UPDATED BELOW
As Bill Maher said on his great HBO show last night, not all deaths are sad. Jerry Falwell, the charlatan twister of ignorant souls, croaked in his office this past week, and, although he had already done most of the damage in his long, fear-mongering career, the world is much better that he is gone. Then, this morning, comes the joyful news that TMJ has put Jessica McBride’s radio career out of its misery – or, should I say, relieved the rest of us of having to listen, even in passing, to one more talentless wing-nut.
Sometime last year, before I began this blogging thing in earnest, I was driving down the road one night, trying to listen to McBride. I was so infuriated by something or other that I called the station to get on the air to discuss whatever she was babbling about. In the time between dialing the number and the screener answering the call, I couldn’t take another minute of her incredibly nasal, whiny, unpleasant delivery, much less the substance of her "ideas". When the screener finally answered, all I could do was scream "This woman is so annoying!" Then I hung up, feeling somehow unclean for even thinking about joining Jessica’s World, if only as a sure-to-be rejected caller.
When wing-nuts proclaim that the right-wing has access to all the AM microphones in the country because of some free-market triumph over liberal ideas, I think about McBride. No one ever "competed" for McBride’s slot – someone at TMJ just decided to give it to her based on her political connections and her willingness to spurt the daily GOP talking points. Her droning monotone – when she wanted to make a point, she-would-talk-with-out-in-flec-tion-in-ov-er-ly-long-sent-en-ces-un-til-she-got-to-the-end-and-then-she-would-stop-like-she-had-just-made-the-great-est-point-in-the-world-and-all-you-had-to-do-is-let-it-soak-in..... – made for some of the most excruciating listening possible. This was not someone with undeniable talent that was begging to be heard. And, as far as intellect was concerned, she was the Queen of the Wimpy Hang-Up, abruptly disconnecting from callers who had her on the ropes, which, given her limited capacity, was often.
Even more entertaining, in a train-wreck sort of way, was her TMJ vanity blog. There, in long, rambling, often late-night postings, McBride would flesh out what passed for her "ideas". As comical as the (lack of) substance was, the woman needed an editor. With a little help, she could have been just as insipid in a much shorter period of time. I’m sure her "writing" will continue somewhere on the Web or in the wing-nut-happy Waukesha newspaper that inexplicably runs a column from her, although some of these folks do conveniently disappear once they are not getting paid to blog.
We are informed this morning that McBride’s demise was accelerated by her un-funny pretend-interview with Eugene Kane after the poor 4 year-old was shot outside of her house in the inner city this week. You can’t blame McBride too much for that one, really. Apparently, someone in the backshop at TMJ got a little too cute with the ridiculously unfunny idea that Kane would make chicken sounds if asked "tough" questions by McBride. After it aired, McBride posted something saying she was beginning a new series of conversations with lefties, starting with Kane, and included a link to the fake interview. That post has disappeared from the TMJ site, as she soon will. Radio is Stalinist that way – gone is gone, like it was never there. Last week, she was a valued member of the TMJ line-up. Now? Who was that again?
Speaking of the unfunny, McBride is being replaced by the new nationally syndicated Dennis Miller show. Is there a sadder case in the entertainment world than Dennis Miller? In the late ‘90s, Miller had a brilliant live show on HBO on Friday nights, where Maher now reigns. His monologues and riffs while showing snapshots of the famous were often very funny and insightful. He was usually lefty, sometimes not, especially on stuff like rights for criminal suspects and Bill Clinton. Then 9/11 happened, and, like the formerly gifted writer Christopher Hitchens, he fell off the Cliff of Legitimacy, into the Abyss of Kill-‘em-All. Miller turned so far to the right, he started doing Fox News and Bush fundraisers. HBO had a stand-up special with him a year or so ago and it was depressingly unfunny. He was dour and shrill, substituting unearned ridicule of anything Democrat for his former hip-reference humor. He actually explained in the middle of the show why Junior Bush – someone who would otherwise get deservedly sliced-and-diced by his former self – gets a pass from him in "this time of war". Given his past glory and what looked like a healthy skepicism about all politicians, it was pathetic.
Now, Miller has hit rock-bottom, picking up a stint as a wing-nut radio squawker. I have listened to it several times on WIND (560) in Chicago (where you can also catch an early dose of racist homophobe Michael Savage if you can’t wait until 11 p.m. on TMJ). Besides picking up some extra change sadly shilling for "gold as a great investment", SleepNumber beds and pre-fab steel buildings during the breaks, Miller does the usual national wing-nut nonsense, trumpeting the GOP talking-points of the day. He also fills space by "interviewing" guests who are "one of my best friends in the world" who happen to have written "the greatest book I ever read", like xenophobe Mark Steyn, who writes bogey-man nonsense about the mongrel-ization of Western cultures that are too accepting of all these, you know, Muslims. Miller cheerily goes along with all this, throwing in his now-tired asides about how hanging out at the UN is "like the bar scene in Star Wars", etc. He manages this in a fairly breezy, hep-cat cadence, throwing in Pink Floyd bumper music in case you forgot his generational reference points.
Like I said, sad and tragic. Now we get to listen to his crap instead of McBride’s. Six of one, half-dozen of the other. All we can hope for is lots of Brewer night games, bumping him into the nether regions of the un-listened-to, if only for a night or two.
UPDATE: The other shoe dropped this morning -- no more McBride vanity blog on the TMJ site. She never even got to say goodbye. All together now...Awwww.
28 comments:
Alas, Dennis MIller was once brilliant. I even enjoyed his off-beat commentary on Monday night football.
Then 9/11 happened. Along with Ron Silver and Christopher Hitchens, Miller joined the "I wet myself" over the attacks on the WTC. Pathetic.
Mike:
If you hate the so-called "wing nuts" so much, why do you listen to them? AM 850 out of chicago has broadcasts air america radio. People have a choice, if you do not like WTMJ or their hosts, I have an idea for you. TURN ON ANOTHER CHANNEL. I have listened to Air America, and I hated it, so I do not listen to it. I choose to listen to Charlie Sykes and Mark Belling, that is my choice. Why do people on the left always want to shut up the opposing view? The only reason the left wants the fairness doctrine is to shut down the Rush's of the world. If people on the left had a good program their would be more left leaning stations. Advertisers will purchase ads with stations that have higher ratings. Right or left leaning. I have read your blogs for awhile, and all you seem to do is bash the right, and the so-called "wing nuts". Is that all you got? Blog about some good ideas, come up with some. Quit bashing others. This is why Air America's raitings suck, all they do on their programs is bash. Nothing positive just negative.
This is interesting and I might do a post on this more, but for now...
I listen and read the wing-nuts to know the enemy. If it was more freelance just opinionating, I probably wouldn't consider it worth the time. But the whole system of daily GOP talking-points going out to hundreds of pliant lackeys with radio shows and (more than they'll admit) paid blogs is interesting and important. It is a new way of message control that (due to the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine) has never been possible before. It is an unusual advantage that the GOP (alone) has had in recent years and I am here to expose and call them on it.
If I "turned to the other channel", as you suggest, I would never know how awful Pelosi's scarf use in the Middle East was supposed to be or how silly Sheryl Crow's single-sheet of TP was. Now I know, because EVERY wing-nut, local and national, played it for a week. I wouldn't know (although I still don't understand) how EVERY last wing-nut in the land has this absurb bloodlust for more death and destruction of our sitting-duck soldiers in Iraq. I would never be exposed to how wonderful all Republicans are and how despicable all Democrats are. Now, I know. From this, I learn.
I don't want to shut anyone up, but I do seek the same fair play that used to exist on limited, government-regulated 50,00-watt radio stations. The laughable Jessica McBride was only able to get attention for her whack schtick because she had the radio show. Now, if she chooses to blog for free, she'll just be howling in the darkeness of her empty room like the rest of us.
I "bash" the wing-nuts because they need to be exposed and bashed. Before some of us got our small voices in the blogoshere, they pretty much got a free ride. Now they don't and I've never heard such a bunch of whiners in my whole life.
I guess you think you know better than the rest of us then. Typical Liberal. I love the way that you use the term, the "enemy" when speaking of the GOP, why because they have a different opinion than you. If the left is under represented as you say, then how come Air America, has not had better raitings? Because people do not want to listen to it. Why should I be forced to listen to liberal lunacy, if I do not want to. If I want to listen to right wingers all day long shouldnt I have that choice? The Fairness Doctrine is not about fairness and you know it. All what will happen is that the the radio stations will stop the political formats. Left radio does not sell. The democrats and not all bad, just the far-left liberal ones. I would say the same about the far-right conservative ones also.
The fairness doctrine was incorprated because peoples choices for media outlets were limited. Now with the internet, satelite radio, cable T.V., that is not the case. I would doubt that the fairness doctrine would even pass the legal system. I am not whinning. It is people on the left who are. Why is Nancy Pelosi so hot and heavy to reinstate the fairness doctrine, not to spread left ideas, but to shut up the right, or to limit their voice. When I was in college, all I heard was leftest speak, read most major newspapers in this country and you will get the leftest speak. The one thing that I do agree with, is that when someone speaks on the radio or the T.V, either on the left or the right, they have to speak in facts. I have listened to both Air America and the Sykes show and I have heard things that are not true, or things that are taken out of context to stir up people. I would love to hear a radio show that has both a right-wing and a left winger as hosts together. That would be more entertaining.
I respect your right to your views, even though I disagree with them. I would hope that you would respect mine. But as I have experienced for many years, if you do not agree with someone on the left you are bigoted, uneducated or misinformed, because the left is NEVER wrong. Most conservatives that I know are not that way.
I agree. Miller isn't funny anymore. I'm not quite sure who thinks he's good enough to have a show. But I guess that's the way the "free market" works. If you are rich, you call the shots. But I guess it doesn't really matter. You wouldn't catch me dead listening to WTMJ hate radio. I fully support people's right to listen to bad radio. I just can't do it.
Anony:
The Fairness Doctrine was not instituted because people's access to "media outlets" were "limited"; it was because it was recognized from the start that TV and radio broadcasting has a very limited availabilty and a special power of attraction and persuasion in its nature. Therefore, those holding a license could not use it like a sledgehammer to promote their political beliefs. If you are saying "there are now so many outlets with sattelite, cable and internet, who cares?", well, just listen to the squealing from wing-nuts whose unearned access to those airwaves are now questioned (but certainly not threatened -- the new Fairness Doctrine campaign has limited support in Congress, and that lack of support includes Pelosi, who you falsely say is "hot and heavy" for it). Those who have and manipulate the AM wing-nut monopoly sure care and know how powerful it is -- just ask Jessica McBride, if you can find her.
And if you haven't heard conservatives claim how right they are all the time, you just are not listening. Not only are progressives regularly accused of being "bigoted, uneducated or misinformed", we are also accused of being unpatriotic, not supporting the troops we are trying to get out of harm's way, being in league with bin Laden, and god knows what else. The wing-nut echo-chamber, when they are not making excuses for Junior Bush, do nothing but try to assasinate the charactor of anyone who disagrees with them.
Just look at what they are trying to do with Jimmy Carter today, just because he said what many others know: that, as far as foriegn policy is concerned, Bush is the worst president in U.S. history. Rather than telling us how that conclusion isn't true (they can't, because it is), they go after Carter.
Finally, a left-wing/right-wing radio show would never work because the arguments made by right-wing-nuts can't withstand scrutiny. This is why you'll never see Sykes or Belling in a situation where they have to debate anyone of substance. They stay in their studio cocoons and spin their phony webs. Given the chance, there are numerous articulate lefties who would line up to take part in something like that. But there would be no one volunteering on the other side to get on common ground and take us on.
I don't know if progressives are "always" right, but I do know that the truth is usually on our side. And, if it's one thing wing-nuts can't handle, it's the truth.
I cannot speak for all conservatives, I only can speak for myself. If I am wrong I will admit it. Carter, has everyright to say what he wants. However, he was one of the worst presidents in U.S history. We had high unemployment, high interest rates and no economic growth during his term. However, he was better at foreign policy than Bush Jr. As to your point about conservatives not wanting to debate liberals, that is untrue. Sean Hannity has a show with a liberal, Alan Combes. That is a good show. Sean Hannity has repeatedly said he would debate liberals. CNN used to have a show called "crossfire" that featured a liberal and a conservaitve. I have seen numerous debates on T.V that featured debates between conservatives and liberals. My gosh, on "The View", their are liberal and 1 conservative. I cannot speak about Belling or Sykes. If they truly are not open to a debate, shame on them. They have a responsiblity to the public, since they are on the radio, to be open to debate in a fair manner. Progressives do not always have the truth on their side. Progessives distort the truth all of the time. Income inequality is the big one.
I am a conservative, because I want limited goverment, I want to spend my money how I see fit, and do not want personal freedoms taken away. I also want poverty to end, crime reduced, people to have opportunity to better their life, a fair balance between environmental protection and economic growth. I do not believe in higher taxes, and income distribution, like the left does. The federal government took in more tax money this year than ever before. Lower taxes means more economic activity. Look at global warming, the left says it is an absolute truth, if you deny it you must also think the earth is flat, or that holocaust never existed. Their are many reputable scientists who do not think that global warming is man made, but they are called idiots and are not heared from, why? Global warming is not a fact, just like global cooling in the 1970's was not a fact.
I am not going to call the left socialists, but sometimes it appears that way. What is the truth that is always on the left's side?
The one thing though that I cannot stand about Sykes or Belling, that if someone has an opposite view then him, he treats them like they are idiots and will not let them get a word in edgewise.
Regarding Iraq, maybe you should spend some time listening to some of Hillary and Bill quotes about Iraq in the past. They did not seem to think the use of force was wrong then, or that their were no WMD's. But of course they get a pass.
I never listened to her. But I was very disappointed in the amount of thought you put into her firing. Ironically, the death of Jerry Falwell has reminded us of a very important battle for bloggers and journalists, Hustler Magazine v. Jerry Falwell. The issue was over a parody of a fake interview with Falwell about his first sexual experience. (Isn't it ironic Jessica's firing was over a fake interview). The US Supreme Court ruled public figures (including Eugene Kane - who I think is a good columnist) are not protected by parodies by journalists, cartoonists, bloggers, etc. Journal Communications should be scolded for their lack of support for Freedom of the Press, and you should be too.
It's fun watching hacks play victim. Poor little liberals and conservatives, so oppressed because more and more of the country is getting tired of your hypocritical whining.
Anony 1:
Alan Colmes? Are you kidding me? The guy is pathetic milquetoast and lays down for Hannity's schtick all day long. Crossfire was a good example of what could happen -- and sometime happens still on cable shows like Hardball from time to time. But radio wingnuts are a different breed than the Washingon insider professionals who populated Crossfire.
You seem to have an independent voice, Anony 1, but some of your comments are based on the same phony straw men that the wing-nuts spend hours every day setting up. The being left does not mean that you believe in "higher taxes, and income [re]distribution". Certainly, we generally support a progressive tax system and that means more tax on the rich, but there is no "redistribution" that I am aware of. Likewise, the left does not regard the human cause of global warming to be "an abolute truth", but we are willing to listen to the world-wide consensus of scientists who say there is a concern and that we can do something about it. And, regarding Iraq, it is a pretty big stretch to say that, just because the Clintons thought Hussein had WMDs and was a threat, that they would have prusued the same disasterous invade-and-occupy path that the Bushies took. I trust they wouldn't have, especially after, as we learned today, Bush was warned well ahead of time that the chaos that we now face there is exactly what we should have expected. In fact, if Clinton had created the same sort of nightmare in Iraq, the wing-nuts would have been out there within a month, squawking about how horrible it was and he would have been impeached less than a year after he invaded.
The truth about Iraq, the truth about global warming, the truth about the US Attorney firings...the truth is always on our side. That's why this Bush administration is the most secretive in history. In so many areas, the truth, if known, would have brought them down years ago.
Craig:
As long as AM radio continues to be all right-wing-all-the-time, I don't care whether she was fired or not. Dennis Miller is certainly no better and the poisoning of the electorate by the GOP echo-chamber continues.
But radio is not free speech. Unlike print or internet media, it is a government-regulated limited resource. Of course, except for naughty words, this FCC does not regulate. McBride was taken down mostly because she was lame and they wanted to get a slot for Miller. There was some public pressure about her unfunny stunt, but there always should be when public idiocy is exposed.
What's wrong with talking about how stupid it was and challenging her to defend it. Or does the discussion and the free speech of others end just because a wing-nut says it?
The truth is not always on your side. Global warming is not a truth. Consenus does not make something a truth. Yes agree with prgressive tax rates, but why do they need to be higher than they are now. Why does John Edwards want them to be even higher than the Clinton years. Why does he want taxes raised on people making over $200,000 a year. That is not rich. Why dont we tax wealth in this county, lets forget about the income tax, lets tax wealth. Oh, that would hurt all of the rich-liberals in congress that are supposed to be helping the poor. John Edwards only cares about the poor to get him elected. If he really cared about the poor he will lead by example. Why does he have a multi million dollar house. If Al Gore really cared about global warming maybe he would stop ridding in a private jet, and downsize his house.
Progressive taxation is income distribution, who is getting the benefit from the liberal government programs. Certainly not the people who are paying most of the taxes in this country.
Liberals are hypocrites, what is good for others is not good for them. At least for the ones in congress
Whew, for a second there I thought Anony was an republican. My fault. Don't know where I got that crazy idea from. I guess my only question now is, `how does Anony feel about taxes`? Maybe he/she could address that in the next post, regardless of what the topic is.
If McBride "found humor in the murder of a child," then every liberal comic who has joked about George Bush and the Iraq War is guilty of "finding humor" in killing.
By the way, you liberal bloggers have allowed yourselves to get caught up in carrying the water for a fellow with some rather personal issues with McBride.
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2007/05/liberal-blogger-who-is-key-jessica.html
UWM picked McBride over Jim Rowen? What the hell is wrong with them?
So, let me get this straight...if someone has an allegedly vindictive critic out there, then they are immune from all other critics who develop their critiques independently. Interesting. Too bad that didn't work for Clinton and those vindictive goons in Arkansas.
And, the only so-called comedians that I know to have blasphemed the dead in Iraq is Bush himself, who brought a "hilarious" video with him to the Correspondence Dinner a couple of years ago, showing his dog sniffing around the White House for WMD. "Go find the WMD, Barney!" Bush says in the background. Talk about un-funny...
Mike, as Folkbum has pointed out -- since Jim Rowen called only for an apology, that hardly would have created an opening at UWM.
Actually, a WTMJ firing doesn't create an opening at UWM, either.
Luckily, a certain professor isn't teaching logic! But for whom is he carrying water. . . .
Our Professor friend has copied that post on at least five other liberal blogs.
Needs a life!
Hi Mike -
The main points of Mark Steyn's book on the subject of Muslims in western culture seem to be:
1) Many western countries have a significant number of Muslim residents who are hostile to the culture and values currently prevalent in those countries.
2) Demographic trends strongly suggest that in a matter of a few decades this population will become a governing majority in several European countries.
3) The governments instituted by such a majority will likely be quite repressive by current European standards.
With which of these points do you disagree and why?
Is this an open thread?
The questions pertain to a point made in the article above, do they not?
Steyn's book is mentioned, for sure. I think you're taking us off topic though.
Aw, relax, eddypo, let's get into it...
"significant number of Muslim residents"...now, how many would that be? England has maybe a million out of 60 million. What, are there too many brown people on the streets? Sounds like the racist level of our immigration "discussion" in this country. "hostile to the culture and values" Sez who? Out of all Muslims in the world, what percentage support some sort of jihad? 10%? 20%? I have heard Steyn on Miller's show and it's all hysterical "they are coming to take our place" nonsense.
"this population will become a governing majority" -- really, now? How do you figure? In France (another panic center for xenophobes), the population is 4% Muslim. The healthist thing about France is that it is 31% atheist. Now, there's a country with at least one foot in reality. Where is a White European country with more than even a 5% Muslim population?
Looking at European Demographic figures in Wikipedia (with the necessary grain of Wiki salt), I can't find any European nation with any sort of Muslim population that will challenge Steyn's precious White Guys for supremecy, ever.
"The governments instituted by such a majority will likely be quite repressive by current European standards." Well, our government is "repressive by current European standards", given Gitmo, warrantless survaillance and our claimed authority to invade sovreign nations, so, what's your point?
Much of what is disturbing about the wing-nuts on these issues stems from their racist railing against reality. Guess what, guys -- whites will be a minority in the U.S. in my lifetime and non-whites are living and working peacefully in former white-guy countries all over the world.
And you know what? I like it that way. People of diversity make my life and will make the life of my son much more interesting and fufilling. All those people the imperialists used to keep down are now up and they are not going back down. Good for them and good for us.
So, deal with it, Anony. You have nothing to lose but your imaginary birthright to white faces on the street.
Hi Mike -
What's the deal with the fixation on race? Steyn's book barely mentions it and I certainly didn't. Islam is a religion, not a race, and you don't have to get all the way to violent jihad to run into serious conflicts between it and western culture and values. We may have some people who have a problem with separaration of church and state, but I don't think it's wrong to say it's still a basic cultural value of western society. A religion which explicitly claims earthly authority over government is in basic conflict with this value. You may want to wish away religion, but it's a major force in the world and many people, including millions of Muslims, take it more seriously than the stuff you spend your time worrying about.
"Sean Hannity has a show with a liberal, Alan Combes. That is a good show. Sean Hannity has repeatedly said he would debate liberals."
I love it. I've been hearing righties say that for years. Do they really believe that mantra at this point, or is it part of the GOP membership rules?
"Why does he want taxes raised on people making over $200,000 a year. That is not rich."
Anony needs to compare $200,000 to the current poverty line in this nation. The current threshold for a 4 person home is $20,650. I think it's reasonable to label someone making nearly 10 times the poverty threshold at least marginally rich. As such, tax them equivalently. If they can't handle it, they shouldn't be making that much to begin with.
And with the Muslim issue, it'll be touched on too often, in too many ways, to really make any real headway at this level. There will always be the xenophobes who think everyone in a turban has C4 in his pocket. And they'll be balanced, hopefully, by those who know that the majority of the Muslim community, while not willing to take a stand and speak out against the violent tactics, are not supportive of those tactics.
To point out that the Muslim religion "explicitly claims earthly authority over government" might be correct, but until you suddenly see some sort of organized influx into the citizenship that speaks of hostile takeover by voting themselves into power to change the rules, you can't worry about it.
Plenty of Muslims already live within our borders, practice their religion, and are members of our society. For those I know, I don't see them gritting their teeth on a daily basis when they have to walk outside into our non-Muslim governed nation.
The fact that Muslims can freely and openly practice their religion in our society without fear in no way proves the converse, which is really more the question if one is speculating about the possibility of future Islamic rule in countries that are now western democracies.
When Muslims become a majority in any country, whether by organized means or otherwise, takeover of the govenment won't be "hostile", it will be their legitimate right, and there won't be any point in worrying about it then, either. And by what right would one presume to deny a majority its preferred form of government?
"A religion which explicitly claims earthly authority over government"? Do you mean like the Jerry Falwell version of Christianity? Do you mean like Junior Bush, who believes it will all be irrelevant in "rapture" some day?
I don't know why religious Muslims are any more threatening than any other religious people. The extreme factions of any of them are wack, anyway.
And somebody please explain how Muslims in White Europe -- currently no more than 5% of any population anywhere -- get a majority of any of those countries -- ever. That's just a paranoid fantasy. But pananoia and Fear is what the right plays on, where they can find gullible people to imagine it.
Anony,
"The fact that Muslims can freely and openly practice their religion in our society without fear in no way proves the converse"
The converse of what exactly? I'm lost on that part. If you're referring to the idea that they will regress towards governmental control based on their religion, I think it does build the counter-arguement, because we haven't seen anything to support that concept.
Besides that, no one is arguing against their right to become a majority and implement their preferred form of government.
Except for Steyn and his squawkers.
Should our country become 51% Muslim, and they elect enough leaders to change our governing method, that's fine. They've played by the rules and won the game.
It's exactly what the Evangelicals are trying to do now. Breed the big families, re-create a Christian majority, and we're back on the road to a pro-Christian government that will go back to hating gays, reducing the rights of minorities and women, and fighting against the common sense approach of science vs. religion. Sounds an awful lot like what Steyn is afraid of, with a different name on the boogeyman.
In this country, Christians are no less dangerous than Muslims, Atheists are no less dangerous than Scientologists.
If you're going to worry about someday living in a Muslim-controlled state, then you must be posting from GMT+02:00 and a latitude around 23 degrees. This isn't something to think about for a couple lifetimes, if not longer.
Were you just fishing for opinions, or was this the basis for a discussion? Outside of throwing the race card at Mike, I'm not sure what, exactly, your stance is...
In a roughly 300 word post Mike uses:
"brown people"
"racist"
"White European"
"White Guys"
"racist" (on this list twice because he uses it twice, of course)
"whites"
"white-guy countries"
"People of diversity"
"white faces"
And I'm the one who threw out "the race card". I'm sorry, but there seems to be no basis for communication here. Please pardon the interruption.
And he should have used "it" and "they"? Dummy!
Post a Comment