This reminds me of the Dallas “Black Hole” incident.
There are innocuous remarks that people can interpret as racist, and, at the same time, racist remarks that some people have always considered innocuous.
Maybe a rhetorical assault, or maybe that’s a tad bit of hyperbole. Either way, it’s highly disturbing to me, and indicative to me of the ignorance (or maybe rejection) from this administration of so many of the norms that have kept America mostly peaceful and mostly free in recent decades. This stuff is doing significant and probably long-term harm to America, IMO.
Not in and of itself. However, it is in line with the kind of authoritarian predisposition this administration has consistently displayed.
Soldiers are not the only duty-bound. Reporters are duty bound, if they are worth the salt it would take to fry them. Their duty is to ask uncomfortable questions as they are required.
The General made statements that have no basis, to belittle and denigrate. He deployed a nonfactual narrative for a political purpose. Worthy of question. Ms Sander, bless her heart, could not answer, so she deployed the traditional Ziegler shift, and changed the subject to questions of propriety and decorum.
Did the General make a “racist” remark? Perish the thought, he was simply insulting and mocking a Congresswoman who dared to insist that we are led by a cold and clumsy lout, and he defended said lout by making shit up. The reporter wanted an explanation as to why, which he should not have done, because reasons.
When a person in power or mouthpiece thereof tries to shut down a reporter for doing their job…yeah, that’s not a good thing. Maybe threat to the Constitution is a bit overwrought…but it is not a good thing. A very normal thing, but not a good one.
Not overwrought. A representative of the Government is saying that certain officials should be beyond scrutiny by the press.
iiandyiiii & QuickSilver,
I just wanted to say, I appreciate both your posts here. I still feel like “assault on the Constitution” is a bit of hyperbole, but thanks to your comments, I understand better why it sets off a few more alarm bells in liberals’ heads coming from Trump’s press secretary than someone like your aunt at Thanksgiving dinner.
Google, a couple of dictionary websites, a couple of internet articles commenting on this use of it. It origin and historical use is pretty clear and racism isn’t a detectable part of it.
That kind of rhetoric from the WH would hopefully set off alarm bells in the heads of Americans of all political stripes – no political or military official is, in any way at all, beyond question or beyond challenge.
I was already steered in the direction of an explanation of the expression back on the first page.
So, ignorance fought. Thanks.
And what’s much worse, added an explicit “…or else.”
To begin with, the entirety of his statement, from “Well, thanks a lot. And it is a more serious note, so I just wanted to perhaps make more of a statement than an – give more of an explanation in what amounts to be a traditional press interaction.” to " But it eroded a great deal yesterday by the selfish behavior of a member of Congress." and the reasons for his speech in the first place, was a rebuke at Wilson for her comments about The Phone Call. So, the whole of it is an attack on her, even if there are parts that are indirect in explaining the context in which he is attacking her.
In any case, other parts of that speech that we find as directed attacks towards her.
Stunned, I tell you.
I assume that from this, he was not listening to the conversation, as that would be a violation of the sacred nature of the call.
And the “Women were sacred,” line is just creepy. But, in any case, lies here too. In what way were women sacred in his youth that is obviously not the case now? I don’t know that I agree with his ‘sacred’ line, but the only thing that has changed is that women have gotten liberated from a dependency on a husband. I assume the life quip is about abortion. And the last line is the most silly lie of the pack. Religion- gone??? Really?? I can see two churches from where I sit this very moment.
Obviously the part you quoted, but more than just that sentence. This is a bit focused on a bit more, because it was a blatant fabrication that was made up for no purpose but to attempt to discredit her. So yeah, his lies on this paragraph do get a touch more scrutiny than his description of how much he enjoys walking amongst the dead.
You know, at this point, I really hope that the Orville has a line like “Set phasers to Wilson.”, as she seems to be the most effective stunner this 'verse ever did see. (Yes, I mixed at least 3 separate Sci-fi’s in there.)
Except, you know, what you (Kelly) are doing right now.
Now, if you (back to you, HD) are complaining that, in this thread, we are focusing on this line, that’s pretty ironic, as it was you that started the thread to focus on the line. As you can see, I have no problem talking about any part of his statement, and calling him on the lies and implications throughout. Was that the conversion you wanted when you started this thread, to discuss the whole of kelly’s speech, and debate the merits, or was the purpose of the thread to focus specifically on the, IMCHO*, unfounded charge of racially tinged language by Wilson?
*in my current humble opinion
Almost everyone in this thread is operating under a huge misconception — the idea that a verbal attack cannot be “racist” unless it contains some specific word specifically associated with racism.
If I write “Obama was a lazy stupid student afraid to release his Harvard transcripts” would that be a racist attack? One can imagine a whole spectrum of such insults; where do you draw the line and say “that one is racist”?
If a verbal insult is NOT racist unless it contains a very specific word (ng, watermelon, boy) judged to be inherently racist, then it is trivial for racists to avoid any charge of racism — just be clever enough to avoid such a specific word. Is this how “racist attack” is now defined at SDMB?
Was Kelly’s attack racist? I’ve already given my answer: Study a sample of similar insults by Kelly and see if he tends to reserve such harsh abuse for specific ethnic groups. Perhaps someone with links to Kelly’s speeches or good Googling skill will be able to help here. (I’ll guess it will be hard to get a good sample. Kelly’s verbal abuse of Ms. Wilson was so peculiarly harsh and unfair, I’ll guess you’ll be unable to find anything else that is this extreme.)
I find SDMB mentation on this question very misguided. I was once reprimanded (though no racism charge was made) for using ‘Oriental’ here:
I don’t think this comment had any racist intent, — I’d just used a “racist word.” Conversely, I guess Kelly should be allowed to say very ugly things about blacks as long as he avoids certain words — is that what is being argued? (Someone suggested that ‘Asian-American’ was preferred to my ‘Oriental’ but might have been joking.)
Yet Kelly can call the black Congresswoman an ‘empty barrel’ and it is off-limits to suggest he might be racist. :smack:
I do not know if Kelly has racist leanings — like I say, I’d need to look at more evidence — but his bizarre and untruthful rant against Wilson is highly suggestive of it.
ETA: And of course, even if Kelly himself is “not racist” it seems extremely likely that his unfair comments were designed to appeal to the racist Trump base.
She is acting on our behalf, on our dime, from our national pulpit, trying to weasel out of constitutional responsibilities. She’s not like “we” are. She’s doing the public’s business. I don’t think it’s a first amendment issue.
This is what Assault means per wiki: “In criminal and civil law, assault is an attempt to initiate harmful or offensive contact with a person, or a threat to do so.[1] It is distinct from battery, which refers to the actual achievement of such contact.”
This admin is assaulting the constitution routinely.
What constitutional responsibilities does the press secretary have?
She’s not speaking for herself. Her personal responsibilities are on behalf of constitutional actors. That’s what we are paying her for. We aren’t paying her to be an independent actor, all lawyered up for herself. She can do that at home and not be on the payroll.
That doesn’t really answer my last question, unless you meant the answer to be “none”.
While my sensibilities lie with yours, I am not aware of any constitutional edict that says the executive branch may not lie to the electorate. Now, once the matter is brought to court or in front of congress and under oath, well that’s a whole other matter.
That’s my understanding. Feel free to correct it.
That is a pretty useless question. What constitutional responsibilities does any individual have in this administration? If individual constitutional responsibility is all that is important, cite the part of the constitution that says that Price shouldn’t have take all those plane trips on our dime.
She is the spokesperson of the president of the united states. Do you deny that he has any constitutional responsibilities? Do you deny that her job is to communicate the administrations positions and policies to the press?
If he says that she doesn’t speak for him, that she expresses his own opinion without his approval, that’s fine, fire her, or at least give her a talking to about how the office of the president of the united states should not be telling the press that questioning a 4 star general is “highly inappropriate.”
If they don’t giver her some for of retraining, does this not mean that that is how the administration feels as well? If not, then they need to explain why their spokesperson does not speak for them.
The Press Secretary is a political position, not a constitutional one.
Does the Press Secretary take an oath to defend the constitution? Is he or she confirmed by the Senate? Cite the part of the constitution that says otherwise, since a couple of you are making the claim that she has some sort of “constitutional” responsibilities.
Does the Press Secretary speak for the Executive? It’s a yes or no question.
If she does not, and she is going off the reservation to speak only for herself, they why are the taxpayers paying her for that? I don’t need to know what her feelings are, I want to know what the position of the President is. If there is no connection there then she is a waste of our money isn’t she? If she is indeed speaking on behalf of the Executive Branch as is the point of her position, then what she said is highly disturbing and frankly un-American.