RSS

Tag Archives: sexual harassment

Love in the Time of Stupidity…

Love in the Time of Stupidity…

Slate’s Amanda Marcotte writes about a tech startup’s CEO’s experience with sexual harassment.

(Yunha Kim) shares an email she got from a developer she tried to hire, which reads: “I’m pretty happy with current job, but if you’re single I’d like to date you. Perhaps there are some unconventional ways to lure me away from my company (besides stock options) if you know what I mean :)”

Wow.

Yes, he ended an email with a smiley face, but let’s move on to the other, just as egregious, offenses.

His opening sentence is bizarre, even if you don’t read it aloud, as I do, to the tune of Carly Rae Jepsom’s Call Me Maybe.

Kim already has to work with the obnoxious hipsters in the attached photo but now she has to deal with tired pickup lines from someone she’s clearly interacting with in a solely professional setting. (The guy’s first hint would be that he had no idea if she was single or not. I’m not an expert on women but usually if one is interested in you, she lets you know that she is available and won’t respond to your advances by showering in turpentine.)

Also, and forgive the digression, I dislike the “are you single?” question. There are many reasons a woman might not go out with you. Her being involved with someone else is but one of them. But there’s this presumption that if a woman is single, it’s open season, as if it’s out of the question for her to be single by choice or even wish to remain that way.

Isn’t it possible for two people to meet professionally, hit it off, and then choose to pursue a personal relationship. Sure, but out of basic respect, he should conclude their business relationship in a strictly professional relationship, thank her for her time, and then perhaps later reach out to her in a separate email. And instead of cutting to the tackiest chase possible, he could suggest getting together to discuss some non-business related topic that had come up in the previous meeting. It’s likely no such topic came up because the only non-business related topic raised at the meeting was this guy’s penis.

Frankly, I don’t advise attempting the business associate/romantic interest switch. It’s as fraught with peril as the “roommate switch” discussed on Seinfeld.

Oh, and lest we forget the creepy part.

Perhaps there are some unconventional ways to lure me away from my company (besides stock options) if you know what I mean 🙂

Why do some men think it’s at all flattering to a woman to suggest that she might barter her body for goods, services, or one of the many developers available in today’s economy?

This guy’s come on is not just personally insulting. It is arguably a quid pro quo request, which is classic sexual harassment. The comments, predominately from men, to the Slate piece invariably claim that sexual harassment can only occur if they both work at the same company or if the harasser is in a supervisor position or if it’s flat-out rape, like in the Michael Douglas film Disclosure. I won’t go into the many reasons why these assertions are untrue of why you shouldn’t see Disclosure even for its laughably dated depiction of the Internet.

Even in our “Lean-In” culture, professional women have to deal with not being taken seriously in a business environment or being seen as just a sexual object. There’s also the heterosexual privilege of injecting sexuality into business so freely, while gay men and women, even today, debate whether to display on their desks a photo of themselves and their partners. If a man sent an email like this hitting on a male CEO, it could be a potentially career-ending mistake.

But as the comments to the Slate article reveal, Kim could attempt to blackball this developer but it’s likely that his email wouldn’t keep him from getting another job. Too many men in too many important positions see nothing wrong with what he did.

And the smiley face. Really?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 17, 2014 in Social Commentary

 

Tags: , ,

Libertarianism’s finite definition of “liberty”…

Ron Paul’s presidential campaign has put his libertarianism philosophy in the spotlight and led to some healthy debate regarding its actual effectiveness as policy. By definition, it claims to hold individual liberty as the “basic moral principle in society” but yet Paul has expressed his repudiation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the basis of preserving rights of property owners, which is arguably a version of the same reasoning that led to the Civil War

OK, Paul is pro-life, so presumably he’d oppose slavery because of the act of aggression against a living being.

Or not:

Sure, Paul is opposed to slavery but is cavalier — in the libertarian style — regarding ending it. He bemoans the loss of 600,000 Americans during the war. According to the 1860 census, there were 3,950,528 slaves. Slavery is a living death — in the sense that you work for free until you die and with minimum coffee breaks.

The proposal of the U.S. “buying out” slaves from the South would violate Paul’s respect for property ownership by compelling slaveowners to sell their property. That would be a terrible precedent unless it’s based in the logic that slaves aren’t property. If that’s the case, then why are you paying slaveowners for them? The slaves would still receive nothing for their years of free labor, but their owners would essentially get ransom money. Lincoln could have dropped off the briefcase containing the unmarked bills in a deserted alley in Montgomery, Alabama.

Paul seems to forget that the entire Southern economy was based on slave labor. If I paid you $1 million for your entire labor force, which worked for free, you would still need to replace them and with people who’d expect wages. It wouldn’t take long for you to go bankrupt. The South would never agree to this. Though maybe they would be forward thinking and accept the terms, as the freed slaves would have nowhere to go and would conceivably wind up working for them for ridiculously low pay. The plantation owners might even be so kind as to rent them their old quarters back at ridiculously high rates. So, essentially, slaves in all but name. Everyone’s happy!

Come on, Paul, your philosophy can’t be this awful.

Let’s go back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Segregation and racial discrimination in this country made life almost unbearable for blacks. Surely, Paul recognized this and believed the government needed to resolve it to protect individual rights?

Or not:

Chris Matthews and Ron Paul together are hard to understand but here’s what I gather: Paul believes it’s fine for private businesses to racially discriminate — even though such behavior is an expression of collectivism, which he claims to reject. He seems to live in an alternate reality where the racial discrimination Matthews describes (“whites only” at a laundromat and at a local bar) wasn’t effective. The “free market” would not have ended segregation and racial discrimination in the U.S.

For good or for ill, people are greatly influenced by social and legal convention. If racial discrimination is unlawful, then only a few fanatics would risk their own liberty by violating the law. The illegality of racial discrimination then makes it socially unacceptable, which results in significant alteration of behavior among the mainstream.

It’s one thing if we were talking about how to maintain individual rights in a country without racist, sexist, homophobic baggage. It’s quite another if we’re talking about the United States, which has so much of this baggage, even the largest plane would have trouble taking off with it all. It’s not enough to stop beating someone with a tire iron. You can’t just shake hands, suggest a game of touch football, and then expect a fair result.

I’ve only been to 1955 briefly after an incident in which I was escaping Libyans but Paul lived through it. He is either fooling himself or us if he does not acknowledge that not only was segregation the law of the land, it was a social norm. Businesses in the south that did not serve blacks would not have “gone out of business,” as he speculated. Quite the reverse: It would have been the businesses that dared serve blacks that would have faced financial repercussions.

Oh well, my father might have been sober and dirty in Paul’s libertarian utopia of the 1960s, but at least the rights of property owners are upheld. Those with power (“property”) can wield it however they choose over those without power (“property”). In essence, there are no individual rights because you only have the freedom that comes from the property you own.

When Dr. Paul prescribes the “free market” as a cure, he is promoting collectivism, which he claims to reject. If a restaurant won’t serve blacks, then they should have the right to do so and the individual has the right to go someplace else. Your “right” to eat in a restaurant or rent a hotel room regardless of your race is now based on the “free market” and whether the collective agrees. The individual is now Blanche Dubois dependent on the kindness of strangers who are willing to sacrifice their own meals or accomodations on her behalf.

Let’s see how Paul does with women’s rights. If he’s for individual rights, he certainly would oppose businesses treating women in a less than professsional manner based solely on their gender.

Or not:

Paul’s statements on sexual harassment are more of the same: Women are free to choose to leave an “environment” they don’t like. He doesn’t recognize that this is a burden that would fall on women more often than men, which would limit their careers greatly. No, he seems to think a woman not wanting to work in some “Mad Men” office where her male colleagues make offensive comments is about as frivolous a decision as her not wanting to work someplace that didn’t have Flavia coffee machines. He is at least against the workplace turning into the bar from “The Accused,” which is generous of him, I suppose.

Racial discrimination and sexual harassment are both crimes of collectivism — treating a person as an extension of a group rather than an individual. If Paul supports “individual rights,” then he would support laws that prevent this type of collectivist behavior. However, he always supports “property” rights — the rights of the powerful — first. If the government does not exist to protect individual rights, then it serves no viable function. The powerful don’t need help unless the actual goal is to make it easier for them to score a touchdown after beating you with a tire iron.

 
 

Tags: , , , , ,

Herman Cain’s Triple Threat…

Herman Cain’s Triple Threat…

I’d mentioned before that it wasn’t a wise (and certainly not honorable) move on Herman Cain’s part to personally attack the women who claimed he had sexually harassed them. It would have been far more presidential to just deny the allegations rather than point out how one of the accusers had an overdue library book in 1977 or the other danced too close to a boy during a Richard Marx song at the junior high spring formal.

If Ginger White’s revelation of a 13-year affair with Cain proves his undoing, he’ll have no one to blame but his own bullying and intimidation tactics.

White (said) that she was a reluctant accuser who decided to go public only after her name was circulated among reporters. But she also said she was upset by Cain’s responses to the sexual harassment allegations from two women who have been identified publicly.

“It bothered me that they were being demonized, sort of, or were being treated as if they were automatically lying and the burden of proof is on them,” White said…

“I wanted to come out and give my side before it was thrown out there and made to be something, you know, filthy, which some people will look at this and say, that’s exactly what it is…”

I’m not sure how her preemptively coming forward benefits her, but it certainly doesn’t help Cain. The Atlanta businesswoman claims their relationship began in the late 1990s when Cain met her at a National Restaurant Association presentation. That group is proving more dangerous for women than the National Rifle Association. I never even heard of it prior to these allegations against Cain, so I’m not convinced it’s not just a dummy organization Cain invented to meet women and keep his wife off the trail.

So far, Cain’s been accused of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and now an apparently consensual adulterous relationship. If true, Cain is a triple-threat of bad behavior — sort of like J. Lo but just low. Andrew Sullivan correctly points out that the media has unfortunately blurred the three — treating them all as one amorphously salacious allegation. There’s even the standard unveiling of the new accuser’s past. The following is from Fox 5 Atlanta:

Before our interview, we checked into Ginger White’s background. We found she filed a sexual harassment claim against an employer in 2001. That case was settled.

We also found a bankruptcy filing nearly 23 years ago in Kentucky, and a number of eviction notices here in DeKalb County over the past six years. The most recent happened this month.

We also found a lawsuit filed by a former business partner, Kimberly Vay, who once sought a “stalking temporary protective order” against Ms. White for “repeated e-mails/texts threatening lawsuit and defamation of character.” The case was dismissed; but was followed by a libel lawsuit against Ms. White. A judge entered an order in favor of Kimberly Vay because Ms. White failed to respond to the lawsuit.

I don’t agree with picking apart the background of women coming forward with sexual harassment claims — rather than, you know, investigating the actual merit of the claims themselves — because it seems to me to reward bad actors who pick their victims well (“Impoverished and unstable? Check and double check!”). Employers would certainly have access to such information if they wanted. It gives them the perfect alibi of “see, she’s crazy!”

It also makes no sense whatsoever in Ginger White’s case. She’s the only one of the women who is actually confessing to bad behavior. Does anyone seriously expect a squeaky clean history from a woman who knowingly engaged in a 13-year affair with a married man? “Ahh, Ms. White, so you were a nun for a few years in the ’60s. Did a lot of flying, I see.”

Now, it looks like Cain is “reassessing his campaign.” Yesterday, he claimed he was remaining in the race “as long as he has the support of his wife.” If he does wind up dropping out, this would prove an unfortunate (though perhaps still accurate) statement to have made. I’d also be interested as to his reasoning behind exiting if it occurs. Precedent would show that he’s likely to blame the “Democrat machine” and play the martyr who is protecting his family from further false claims by those desperate to prevent a Cain presidency.

Ultimately, Cain’s silver bullet would be a sex scandal rather than sexual harassment. The latter being the only thing actually relevant to his ability to govern. I’d be happy to put a hound back in the White House if it got us the economy of the ’90s again.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 29, 2011 in Political Theatre

 

Tags: , ,

Herman Cain and the Tinkerbell Theory…

In the 20 years since Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings, there’s been a standard pattern whenever similar accusations emerge. The accuser is either part of a “vast conspiracy” against the accused (e.g. Paula Jones) or has a financial motive. Herman Cain  — who looks to be about as inconvenienced by the multiple accusations against him as Thomas was — has gone to the mattresses and pursued both options. He has repeatedly stated that he’s a victim of the “Democrat machine,” which means he gives the Democrats more organizational credit than I do at this point. He also suggested that it was “common sense” to consider Sharon Bialek’s finances as a possible motive for her coming forward.

The first seems less than plausible in Sharon Bialek’s case because she’s a Tea Party Republican. However, a leopard can always change its spots if there’s enough money involved. So, the theory is floated that economoic desperation is leading her into the manipulative arms of “celebrity activist” lawyer Gloria Allred. I call it the Tinkerbell Theory because it only lives if conservatives wish real hard for it.

Allred appeared on the Sean Hannity show in which Hannity, as a good mouthpiece for the right, continued to pursue the “lying broke hussy” narrative.

GLORIA ALLRED, ATTORNEY FOR SHARON BIALEK: Nice to see  you, Sean.

HANNITY: I actually prefer when you’re on my side,  which is occasional. These are serious allegations. You said and made a big  point in your press conference — and I watched the whole thing — that your  client could have sold the story, it could have been about money. But it’s not.   Why won’t she rule out a book deal?

ALLRED: Well, she has no plans to do a book.

HANNITY: New York Times today — and how often do I  quote that –Miss Sharon Bialek has said, she is not seeking money, though she  has not ruled out a book deal at some point. That means that there still maybe a  financial motive here. And you made a big point saying that it wasn’t.

ALLRED: There really isn’t. You know, I have spoken  with her. There is no financial motive. There is no one has offered us a book  deal. We haven’t looked for a book deal. She hasn’t talked to anyone about a  book deal. This is just complete nonsense. Let’s focus on what’s really —

HANNITY: You have been in celebrity media a long time.  That’s not nonsense, because you know and I know she’s going to get a book deal  off of it.

ALLRED: Well, no, I don’t. Because you know, what? She  has already told her story. And that’s what is important. And the critical point  where she could have made some money, she could have sold her story instead of  doing a news conference and telling everyone without any charge.

HANNITY: But at that point, she has no credibility, if  she tells her story later, it has more credibility.

ALLRED: No. She’s not — take the book deal off the  table. It’s not happening. OK?

HANNITY: Not happening?

ALLRED: I have represented people in book deals. And a  number of them — Amber Frey, Anne Bird — you know, from the Scott Peterson  case — even the jury, I represented.

HANNITY: All right. I got it.

ALLRED: You know, she has not asked me to represent her  to do anything with a book deal.

HANNITY: Here is a problem that I see with the story.  First of all, whatever happened to the idea, there was a severance payment to  her, which is very different from a legal settlement term. You’re a lawyer, you  know the distinction and difference. So, they came up with a severance agreement  that was supposed to be confidential.

ALLRED: Talking about the other — some other  women.

HANNITY: OK, right, but in that case. And I am  thinking, all right, so in this case, we don’t have that. In this case, we have  this. She goes to look for a job, she never worked for the Restaurant  Association. And I am putting this all together in my mind. Do you not  understand why people are saying, wait a minute, is this politically  motivated?

ALLRED: You mean as to Sharon?

HANNITY: As to all of these charges. We don’t know  except for your client with the specific charges.

ALLRED: OK. All right, well.

HANNITY: You said he’s a serial abuser, serial  harasser.

ALLRED: What I said was, Sean, if in fact, the  allegations of all four women are to be believed and are true, then he is a  serial sexual harasser.

HANNITY: If, but you didn’t say if.

ALLRED: Yes, I did. And if they are true then he is  also a serial liar and a person who disrespects the rights of women to enjoy  equal employment opportunity without the interference of sexual harassment in  the workplace.

HANNITY: All right. Here’s my question though, as we  follow the timeline of the story that she’s telling here, right? And she claims  that she wanted help. She wanted to get a job, right? Legitimate. She has a  history of bankruptcy. She has a questionable employment record that, you know,  job after job after job after job. Legitimate questions to check the credibility  of somebody. Now, when this allegedly happened, didn’t she get back in the car  with him after?

ALLRED: In the car?

HANNITY: With Herman Cain. Didn’t she stay with him after? Didn’t she spend time with him after this supposedly happened?

ALLRED: No, she asked him to take her back to the  hotel.

HANNITY: So, she got back in the car with him.           

Hannity does not hide his bias — openly stating that he and Allred are on different sides. He also seems to have an issue with quoting The New York Times. It’s not like it was from the op-ed page or a Jayson Blair article. Anyway, this is all an interesting twist. There are no questions about Cain’s integrity or background. There is no discussion of his motives for lying — he’s running for president, after all. Instead, there is boundless speculation about Bialek — that she is so financially and morally destitute that she’s willing to destroy a man’s reputation for the possible chance of a book deal at some point in the future. That certainly is motive for her to lie but only if she’s a complete psychopath. There’s no evidence that Cain fired her or refused to hire her for a job that would provide a somewhat reasonable — if still irrational — motive for such actions.

Hannity — most likely never having been in the situation that Bialek describes — makes the same mistake that countless other men have made whenever women made accusations regarding sexual assault. They seem to believe that after such an experience, a woman would never be in shock or confused. No, her behavior afterward must be highly calculated and logical or else she’s obviously lying.

So, far Hannity is the classiest of Cain’s supporters, including Cain’s own lawyer, Lin Wood, who said “others should ‘think twice’ before making accusations” — as if the inevitable media scrutiny that is bound to occur is something Bialek didn’t consider. She just woke up one morning and thought she’d threaten the career of a powerful man. What could go wrong? Rachel Maddow called it a ‘remarkable moment,’ because a lawyer was telling potential harassment victims to “shut up,” and seemingly threatening them with some kind of retribution if they didn’t.” Indeed, Tom Hagen was usually more subdued and tactful when representing the Corleone Family.

Rush Limbaugh, from whom one should expect nothing and — if you actually listen to him — will receive even less, reportedly “slurped as he pronounced Bialek’s name ‘buy-a-lick'” and Dick Morris on FOX News “wondered when a Playboy spread would come.”  Aside from being a professional woman and mother, Bialek is 50 years old and Hugh Hefner is not generally inclined to feature women only half his age in his magazine.

Hannity meanwhile allowed Cain’s chief of staff, Mark Block, to flat-out lie on-air and claim that Karen Kraushaar, who also accused Cain of sexual harassment, was the mother of a Politico reporter. (Politico was the publication that first broke the sexual harassment story regarding Cain.)

“You’ve confirmed that now, right?” Hannity asked.

“We confirmed it that he does indeed work at Politico, and that’s his mother, yes,” Block said.

In reality, Josh Kraushaar has not worked at Politico for 17 months – and he isn’t related to Karen Kraushaar.

These gentlemen — and I use that word in the most sarcastic sense possible — apparently think bullying and intimidation is the way to counter sexual harassment allegations (though, I guess that’s in character for someone accused of doing what Cain allegedly did). He could stick with the facts and not with the people who made the claims — most of which occurred before he was even running for office — but I guess that’s my own Tinkerbell Theory.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 11, 2011 in Political Theatre

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Ann Coulter On Herman Cain: Our Blacks Are Better Than Their Blacks…

Ann Coulter On Herman Cain: Our Blacks Are Better Than Their Blacks | Mediaite.

Well, of all the crazy things Ann Coulter has said, this probably ranks around the middle:

“They harangue blacks and tell them ‘you can’t be a Republican, you can’t be a Republican,’ it is so hard for a black to be a Republican,” and then complain when conservative events are mostly white-attended, Coulter argued. “Maybe you shouldn’t harangue them so much!” Coulter also told Hannity the source of why liberals “detest conservative blacks” is that “it is ironic in a cruel, vicious, horrible way… that civil rights laws were designed to protect blacks from Democrats,” and now there are “liberal wimen using laws to protest blacks in order to attack conservative blacks with these vicious, outrageous charges.”

Coulter is responding to recent sexual harassment charges against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain.

The heretofore surging Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain was lifted by news Saturday that he was tied with Mitt Romney at the top of the Des Moines Register’s poll of likely Iowa caucus attendees. Then he was hit by heavy turbulence when Politico reported that, as head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, he was at least twice accused of sexually harassing behavior by women who left after receiving payments from the trade group.

Promoters of racial tolerance Coulter and Rush Limbaugh immediately argued that the release of this story was racially motivated.

“This is not a news story, this is gutter partisan politics, and it’s the politics of minority conservative personal destruction is what you’ve got here,” the conservative radio host said, also mentioning The Post’s story on Florida senator Marco Rubio (R). “We cannot have a black Republican running for the office of President. We can’t have one elected.”

Limbaugh said that Cain was targeted because of his conservative views and skin color.

“Anything good that happens to any black or Hispanic in American politics can only happen via the Democrat Party. If it happens elsewhere, we’re going to destroy those people a la Clarence Thomas.”

“It really is about blacks and Hispanics getting too uppity. That’s what this is,” he said. “You don’t achieve in American politics as a Republican…..you try it and we’re going to destroy you.”

Coulter and Limbaugh seem to be confused on motive. If anyone wants to take out Cain at this point in the race, prior to the first official GOP primary, it would be another Republican candidate. Based on the last debate I watched, there are a few dozen of them but the ones who have the least laughable chances are Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. Both of whom are seeing Cain lapping at their heels or potentially surpassing them. The Obama campaign is focused on Romney as a viable threat because he’s almost rational. Anyway, it would seem logical for the Democrats to wait and pull the pin on any grenade it had until much later in the primary race or even after a candidate had secured the nomination. The denials stemming from the other GOP candidates just reinforce this.

As for Clarence Thomas and his so-called “high-tech lynching.” Boo. Hoo. The guy was confirmed to the Supreme Court. It’s hard for me to find a narrative that comes close to tragedy here. OK, he had a tough job interview. I repeat: Boo. Hoo. It still grates that he pulled the racial victim card when the accusation was not about race but about gender. You’d have to be incredibly naive to believe that race was not a factor in President Bush’s selection of Thomas in the first place, and ultimately Thomas got the job. He still has it, demonstrating that he has better job security than any other black person in the United States. Is this the best Democrats can do to “destroy” people?

But let’s go back to the crazy lady.

With that as a framework, Coulter once again praised the conservative black people she had known, arguing that “our blacks are so much better than their blacks” because “you have fought against probably your family, probably your neighbors… that’s why we have very impressive blacks.” She went on to compare conservative black Americans to the family of the President, arguing that “Obama… is not a descendant of the blacks that suffered these Jim Crow laws,” that he was “not the son of American blacks that went through the American experience,” but the “son of a Kenyan” (a point she made with the caveat that she fully believed the President was an American citizen).

“Our blacks are better than their blacks”? That sounds like a discussion of college football in the South during the ’80s.

It’s probably not wise to bother asking but what’s the point of Coulter’s statement? Is the implication that the left prefers Obama because he’s “not the son of American blacks that went through the American experience”? Is the implication that Cain is better at connecting to American blacks because he did? But since when was “connecting to American blacks” a priority of the GOP? If it’s just about policies, then OK, Cain is preferable to Obama if you’re a Republican but why bring race into it?

As with the Thomas allegations, there is nothing really racially motivated about them other than that those accused claim they are. We don’t know the women involved in the Cain allegations — they could be white but that in itself wouldn’t prove anything either.

Cain might want to take some time to reflect on who his supporters are. Let’s recall what Limbaugh said about Thurgood Marshall, who Thomas replaced on the Supreme Court.

Noting that Kagan idolized Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall — she was a law clerk for Marshall — Limbaugh pointed out that, in a 1976 speech, Marshall “declared, according to a law review article she wrote, that ‘the Constitution as originally drafted and conceived was defective. Only over the course of 200 years had the nation attained the system of constitutional government and its respect for individual freedoms and human rights that we hold as fundamental today.’

“ ‘The Constitution today,’ the justice continued, ‘has a great deal to be proud of. But the credit does not belong to the framers, it belongs to those who refused to acquiesce to outdated notions of liberty, justice and equality and who strived to better them.’ ”

Rush continued: “The credit, in other words, belongs to people like Justice Marshall. So this is who Elena Kagan idolizes.”

And there’s Coulter’s statements about Martin Luther King:

Coulter writes in her book “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America,” that “Martin Luther King Jr. …used images in order to win publicity and goodwill for his cause, deploying children in the streets for a pointless, violent confrontation with a lame-duck lunatic: Theophilus Eugene ‘Bull’ Connor,” the Birmingham sheriff who was known to be easily provoked to brutality and violence to enforce racial segregation.

So, per Coulter and Limbaugh, “their” blacks are Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain and, if you’re on the left, “our” blacks are Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King (and possibly Obama if we can ever figure out whether he’s black or not. I think we’re still waiting on the FOX News pronouncement). I don’t think “their” guys are going to win the political version of the Heisman trophy any time soon.
 
 

Tags: , , , ,