For a while now, I have stayed away from the whole Rev. Jeremiah Wright fiasco. Trust me, it’s not that I’m afraid to talk about it. It’s because that, on its face, this is more “contrived” than “controversy”.

What do I mean? I see this as not so much people being offended by what he said. I believe that people are offended that a black person would have the audacity to say such things. You see, if you’re a white minister and you blame 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina on gays, even though you’re tied into presidents and political parties, it’s no big deal. But, if you’re a black minister and you call out the country you served for as a Marine over its foreign policy, that’s just unacceptable and you become public enemy #1.

Now, how deep does this racial acrimony go with some critics? Well, we have seen media pundits, specifically Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Pat Buchanan go after both Rev. Wright and Sen. Barack Obama over Wright’s remarks for what has been weeks, now. They go so far as to say that Obama should have denounced Wright long ago and walked away from that church. You see, despite a 30-year track record of service in the south side of Chicago that has seen him help people of all colors, genders, sexual orientations and health statuses (including an AIDS ministry), the body of Wright’s work should be invalidated by what amounts to about 5-10 minutes of statements, much of which, if argued on their merits, could be construed as true or at least in need of deeper discussion.

Now, I point out O’Reilly, Hannity and Buchanan because, as I said, they criticize Obama for not walking away from his church. Now, why do I call them out? You see, all three are Catholics. Now, if you remember, the big thing in the news a few years back was how the Catholic church in America, from the top down, had covered up rampant pedophilia among its clergy, primarily priests.

You see, we are not talking about a few statements by one person in one church. We are talking about the actions of the leadership of the Catholic Church in this country knowingly allowing molesting clergy to continue to move from parish to parish, only to molest other children. This went on for decades. Furthermore, when finally having to answer for this cover-up, the church ended up spending millions in hush money and court settlements, of which I’m sure included donation money from Mr. O’Reilly, Mr. Hannity and Mr. Buchanan. However, this was not enough to drive these three out of the Catholic Church.

So, my question to these three is why didn’t they denounce the Catholic Church in this country when they found out about these rampant abuses? How could they have walked into a Catholic church or let their children or grandchildren be involved in a church when the possibility of being molested by a priest existed? Isn’t this a question of character?

In the end, in their upside-down existences, a few “bad” words outweigh many good deeds. In their world, black people should be silent or, at least when speaking, should only express gratitude for the the white people who “have done so much for them”. In their world, to paraphrase Chris Rock, “if it’s all-white, then it’s all right”, meaning, in this case, that it’s only bad if a person who is not of their color, political views or sexual persuasion does it (you can choose their order of preference).

In the end, to them, words speak louder than actions and it’s okay to live in a glass house and throw stones.

Popularity: 8% [?]

Okay, I’m reloaded! After taking a needed break, I am back at it and I am heated.

We already saw a golf commentator get in trouble for a lynching joke in regards to Tiger woods. We have seen a huge rise in the number of noose incidents around the country and even George W. Bush spoke out against lynching references when he said the following:

“As a civil society, we must understand that noose displays and lynching jokes are deeply offensive…They are wrong. And they have no place in America today.”

So, when someone makes a reference to symbolically lynching someone, particularly a black woman, we can’t let that slide. A few days ago, there was a flap over a statement made by Michelle Obama when she was speaking in Rhode Island. She stated, “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change.” She later clarified her statement:

“What I was clearly talking about was that I’m proud in how Americans are engaging in the political process…For the first time in my lifetime, I’m seeing people rolling up their sleeves in a way that I haven’t seen and really trying to figure this out — and that’s the source of pride that I was talking about.”

Regardless of how you might feel about what she said, I can tell you this, the way Bill O’Reilly responded to it is not at all acceptable. On his radio show, O’Reilly chimed in by saying the following:

“And I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that’s how she really feels — that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever — then that’s legit. We’ll track it down.”

Okay, there are really two key words here. The first is, of course, the use of the word “lynching” in regards to a black person. I am not sure of why this is even part of his vocabulary. But, there’s another disturbing word here. That word is “unless”. So, we are at the point of saying that we need to “lynch” people because her opinion or view of America is different from that of others? Personally, I can relate to Michelle Obama’s statements but, even if I couldn’t, my first thought would not be to lynch her, symbolically or otherwise.

Needless to say, I am tired of people playing with that word. Lynching was a method of torture and public execution, even over the most petty of transgressions (even for merely whistling at a white woman). Moreover, it was an act of terrorism (yes, terrorism was carried out by some whites in this country long before we even cared about a threat from the Middle East) meant to show blacks that if they dared to step out of “their place”, which included trying to do things even as mundane as voting or competing in business with whites, they could suffer the same fate. So, when the question of “lynching” a black person is raised, red flags should go up.

Personally, I believe that the Westwood One Radio Network, which gives O’Reilly a platform for his radio program, or Fox News, which allows him to host a show on their network or, better yet, O’Reilly’s advertisers should be concerned with having their names associated with someone who clearly has a history of making stupid racial comments (see here, here and here).

Now that I’ve ranted, you can hear his words for yourself (thanks to Media Matters for the clip):

 

 O'Reilly speaks of "lynching" Michelle Obama: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Popularity: 17% [?]

Bill O’Reilly’s racism shines through yet again. This time, he manages to insult just about every black American due to his amazement that black people can actually be normal and engage in everyday living with a self-respect and civility.

What am I talking about?

Recently, on his radio show, Bill O’Reilly recounted his recent safaris into the jungles of black America in order to bring back news to white America about how the natives live there. Oh, is my sarcasm showing?

Just check out some of the highlights:

“I think black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. They’re getting away from the Sharptons and the [Rev. Jesse] Jacksons and the people trying to lead them into a race-based culture. They’re just trying to figure it out. ‘Look, I can make it. If I work hard and get educated, I can make it.”

“Starting” to think for ourselves, huh?

(On go to Sylvia’s Restaurant in Harlem, O’Reilly stated he) “had a great time, and all the people up there are tremendously respectful…I couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship.”

“…even though it was run by blacks…”?

Oh, lets not ignore this gem.

“There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, ‘M-Fer, I want more iced tea.’ You know, I mean, everybody was — it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn’t any kind of craziness at all.”

What the hell?!!

The bottom line is that Bill O’Reilly has got to be one of the whitest men in America. It is clearly evident that he doesn’t spend any significant time around people of other races, nor does he have to. The ignorance he displayed above only further solidifies this point. However, I am less disturbed by him saying it than I am by the fact that millions listen to him and agree with him.

I have posted the audio below (thanks to Media Matters) for anyone interested in hearing it for themselves.

 

 O'Reilly's surprise at normality of black people: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Popularity: 31% [?]