karl_lembke (karl_lembke) wrote,
karl_lembke
karl_lembke

  • Mood:

Hmmm.

A post is up at the Usual Suspect defending Barack Obama's choice of pastor.

My post:

Interesting...
A blogger styling himself "Instaputz" writes:
Putz's latest "IN THE MAIL" offering looks innocuous enough at first.
....
It turns out that the author, Thomas Woods (see also here) is a founding member of the League of the South, a fringe, separatist organization...
....
Why would Putz --- or anyone for that matter --- publicize a book authored by a founding member of a hate organization like LOS? It's precisely behavior like this (other incidents highlighted here) that has prompted accusations of racism at Putz.

Reynolds' blog entry, in its entirety, reads:
IN THE MAIL: 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask.

UPDATE: No, I haven't been a fan of Woods' work in the past. However, after I posted this link he emailed to say that earlier claims that he's a neo-confederate are false. So there's that in his favor.

(I don't know when the update was added. When InstaPutz read it, it may have been just the one sentence.)
You then cite this as evidence that Reynolds is a "racsist".
So if a racist mails a copy of his book to you and you say anything about it, you have "promoted a racist"? People could have all kinds of fun with "logic" like that.
For the record, Reynolds has reviewed at least one other book by the same author. He trashed it.
Maybe it's another example of how we draw lines in different places, but I think one should have to work just a little harder to acquire the stain of "racist". (Or even "rascist".)


So what is "rascist"? Presumably a typo.
But it seems to fit his modus operandi: read to the point where you've found something to be furious about, and then type ahead in a fit of temperment, and devil take any mistakes you make along the way.

And of course, we have a truly silly attempt to draw a moral equivalence between someone who occasionally reviews a book by a (presumed) racist and someone who thunders racist lies from the pulpit to a church filled with cheering followers.

Jeremiah Wright's statements have been well documented, and made in extremely public ways – both from the pulpit and in recordings and DVDs. And we also have to consider that while Reynolds has received occasional books to review from accused racists, and may have linked to their sites, Obama chose to attend Wright's church for twenty years. Wright baptized Obama's children and was a close friend, mentor, and spiritual counselor for that time. This is a level of involvement that raises the question of "What did Obama know, and when did he know it?"
Tags: politics, tk watch
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 9 comments