But, what if his comments had some truth in them?
What truth, Jeff? Do tell.
Her hair does "fly away from her head in every conceivable direction".
I think that big problem is that this comment was made by a conservative white male. Therefore it is evil and wrong. That is what I get out of these posts at least.
Ah, and yes, what about the "ghetto slut" remark? How on earth does that compute in your search for the truth, Jeff?
I said "some". Did you read my post? Other parts of his comments constitute opinion. Is opinion not allowed any more?
He's entitled to his opinion, and those who disagree have the right to complain.
Who advertises on these filthy programs, anyway? They should get some pressure as well.
FWIW, just to even the playing field, this turd looks like a balding middle-aged breeder in serious need of some Viagra. Impotent white (esp. balding) men can be the onnerous ones in the bunch!
Oh, come on, that's just disrespectful "macho talk" intended to put women down. He'd never say that to a man.
Sportin' Life makes an excellent point: target the advertisers too. In the meantime it is essential that everyone who cares about this issue files an online complaint with the FCC about Boortz's undeniably racist comments: "ghetto slut," "ghetto trash." How in God's nam, could anyone justify such filth? Pam has provided the link the FCC. Hit that link and fill in the form. It shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes and could make all the difference. Let's make Boortz answerable.
Yes, he has the right to his opinion, but that does not include the right to make ad hominem attacks against someone whom he's probably never met.
FCC COMPLAINT FORM INFO: Be aware that the FCC requires certain compulsory information as follows and which I am providing here.
DATE OF BROADCAST: 31 MARCH 2006
CALL SIGN: CRX ATLANTA
CITY AND STATE: ATLANTA, GEORGIA
DETAILS ABOUT THE PROGRAM: If you listen to Boortz's comments at the link Pam provides, then you can fill this in as you see fit. But clearly referring to Rep. McKinney as a "ghetto slut" and "ghetto trash" just about covers it, although he says other offensive things as well. I am not sure of the time the comments were broadcast and I simply put in a question mark in the space provided. But if you simply refer to the program by its proper name, THE NEAL BOORTZ SHOW, that should be adequate.
Peg, these were not just "ad hominem" comments, they were overtly racist. Again, how could anyone justify called a black female six-term member of Congress a "ghetto slut" and "ghetto trash"? It makes my blood boil just to have to repeat such filth. Let the FCC know that this is not acceptable behavior on the public airwaves.
Since when does someone's hairstyle make them fit or unfit to hold public office. If he'd also said, "Karl Rove looks like a Nazi" I might could cut the guy a little slack. It makes me wonder. If Cynthia looked like Katherine Harris, none of this would have happened.
Jeff, thanks for responding. Sure, her hair flies away from her head in every conceivable direction. So does the hair of every other twenty something male today, but their spiked 'dos are affectation. What Ms. McKinney sports is au natural. I'm assuming that you're a straight white middle class to upper middle class male. Am I correct? If you are or you aren't, I'm not preparing to attack you. I am prepared to engage you on what Ms. McKinney (and Pam) might represent for you: and surface in you. Let's assume that you are what I've assumed: a straight, white guy. Ms. McKinney, is in two ways, your antithesis. Pam is your antithesis in three ways. If you are a straight, white male, you represent privilege for many. This representation might have little to do with the specifics of your life. You might have been ostracized despite the coincidences of your race, gender, and sexuality. However, we all embody things that trip triggers in others. I'm urging you to be cognizant of this possibility in yourself and others. And I urge everyone to get over their assumptions.
For example, pretty blonde girls trip my triggers. They scare the shit out of me. I hate to pass a pack of 'em. The peril isn't physical, but psychological. As a brainy, queer girl, I might embody similar peril for them. However, this peril is all assumption-based. It's extrapolated from the damage that's been done to us, but it's not always fair or apropos.
Boortz panders to that damage. He serves the growing diviseness. Pam, on the other hand, often serves bridging. I hope you can see this. And I applaud your frankness.
IT'S NOT ABOUT THE HAIR! The hair was a pretext to make otherwise overtly racist comments. Boortz all but called McKinney a golliwog. He played upon some of the most ancient, ugly racial stereotypes to promote whatever supporsedly "satirical" point he was only pretending to make. He undeniably referred to a six-term member of Congress as a "ghetto slut" and "ghetto trash." Think about the barely sublimated hatred behind this comment: "She looks like Tina Turner peeing on an electric fence." There is no excuse for this, there is no slack to cut. Go to the link Pam has provided and listen to Boortz's comments in context for yourself. If you are as outraged by it as I am, then go to the FCC link Pam also provides and fill out the complaint form and let the process take care of things. Let's at least make Boortz acoountable for the vile and vicious things he says on the air with impunity.
Strictly speaking, he's ALLOWED to say she's a ghetto slut...but what a fucker he is for saying it.
He has a national radio show. He should have a modicum of responsibility for what he broadcasts. People looking for a reason to distance themselves from others use terms like "ghetto slut" like a dealer uses free samples of crack to make guaranteed customers.
And he should be treated like the dealer he is.
Should he have to act differently because he is on national radio? It is because he acts as he does that he has a national radio show. He obviously has enough of a following (listeners) to allow for the continued expansion to the national level.
While Boortz's comments are rude and have no bearing on the facts of the case, he's got every right under the U.S. Constitution to make these types of comments.
Both rightwing and leftwing talk radio personalities pick their targets and degrade them. Boortz is simply following the talk radio playbook.
Running to the FCC to "tattle-tale" is basically saying you would like to pick and choose which Americans should have their Constitutional rights protected and which ones shouldn't. That, frankly, is scary...
Michael -
By ad hominem, I meant attacks on her as a person. Part of who she is is her race. By characterizing them as ad hominem, I was including the racism in his name-calling. I apologize if that wasn't clear.
Jeff wrote: "Should he have to act differently because he is on national radio? It is because he acts as he does that he has a national radio show. He obviously has enough of a following (listeners) to allow for the continued expansion to the national level."
Yes, he should. As power increases, so does responsibility. Folks like Boortz are degrading national discourse.
In case you haven't seen this...
http://tinyurl.com/s79eq
The Constitutional right of free speech is not license to slander or promote hate. This is a kind of libel, which is legally restricted speech, even in America. Boortz's comments made little sense outside of a racial context--and context is everything in all forms of speech. If you read my email exchange with Boortz (in the comments section of Pam's first post on this issue on 1 April), you'll see that he effectively pleads to bigotry, not racism. I take him apart very quickly on that distinction--and by using his own standards. The man is a racist, and this was racist speech.
Peg--
I didn't intend to scold. But there's ad hominem and there's ad hominem. Racial attacks are the lowest and also the most violent kind of ad hominem attack--especially in a liberal democracy where tolerance is all. I therefore only wanted to make clear the degree to which Boortz's comments are unacceptable. Ad hominem attacks are not always actionable. But racial ones are.
RE: "Tattle-telling" to the FCC--
I have already said that the FCC complaint process should be allowed to sort this out. The FCC has standards. If Boortz has breached them, he is answerable. If not, then there's no harm. But, at the very least, he is put on notice that his vile comments are not only heard but are responded to, and not necessarily in the way he intends. Free speech does not exclude responsible speech.
I do not understand how saying what someone looks like is libel. Is not libel a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression, a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt. If in his experience, she did look like the descriptions that he used would it not just be a statement of fact? Would it somehow be better if he used the terms white slut or just plain slut. Also would Paris Hilton peeing on an electric fence be more politicly acceptible?
I am no lawyer, so I will defer to actual legal expertise.
If only he HAD ANY hair!
In many white families, the children grow up hearing such comments all the time - it is the norm. Of course, they would never admit to bigotry or prejudice. Ghetto names are fine - and the mentality is "you're only prejudiced if you use the "N" word."
Children growing up in those types of families - indeed, most likely Boortz himself - would have great difficulty seeing anything wrong with this.
It is sad, and the hatred quietly goes on through the generations - sugarcoated because the children are not allowed to use the "N" word while still making fun of anyone who is not white...but blacks in particular.
Jeff: "I do not understand how saying what someone looks like is libel. Is not libel a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression, a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt."
Hmmm, Jeff. Are you being disingenuous or struggling to connect the dots? "Ghetto slut" doesn't defame? It doesn't convey "an unjustly unfavorable impression"? It doesn't "expose" Ms. McKinney "to public contempt"? Privilege often produces near-sightedness. Perhaps you can't connect the dots because you can't see them, but it's all there. Lean in. See them and it might surface your compassion.
maybe i'm just a clueless white woman, but her hair looked just fine to me. i even took another look, and it just looked short and wavy. i remember that lani gunier, a smart lawyer with provocative ideas, was also attacked for her hair, which was kind of long and wavy. i remember them attacking betty friedan for failing to look waspy enough. so remember, girls, to put on your barbi face before you go out in public or you'll make the boys nervous.
Sweet Jesus, Sweet Jesus. Read this:
http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200604030004
Jeff--
Holly is right. You don't see the dots, or rather, you don't acknowledge a relation between them. You isolate a single point at a time as though it had no bearing on the others being made. Your strategy is always the same, which is: "What's the deal with this dot? I'm looking and looking at this single dot here and don't see what all the fuss is about." In other words, you ignore ocntext. I'm loathe to assign motive and will gladly defer to Holly's more generous diagnosis that you do not see because you cannot. But, on the other hand, Holly's offer is equally generous. Simply lean in and take a closer look. It's the responsible thing to do. And, speaking of responsibility, I'd also like to point out that, unlike a lot of pundits on the right who are quick to resort to this sort of thing, I'm not calling for Boortz's imprisonment and execution. I am simply asking that he be held acountable. A lot of people refer reflexively to the principle of freedom of speech as though such a freedom didn't also have responsibilities. At the risk of repeating myself, what Boortz said about McKinney makes no sense outside of a racial context--it quite simply has no reference without the context of race. That's what makes it offensive and irresponsible. Boortz, in the most general sense, may be "free" to say what he said, but we are also free in a very specific sense to hold him responsible, and that is all I'm saying. The FCC is one of the designated ways we have to negotiate this kind of debate. What's so wrong with that? I mean, if people were content to have the FCC intervene because of Janet Jackson's breast (a *breast*, for God's sake), then why isn't it equally acceptable to have them take a look at comments that are suffused with contempt framed entirely--*exclusively*--in racial terms?
Re: Limbaugh calls rape victim "ho"--
Yet another contemptible example of the double standard practiced by the right and promoted by the co-dependent mainstream media. Limbaugh says stuff like this all the tme, and yet it's the progressive blogosphere that is characterized as a "fever swamp." How many times must it be said, free speech does not protect hate speech. Oh, and is it just me, or is there at least some subliminal intent in his using the word "ho", which is black slang for--er, uh--"ghetto slut." This is racism in the marrow. This is racism as reflex.
Spectral ev--
With respect, you hit the point, but in a roundabout way. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE HAIR. The hair is merely a pretext for a savage racial assault. Just as the other examples you cite are merely pretexts for sexist assaults on women generally. Having said that, I'd also like to admit to loathing--and I mean really loathing--political correctness because it is an unthinking reflex and not a measured critical response (I mean, I had great fun calling Boortz a cocksucker in order just to make him jump, and then to trip him up once he got jumping--I'd hate to lose the right to do that). But I certainly know real racism and sexism when I see them, and I hate both because they deprive individuals of their rights and their dignity and perpetuate the fear and resentment that are the sources of such behavior in the first place. Freedom of speech is worthless unless issuing from a free conscience, and a free conscience requires an open mind.
Thanks, Michael, for having my back. You make a good point about Jackson's breast. I have never understood why the sites of life, the vulva and the breast, are considered obsene. On the other hand, I can't understand why everyone doesn't consider what Boortz said to be obsene.
I wept when I read what Rush said. My friends that were raped said that the judgments that followed their raping was the second raping. My raped friends would assert that Rush piled on to this woman, albeit with words.
Man, I gotta take a walk. I've ingested a lot of hate this morning. I gotta step outside and exhale.
Holly, it is always a pleaure to read you and I am always eager to hear what you have to say. You are one of those rare people who always says what she means and means what she says and expresses both with perfect lucidity. I look to such people to bring out the best--and worst--in me. The best because that's what I want to engage and the worst because it's what I want to jettison. I gasped when I read the Limbaugh piece. Gasped and then--I hope--growled. I hate to fight but am only willing to fight to win, especially when it comes to this kind of brute bully. This is what we're up against. And if people can't see the connection between Boortz, Limbaugh, the degradation of public discourse, and even Adam Nagourney in NYT repeating the Republican meme that it's the progressive blogosphere that's the "fever swamp," then they're just not looking. I'm also glad that you picked up on the "sites of life" reference because that's how I intended it. Nothing so completely confirms the hatred of life that characterizes the reflexive thinking on the right than its fear of and disdain for human sexuality. How sad for them. How dangerous to us. You need only look to Limbaugh to understand that.
You are too kind, Michael. Truly. Like everyone, I can be a big, fat phony. But I do have my moments of lucidity.
I suppose you read my posts at MM. I post under Holly there. You should also read the thread about Hirshman and Dobson. She's a feminist and I'm a feminist, but I disagreed with her, which can incur disfavor with some folks. We all have to be free to diverge from dogma, which is what I encouraged Jeff to do.
I tried to range today (and was rewarded at MM), but as a professional writer, often when I do, I'm not rewarded.
I utterly agree with you about the decay of discourse. Often there's no discourse at all: just take-your-turn diatribes.
You have to dispense love when you engage big issues. Those big issues imperil things that are precious to people. So, thanks again for dispensing love.
Holly, that's the second time in two posts that you've picked up on the full implications of a trace, extrapolating what was barely hinted. It is, as you say, about dispensing love--as absurd as that may sound coming from someone who's as comfortable as I am with being angry. But, as Swift noted, "savage indignation" is just what the term suggests: genuine moral outrage. If you care enough about the well-being of others, to cite the most obvious example, then it is quite natural that you'll confront the always-inadequate way things are with a healthy sense of wrath, which is not the opposite of love but its complement. That's the difference between 'liberals' and 'conservatives,' I think. When conservatives say 'love' they mean something prescribed and approved (you know, like the love between Adam and Eve but not Adam and Steve). It's always got the creepy feel of a disapproving parent who is eager to punish--but, of course, always more in sorrow than anger. When liberals talk about love, however, they seem much more likely to be referring to a universal human constant that is nevertheless subject to infinite variation. The conservative outlook is orthodox, whereas the liberal one (at its best, that is, and uncorrupted by the petty tyrannies of political correctness) is lways necessarily heterogeneous. Those kinds of distinctions always sound like hollow polemics: "they", after all, say much the same sort of thing about "us." But there is something genuinely dirty and disgraceful and *unloving* about the comments of people like Boortz and Limbaugh, and it is up to us to fight them as fiercely as possible. It is also up to us to do so, as you so aptly point out, in the name of love, which, when it comes to people like Boortz and Limbaugh, might not express itself as tenderness, but still ought to include some degree of compassion. You don't have to have much imagination, for example, to guess what adolescent torments and resentments drive those two clowns. Their ugliness manifests nothing so much as fear and self-laothing. And it is genuinely pitiable to know that about them. But they are nevertheless bad boys with dangerous toys, and we do have a right of self-defense. It may not be about retribution in the long run, but it is always about prevailing in the face of every temptation, including the temptation to believe their lies, if only because the pay is good.
Excuse my ignorance, but what is "MM", because I'd glady read your posts there. And please accept a standing invitation to contact me via email anytime.
Look, whether or not there is any validity to the FCC complaint, why should we be behindhand in harassing jerks. If the rightwingers can get their knickers in a twist over a 1 second wardrobe malfunction or someone saying "shit" (a substance we all produce, even wingers), and impose fines of 100,000.00 or more, we can embarrass sponsors and owners of the show over the nastiness.
Why not google bomb La Boortz and show his picture, with the caption, "Impotent"?
Michael, again, you're too kind.
As far as Swift's "savage indignation" and your "genuine moral outrage," passion is the root of compassion. You can't care without intellectual and emotional fire.
And I agree that conservatives are more "anti" than "for." They're against queers. Against women's rights. Against change. Etc. They want to conserve, to preserve what was, but what was is one part truth, one part delusion, and one part deprivation (of others, like folks of color). Con even means against, but whereas one can be against change, one can't stop it.
MM is www.mediamatters.org and it's a killa site. They have a lotta money, which means extensive research and tightly monitored threads.
And yes, I'll email you! Thanks for the invite!
If it was such a "racist" remark... why hasn't Royal Marshall left the show in disgust?
You wanna see REAL racist drivel, lurk around and read the posts on www.vnnforum.com. Real racists, real inbred, really disgusting. Wring your hands over those guys instead of Boortz.
Funny thing is, the white-power types and McKinney BOTH blame Jews for the worlds' problems... guess it's just some kind of miswiring in the brain.
It's interesting that Boortz is quickly labeled a racist based on his comments.
And folks like McKinney could never be called a racist even though she and her father openly and publicly blamed Jews for her Congressional loss a few years ago.
At her press conference she stands side-by-side with Harry Belafonte who is an open and avowed racist, bigot, and hate-monger. His open hatred towards Jews and caucasions are well known. As the old saying goes... birds of a feather flock together...
So why the double-standard here? Why is McKinney a victim of racism when she's a purveyor of racism? And why are her racist ways completely disregarded and glossed over?
Commenting by HaloScan.com
