Yellow Journalism Attacks
Well, it takes all kinds of people and opinions, be they open-minded or closed, intelligent or ignorant, well meaning or hateful, or just plain unable to see the nose on their face. I have always felt that anyone, and I do mean anyone, is entitled to their opinion whether it agrees or disagrees with me. But once again a local letter writer and the poor excuse we have for a local newspaper (The American Press, commonly referred to as The American Mess) have once again banded together to attack not only my opinion, which is more than welcome, but to attack me personally. No decent, reputable paper would allow this and it is something I have never seen in the many papers I have read nationwide. I would answer this letter in the paper but the American Press has a proven record of never allowing me to do so. And many people have told me about letters they have written in support and defense of me that are never printed. That figures. Just once I would like to see them print something from people who agree with me. Guess I’ll just give up, as their political and racial standings are evident.
Here is the verbatim letter as it appeared in today’s newspaper (including misspellings or poor English.)
In his letter on Feb 7, Sam Schoolsky, caustic critic of the American right and champion of diversity, recounted a recent dinner spiced with too much multiculturalism for even his liberal palate, leading not only to his own indigestion, but to that of his politically incorrect dinner companions. His erstwhile friends, in the course of polite dinner conversation displayed the audacity of hope that the well advertised tolerance for which liberals are so famous, would be available even to them as they offered their personal heart-felt and well reasoned views as to the meaning of the most visible symbol of their Southern heritage, The Confederate Battle Flag.
Described in positive and virtuous terms by Schoolsky to “educated, comfortable and religious” they explained that the flag was not a symbol of hatred, but rather, when correctly understood within the politically correct hysterical complex as a symbol of pride in their heritage that an honorable defeat could not erase. Their hopes were dashed, however, as Schoolsky indignantly rejected this argument as unworthy of the serious consideration of a man of modernity. Reeling from the incredulity of their backwardness, he condescendingly informed them that they had no moral authority to define their own past because world opinion had already defined it for them.
Schoolsky then pronounced his litmus test on this question based entirely on race. He confidently asserted, in so many words, that as African-Americans would certainly feel differently, only the opinions of African-Americans could be seriously considered. Indeed! If, as he said, “Slavery, degradation, death, back breaking work and destruction of the family unit…” could be the only meaning in the folds of that flag, then what about other flags that flew over the African slave trade, including that of the United States? Interestingly the Confederate Constitution (Article 10 Section 9, Clauses 1 and 2 respectfully) outlawed the international slave trade with any country save only one. The United States.
Always armed and ready with a list of sins of our region, Schoolsky doesn’t believe that any one with a Confederate ancestor should be proud of anything from 1861-1865. His selective list of injustices also included “being counted as 2/5 of a person for census purposes.” OK, so instead, it was really 3/5 of a person, but it might also surprise Schoolsky that this carefully calculated reduction in the humanity of slaves was actually a compromise by Southern statesmen who although self serving on this issue, wanted them each counted as full individuals. “Statesman” of the North did not want them counted beyond a fraction because their addition as whole persons would have meant more Southern representation in Congress.
As to the destruction of African-American families, nothing has been done more damage to families generally than generations of well-intentioned government assistance and entitlement programs, the mixed blessings of which have discouraged individual responsibility and encouraged illegitimacy (black and white, alike.) The wide road to socialized Utopia is paved with tax dollars and littered with broken families.
Schoolsky, however, did extend some grace to his friends for being “rather basically good people,” who, after all, really and truly weren’t “out and out bigots” or “Nazi skin head” types. Speaking of Nazis, ironically, in the unabridged version of his book, “Mein Kampf” former Nazi-in-chief Adolph Hitler praised Abraham Lincoln for the destruction of the sovereignty of the states in his unconstitutional war against the South. Another ringing endorsement came from “The Father of Communism” himself Karl Marx, who supported Lincoln’s policies and sent by letter, his own congratulations for ushering in the centralized State in America and rendering as a dead letter the Constitution’s 10th Amendment reserved powers provision as interpreted by its antifederalist sponsors.
What a swell group of guys. I would think that any flag that stood as a symbol against the consolidating and centralizing power that Hitler and Marx praiseworthy might have some honor attached to it.
Speaking further inspiration for his loyal readership in how to fight the good fight against bigotry, Schoolsky turned to Hollywood, and quoted a line to be used from the 1947 movie “Gentleman’s Agreement,” at the very moment bigotry is perceived, even in its most sublte form, from the foul mouths of ignorant rednecks, bigoted brutes or anyone else have dinner with you.
Two can play this game, and I also found an appropriate line to use for someone well-meaning but uninformed, when advancing criticism for something they obviously know little about and whose penchant for tolerance and diversity morphs into unabashed intolerance, self righteousness, moralization and Yankeefield indignation. Even older (1939) it is from “Gone with the Wind.” In the worlds of Rhett Butler, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.”
Well, this is a first for me. I have now joined the ranks of Lincoln, Hitler and Marx. Sorry but this man never has understood what bigotry truly is even when he broadly displays it. Guess the old saying, even with education, “Ignorance is bliss.”
Here is the verbatim letter as it appeared in today’s newspaper (including misspellings or poor English.)
In his letter on Feb 7, Sam Schoolsky, caustic critic of the American right and champion of diversity, recounted a recent dinner spiced with too much multiculturalism for even his liberal palate, leading not only to his own indigestion, but to that of his politically incorrect dinner companions. His erstwhile friends, in the course of polite dinner conversation displayed the audacity of hope that the well advertised tolerance for which liberals are so famous, would be available even to them as they offered their personal heart-felt and well reasoned views as to the meaning of the most visible symbol of their Southern heritage, The Confederate Battle Flag.
Described in positive and virtuous terms by Schoolsky to “educated, comfortable and religious” they explained that the flag was not a symbol of hatred, but rather, when correctly understood within the politically correct hysterical complex as a symbol of pride in their heritage that an honorable defeat could not erase. Their hopes were dashed, however, as Schoolsky indignantly rejected this argument as unworthy of the serious consideration of a man of modernity. Reeling from the incredulity of their backwardness, he condescendingly informed them that they had no moral authority to define their own past because world opinion had already defined it for them.
Schoolsky then pronounced his litmus test on this question based entirely on race. He confidently asserted, in so many words, that as African-Americans would certainly feel differently, only the opinions of African-Americans could be seriously considered. Indeed! If, as he said, “Slavery, degradation, death, back breaking work and destruction of the family unit…” could be the only meaning in the folds of that flag, then what about other flags that flew over the African slave trade, including that of the United States? Interestingly the Confederate Constitution (Article 10 Section 9, Clauses 1 and 2 respectfully) outlawed the international slave trade with any country save only one. The United States.
Always armed and ready with a list of sins of our region, Schoolsky doesn’t believe that any one with a Confederate ancestor should be proud of anything from 1861-1865. His selective list of injustices also included “being counted as 2/5 of a person for census purposes.” OK, so instead, it was really 3/5 of a person, but it might also surprise Schoolsky that this carefully calculated reduction in the humanity of slaves was actually a compromise by Southern statesmen who although self serving on this issue, wanted them each counted as full individuals. “Statesman” of the North did not want them counted beyond a fraction because their addition as whole persons would have meant more Southern representation in Congress.
As to the destruction of African-American families, nothing has been done more damage to families generally than generations of well-intentioned government assistance and entitlement programs, the mixed blessings of which have discouraged individual responsibility and encouraged illegitimacy (black and white, alike.) The wide road to socialized Utopia is paved with tax dollars and littered with broken families.
Schoolsky, however, did extend some grace to his friends for being “rather basically good people,” who, after all, really and truly weren’t “out and out bigots” or “Nazi skin head” types. Speaking of Nazis, ironically, in the unabridged version of his book, “Mein Kampf” former Nazi-in-chief Adolph Hitler praised Abraham Lincoln for the destruction of the sovereignty of the states in his unconstitutional war against the South. Another ringing endorsement came from “The Father of Communism” himself Karl Marx, who supported Lincoln’s policies and sent by letter, his own congratulations for ushering in the centralized State in America and rendering as a dead letter the Constitution’s 10th Amendment reserved powers provision as interpreted by its antifederalist sponsors.
What a swell group of guys. I would think that any flag that stood as a symbol against the consolidating and centralizing power that Hitler and Marx praiseworthy might have some honor attached to it.
Speaking further inspiration for his loyal readership in how to fight the good fight against bigotry, Schoolsky turned to Hollywood, and quoted a line to be used from the 1947 movie “Gentleman’s Agreement,” at the very moment bigotry is perceived, even in its most sublte form, from the foul mouths of ignorant rednecks, bigoted brutes or anyone else have dinner with you.
Two can play this game, and I also found an appropriate line to use for someone well-meaning but uninformed, when advancing criticism for something they obviously know little about and whose penchant for tolerance and diversity morphs into unabashed intolerance, self righteousness, moralization and Yankeefield indignation. Even older (1939) it is from “Gone with the Wind.” In the worlds of Rhett Butler, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.”
Well, this is a first for me. I have now joined the ranks of Lincoln, Hitler and Marx. Sorry but this man never has understood what bigotry truly is even when he broadly displays it. Guess the old saying, even with education, “Ignorance is bliss.”
posted by Sam Schoolsky | 1:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home