Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Lady, you need to shut up

You didn't know? But you did know?
     The Mission Viejo Patch describes “Obama-chimp Emailer” Marilyn Davenport’s press conference today:
     Davenport read the written apology she issued earlier this week, and went on to say she did not intend to offend anyone by forwarding the email. She noted, however, that she didn't send the email to some people who she thought she might be offended.
     "I felt they might just not like it too well and might be a little offended about it so I didn't step on that feeling of theirs,'' she said.
     "Those who would be offended would be those who perhaps would be of another race or in some cases that aren't black or brown or any other, some of my own race would be offended,'' she said.
Stop shoveling!
     Now I’m confused. Earlier in the week, she seemed to say that she did not know that the “ape” image would offend. For instance, on Monday, she said: "Before I sent that email, I should have stopped to think about the historical implications [of depicting a black man as an ape]. That can be offensive. Obviously, I have unintentionally offended others, and I am so sorry." (NavelGazing)
     But now she says the she didn’t send the image to some people because it might offend them, which implies that, when she sent the image, she was aware of its potential to offend.
     Is she contradicting herself? Or is she now distinguishing between two kinds of offendedness? That is, maybe she’s thinking that recipients of the image might be non-racially offended (whatever that might be). She had thought of that. Only later did she realize that they could also be racially offended.
     Is that it?
     Above, she seems to be talking about her thinking when she sent the image. And she seems to say that, at that time, it occurred to her that recipients “of another race” might be offended. So she didn’t send it to them.
     So is she saying that she knew that some people might be racially offended (and that’s why she didn’t send it to them)? Well, yes.
     Lady, you need to shut up. Really.

The latest on "Westphal v. Wagner"

Clueless Daze: Marilyn Davenport's mere "political satire"


Obama chimp email official meets the press (OC Reg)

John and Ken and Marilyn

The OC Weekly's R. Scott Moxley reports:
...Marilyn Davenport tells John and Ken on KFI in a live interview that she sent the racist email against President Obama "strictly as a joke type thing." She said she "does not think in racist terms." According to Davenport, she "doesn't look at Obama as a black person," she only looks at his policies. She went on to say that she doesn't think her own race is superior to any other race and that she has never discriminated against people of another race. With the aid of fellow conservative OC activist Tim Whitacre, she did say that she feels "betrayed" by OC GOP boss Scott Baugh and Mike Schroeder, both of whom have expressed a zero-tolerance stance against Davenport's actions....
Tom Fuentes
     STATING THE OBVIOUS. Davenport and Co. evidently do not recognize any racism beyond overt and conscious racism—call it “blatant” racism. This is a stunningly clueless perspective, although I do not doubt that Ms. Davenport has it, more or less. It is stunning but it is familiar.
     I am willing to take this lady at her word: OK, she’s not a blatant racist. She's probably a nice lady. But to suppose that one who has not acted from blatant racism ipso facto has not acted offensively (with regard to racism) is ABSURD. My grandfather (for whom I had the usual affection) was not a blatant racist. Had anyone challenged him, he would surely (and sincerely) deny harboring racist attitudes. But I have no doubt that, by the standards of our day (at least among decent society), he was a racist. I cringe to think of the things he would sometimes do or say that bespoke his profound albeit unconscious racism.
     It does not strike me as unreasonable to hold public persons to a higher standard than the average citizen. Ms. Davenport is clueless about race and about our society. This is tolerable in my Aunt Minnie but less so in Ms. Davenport.

     THE LESS OBVIOUS. I don’t know, but I strongly suspect, that Baugh and Schroeder decided early on to use Davenport’s blunder (and indeed to use Davenport, their comrade) to kill two birds with one stone—namely, to smack down the endlessly troublesome Tea Party (Davenport’s birtherism is Liptonian) and to “define” the party as staunchly anti-racism, which is helpful relative to the need to attract minorities to Republicanism.
     If I’m right, it was a cynical and ruthless move—ruthless because decent people don’t just throw their friends under the bus (they talk with ‘em; they at least give ‘em a heads up!); cynical because the Baugh/Schroeder crowd routinely exploit those very racist attitudes (exemplified by Davenport’s email—and worse) that they so noisily condemn. (I’m willing to acknowledge the possibility of some sincerity on Schroeder’s part, owing to his strong stance against Steve Frogue thirteen years ago.)
     I agree that there are times at which one must adopt a “zero tolerance” stance toward some error or misdeed, even if that means hurting comrades or friends. A painful thing, that. But one can suppose that that is occurring only among leadership that is sincere and decent. If the past is any indication, Baugh (and Schroeder and Fuentes, et al.) fall into a very different category.

The latest on "Westphal v. Wagner"

Glad to be a conservative, offering “grace, redemption, and forgiveness”

Mr. Myers
     In this morning’s (OC) Red County, Walter Myers III discusses Monday’s meeting of the Orange County Republican Central Committee, whose Marilyn Davenport recently sent around the now infamous Ape-Obama email. When Mike “Darth Vader” Schroeder was sent a copy, he took it to the press. (Yesterday, Central Committee officer Deborah "unadulterated evil" Pauly judged that action to be unethical. “It’s an ethical violation to embarrass the Republican Party,” said she.)
     Well, Myers ends his post with some remarkable remarks, and I’ve decided to share them with you:
     In any event, the meeting went smoothly and some of the groups that threatened to show up and cause trouble, such as local members of the Democrat Party [sic] and the California Friends of the African-American Caucus, did not show up in force, but for those who did, they were quiet and mannerly. I must say that after seeing the despicable email circulated by the African American Caucus calling for Davenport to resign along with a threat to protest at Monday's Central Committee meeting, I’m glad that I have chosen to be a conservative. These African-Americans are aligning themselves tightly with LGBT groups and Obama’s Organizing for America, groups whose charters are absolutely inimical to family values, and promote a redistributionist socialist ethic in a country whose capitalist system has given them the greatest freedoms and opportunities for prosperity in the free world. These people have left one plantation and willingly have been duped into joining another. Lord, what have my people become.
     While liberals such as these pillory the Republican Party and conservatives for being paragons of racism, the key difference between us is that we conservatives don't see people through racial lens [sic]. We are always the first to offer grace, redemption, and forgiveness, which we extend not only to our own but to socialist liberals also. This is what makes us fundamentally different from them, so they just don’t understand why we don’t throw our own under the bus just because they say we should. We believe that everyone, regardless of the charge, deserves a full hearing where all sides can weigh in before any judgment is passed. As strongly as we may feel that Davenport’s actions were unacceptable, we will not condemn her as a person and throw her to the wolves because she made a grave mistake. It is for this reason why we grow and thrive in knowledge, recognizing that we are all fallen, while liberals sink into depravity in the pursuit of a utopia that doesn't exist and couldn't be produced anyway with such a flawed philosophy based on secular humanism, where man is the measure of all things.
     For conservatives, it is our belief in God that grounds our morals, and thus grounding our actions accordingly. We rest on the solid rock, while liberals build their castles on sand. And that is why we are the ones who demonstrate true love, compassion, and mercy, even during the darkest times, to our own and to all other fellow humans as well.
Golly.

UPDATE:

     Earlier today, I wrote Myers. He then responded:

A virtuous party? (Roy B)

     Mr. Myers, I just don't understand you. You say that the GOP is the party of "love, compassion, and mercy." But where are any of those virtues displayed in your local party's treatment of [Marilyn] Davenport? You say that your party doesn't throw people "under the bus." Isn't that exactly what Schroeder and Baugh are doing to Davenport?
     For all that I know, you are a benevolent man, but you are describing your party, not yourself, and your description clashes mightily with the facts of this very episode.
     But this isn't an isolated case, is it? If your party is so dang benevolent, why did it put up with the likes of Mike Carona for so many years, repeatedly endorsing him? Why did it get behind Chriss Street despite clear indications (even before he was elected) that he behaved unethically in his dealings with Freuhauf? Why did it repeatedly foist the manifestly incompetent and corrupt John Williams on the taxpayer? I could go on all day with examples.
     Mr. Myers, maybe you are a good man. So I ask you: why do so many good people in your (county) party put up with a leadership that is plainly rotten, and has been so for decades?
     I just don't get it.

Virtue (Walt M)

     Roy, let me be clear that in this piece I am discussing the ideals of the party. You may want to follow my personal blog, where ... I have repeatedly stated that the human condition is fallen. Neither I, nor you, should expect perfection on this earth. Just because we cannot expect perfection does not mean we don't have a rule or canon by which to judge what is right from wrong. What [former state GOP chair MikeSchroeder did was dead wrong, as he brought something forward that should have been dealt with privately and strongly. He has made the party look bad. [County chair] Scott [Baugh] came out against [Davenport's email] as he should have, and stated ... his own opinion. Had you been at CC meeting (perhaps you were), you would have heard a beautiful speech by Scott that was firm and condemning of what Marilyn had done, while being clear that there would be consequences for her action in accordance with the party bylaws.
     I am completely with you on Corona, but I know little of the Chriss Street situation. I was John Williams' alternate in CC for several years, and only recently learned of some of the things he did that appear to be abuses of the public trust. Fundamentally, what I'm trying to say to you is that people aren't perfect, and they never will be perfect on this earth. That includes you and me. However, based on you expressing your concern, it would be great if you could join us to make things better as it is obvious that you stand against corruption of any sort and would be a voice integrity. So if you haven't already joined us, then please do.

There's a third comment; it is signed by "Ron Paul."

The latest on "Westphal v. Wagner"

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...