On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:23:56 -0700, Denny Wheeler
> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:24:29 -0500, modom > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:13:08 -0700, Denny Wheeler
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I guess you're one of the brilliant analysts who consider _Huckleberry
>>>Finn_ racist?
>>
>>No.
>
>Hard to prove that by your "analysis" of the OP.

No proof needed. I was characterized as something that I'm not. I
denied the allegation. Are you calling me a liar? I said no. No it
is. Twain's masterpiece is not racist. Neither is Tom Sawyer. Nor
Life on the Mississippi, Roughing It, Puddinhead Wilson, The
Mysterious Stranger, Innocents Abroad, or An Extract from Capt.
Stormfield's Visit to heaven.

Not that any of this matters since you only brought it up as an ad
hominem (see below). You imagine me to be something I'm not. I ask
that you get over it.
>
>>>Any racism in that post is reflected from the media coverage.
>>
>>No.
>
>I see you chose to ignore the first sentence: "Things I have learned
>from watching the news on TV during the last
>eight days:"
>
>But then I've run across this same approach before--'it's always about
>race and it's all about the downtrodden.'
>
No it's not. This time, however it is. Those who suffered so deeply
in the flood did so largely because they were poor, black,
downtorddem. I know that tens of thousands of non-black people also
suffered, but the huge media profile of the black population signifies
something other than bias. Asserting that it is biased presumes a
racist point of view.

>>The post contained this statement:
>>"Only black family members got separated in the hurricane rescue
>>efforts."
>>
>>That is racially divisive and a lie. As I already said in another
>>post, hiding behind an ill conceived attempt at a media critique is a
>>****ant alibi. That the post addressed race at all reflects a bias
>>about what is normal in America. The norm in NOLA ain't white.
>
>Now who's making remarks that easily could be called racist? Had the
>OP said "The norm in NOLA ain't white," you'd be citing that as
>racism.

Huh? It's simply a fact that a large majority of the citizens of that
city are not white. This has nothing to do with avoiding truth.
Quite the contrary.

>The OP addresses the overall thrust of the media. Certainly there are
>exceptions--upon which you're pleased to jump. But the OP's
>piece--and it's admittedly over the top, as much humor deliberately
>is--makes a valid point about the general coverage.

It is my contention that any claim to validity to be conjured with
regard to that screed presumes a white norm, arrogates for itself a
racist pseudo objectivity that only contributes more to the social
structures that lead to this debacle, this national shame. Our nation
must not treat its citizens this way.
>
>Remember though that for the media, it's almost always about eyeballs
>in front of sets, and trying to get the most of those they can. Yes,
>there are occasional exceptions to that rule (just as there's
>occasionally a politician whose #1 priority is something other than
>re-election), but they ARE exceptions.
>
Media, schmedia. Maintaining that the coverage had too many black
faces in it is not a media critique. It's just racist crap.

>>>(try thinking next time, instead of hitting yourself in the jaw when
>>>your knee jerks)
>>
>>Thanks for the advice. You might try reading it out loud to yourself.
>
>Maybe in a few years you'll have some life-experience on which to make
>these judgments. You clearly don't, now.

Honey, I've had lots of life experiences, and the rhetorical move you
just attempted is called an ad hominem, a fallacious pseudo argument
equivalent to calling me ugly. That is to say it's childish.


modom