Rush Limbaugh's Wall Street Journal op-ed neatly sums up how libel cost him a possible ownership share in the St. Louis Rams NFL franchise. The Race Card, it seems, while of diminished utility in the Era of Obama, retains some utility. (A white beauty queen who won a contest at a predominantly black college encountered race card protests, too.) James Taranto's interview with Internet newsie Andrew Breitbart shows how new media can circumvent liberal bias at times--in this case, over the abuses at ACORN, an outfit that is no stranger to playing the race card. Those who spread such racial poison seem either not to know or not to care that in doing so they poison themselves as well. Mark Steyn compares the reaction of the mainstream media (MSM) to the quotes fabricated at Rush's expense to MSM's silence on White House communications director Anita Dunn praising Mao Zedong before a student audience, noting that praising a mass murderer--of the Left, only--is permissible in liberal quarters, but not racist statements:
Well, so what? All those dead Chinese are no-name peasants a long way away. What’s the big deal? If you say, “Chairman Mao? Wasn’t he the wacko who offed 70 million Chinks?”, you’ll be hounded from public life for saying the word “Chinks.” But, if you commend the murderer of those 70 million as a role model in almost any school room in the country from kindergarten to the Ivy League, it’s so entirely routine that only a crazy like Glenn Beck would be boorish enough to point it out.
Which is odd, don’t you think? Because it suggests that our present age of politically correct hypersensitivity is not just morally unserious but profoundly decadent.
Comments