies he believes, which is that everybody is entitled to everything, except those who worked for it. In Obama's SSA (Socialist States of America), earning is the same as stealing. We have a President who can't tell the truth about the way it is, nor about the way he wants it to be, because he is going to spend the rest of his first and only term in office campaigning. It's all he knows how to do.
I haven't said much about the orgy-of-spending bill because I don't have a lot of original ideas about it. I did have an insight today about those three repulsive turncoat RINOs. I respected Sens. Specter and Collins a lot for acting in a truly bipartisan manner and working on behalf of their employers, the taxpayers, to shave some fat from this outrageously bloated piece of pork. However, when they put lipstick on this pig, it became their pig, and damned if they're going to let anyone call it a pig. They are so proud of themselves for playing nicely with the other senators, and for their make-up job, that they're selling out their constituents for this delusion.
Friday, February 6, 2009
UPDATE: Sarah Jeglum, Patriot; ASUW Senate, Pinheads
We have a quasi-update to the story which is essentially responsible for spawning this blog. The December 6, 2008 entry in Hill of Hope, Censorship in Seattle, vehemently denounced the liberal intolerance rampant on campuses like that of the University of Washington and the disgraceful attempt of the Graduate and Professional Student Senate to extort a public apology from Sarah Jeglum, editor-in-chief of the UW's Daily for the unforgivable crime of providing a forum for holders of all viewpoints, not just those who bend over and grab their ankles for the gay community.
Unlike the love between lesbian activists this issue just will not die. Ms. Jeglum remained a paragon of journalistic professionalism and integrity when she addressed the student senate on January 28. The senate apparently convened to continue to whine the upending of their delicate sensibilities and wring their bony hemp-stained hands at the prospect of conservative tolerance going unpunished.
Senate member Igor Cherny, obviously a proponent of the Fairness Doctrine, expressed his belief that "a forum was not provided for students who disagreed" with John Fay's original editorial. Apparently Mr. Cherny felt that a published counter-argument, a Facebook group, and protest covered by both major Seattle newspapers, in addition to the "eight pages of letters to The Daily published the following Friday," of which Ms. Jeglum reminded him, were not sufficient the redress this slap in the plucked and Botoxed face of the gay community.
According to their website, the UW GPSS is no longer demanding the resignations of the right-wing hate fanatics at The Daily, who have not learned their lessons and continue to publish opinions from all moral and philosophical backgrounds. They are, however, clinging to their demand of an apology the way a starving monkey grips a banana, or a radical terrorist-sympathizer Marxist president clings to legislation which promises, at best, the complete destruction of the American economy and utter betrayal of taxpaying citizens.
Future ACLU lawyer and GPSS President Jake Faleschini claims that the "opinion coupled with the graphic offended the University's principles of providing a safe learning environment for all students." This blogger suggests that Mr. Faleschini and others who are frightened by cartoons of sheep (they can only be college students) remain in the comforting bubble of academia until they develop the reason and maturity necessary to navigate the adult world, which is apt to include many differing viewpoints, and possibly cartoons of giraffes, crocodiles, and even ostriches. Perverts.
Unlike the love between lesbian activists this issue just will not die. Ms. Jeglum remained a paragon of journalistic professionalism and integrity when she addressed the student senate on January 28. The senate apparently convened to continue to whine the upending of their delicate sensibilities and wring their bony hemp-stained hands at the prospect of conservative tolerance going unpunished.
Senate member Igor Cherny, obviously a proponent of the Fairness Doctrine, expressed his belief that "a forum was not provided for students who disagreed" with John Fay's original editorial. Apparently Mr. Cherny felt that a published counter-argument, a Facebook group, and protest covered by both major Seattle newspapers, in addition to the "eight pages of letters to The Daily published the following Friday," of which Ms. Jeglum reminded him, were not sufficient the redress this slap in the plucked and Botoxed face of the gay community.
According to their website, the UW GPSS is no longer demanding the resignations of the right-wing hate fanatics at The Daily, who have not learned their lessons and continue to publish opinions from all moral and philosophical backgrounds. They are, however, clinging to their demand of an apology the way a starving monkey grips a banana, or a radical terrorist-sympathizer Marxist president clings to legislation which promises, at best, the complete destruction of the American economy and utter betrayal of taxpaying citizens.
Future ACLU lawyer and GPSS President Jake Faleschini claims that the "opinion coupled with the graphic offended the University's principles of providing a safe learning environment for all students." This blogger suggests that Mr. Faleschini and others who are frightened by cartoons of sheep (they can only be college students) remain in the comforting bubble of academia until they develop the reason and maturity necessary to navigate the adult world, which is apt to include many differing viewpoints, and possibly cartoons of giraffes, crocodiles, and even ostriches. Perverts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)