I initially noticed it in a piece which he opened with a number of quotes apparently demostrating the hate and bigotry still prevalent in America, which he then predicably goes on to denounce. They included one by a former NBA star saying "I hate gay people," and one from the infamous Jeremiah Wright talking about how the Jews were conspiring against him. He also brought up the messiah's new Supreme Court pick. That certainly makes sense. After all, she's quoted as saying that a Latina would be a better judge then a white man just because of her race and sex. That fits right into the bigotry parade.
But that's not what Pitts included. He included a quote about Sotomayor: "She's frightening, and she's racist." He then, as mentioned goes on to denounce them all as aspects of the same phenomenon.
That's right. Pitts chose not to equate bigotry with bigotry but rather to place in the same category as a man saying, "I hate gay people" a man speaking against racism from Sotomayor. What sort of inside-out world is this guy living in? On what planet does anti-racism equal racism?
It is ludicrously obfuscatory enough to claim that Republican opponents of various minority Democrats are only opposing them because of their race. We saw that with the O-tard's campaign partisans. We also know how full of shit that is, after the leaking of the Democratic memo which advised them to put special effort into opposing Bush's minority appointees so that people would not start associating Republicans with racial equality. But to claim now that opposition to Hispanic racism is racist? It boggles the mind.
Pitts lamented that the Holocaust Museum shooter "thought he was great because his skin was pale." But Sotomayor thinks she's great because her skin is sandy-coloured or whatever they call it these days. She said it flat out: because of it, she will come to better conclusions then us palees.
It gets even worse in the next column. In it he is defending his decision not to include David Letterman in his roll of bigotry for his joke about Sarah Palin's daughter getting raped. He displayes an epic disingenousness in making it through the whole column pretending that the outrage was because it was a joke about conservatives, and not because it was a joke about rape. Maybe on his faraway planet he doesn't know that all the big feminist organisation have sided with Palin on this one.
But the column gets even weirder. As he goes on about how conservatives see themselves as persecuted, we get this unbelievable paragraph:
"Your first thought is to reason them out of it, but it is notoriously hard to reason people out of victimology because it: a) feels good, b) demands deference, c) relieves them of any responsibility for their own fouled-up condition. Victimology is as addictive as crack -- and as mentally damaging."
Hold on a second. This is from a man whose entire career is based on being a black victim. Take a look at the opening of one of his other recent columns:
The analysis of victimology is completely correct. It was a nice touch, likening it to crack. But it would be not crack but rather a serious hallucinogen that Pitts needs to be smoking to believe that the primary adherents to validation through victimhood are conservatives.
"I am your scapegoat. I am your boogeyman. Brown-skinned, kinky-haired, black man, me.So I was not surprised (it was just another day at the office) last week when a white woman from suburban Philadelphia called police from her cellphone, claiming she had been locked in the trunk of a Cadillac by two black men. Nor was I shocked (it was just another day in the life) when police said Bonnie Sweeten was actually holed up in a luxury hotel at Walt Disney World, and there never was a kidnapping, much less by two black men.
I'm your scapegoat. I'm your boogeyman. So I'm used to these things."
Hallucinogens, alternate universe, or distant planet: There's no other way he could come up with this stuff.
0 comments:
Post a Comment