Thursday, January 19, 2006

Why are blacks loyal to the Democratic party?

I laid out the reasons here, but I thought that I would add a few more.

1. The Democrats have promised to make our wildest dreams come true. And then this nerdy white kid did some badass dancing.

2. Democrats give us free money.

3. Democrats say nice things about us, and they know that racism is to blame for everything.

4. If we can't blame rich white Republicans for our problems, who can we blame?

5. The Democratic Party is truly the party of diversity. In fact, senator Robert Byrd even knows some "white niggers."

6. I wrote this:

The Democratic Party isn't the home of people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly,
Pat Robertson and others.

and I stand by it. I can't think of a single Republican who ever did anything for black people. It's not like they freed the slaves or something.

7. The Republicans hypocritically oppose affirmative action while promoting Colin Powell and Condi Rice to positions of power.

8. Everyone else is doing it.

9. Republicans think that you can get rich without making someone else poor. Democrats know this to be untrue, and try to transfer some wealth over this way.

10. Republicans just ignore slavery even though it only ended 140 years ago.

And to all of you out there who have attempted to label me a hypocrite and a racist for simultaneously holding the belief that race has nothing to do with intelligence or ideology, and that it's ok that 90%+ of blacks vote as a block, you are beyond the pale.

I keep telling you, black people cannot be racists.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

But I Have Black Friends...

Whenever some prominent white man (it's always a man, isn't it?) is accused of racism he will almost always trot out this line. In my last Raising Kane entry I basically used this trick in defense of Hillary. You see, Newt Gingrich used the word "plantation" in a sentence too:

"I clearly fascinate them," Gingrich said of the Democrats. "I'm much more intense, much more persistent, much more willing to take risks to get it done. Since they think it is their job to run the plantation, it shocks them that I'm actually willing to lead the slave rebellion." [Washington Post, 10/20/94]

Of course, it is unlikely that Gingrich uttered his words at an MLK event, as the story is from October, and I suppose that some of the racial implications that were obvious in Hillary's statement are simply not there in Gingrich's due to their audiences, but he still said it.

And that makes what Hillary said OK.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Down on the plantation we can say things like that.

One of my favorite tricks is equating any Republican action with slavery. Hillary Clinton did an admirable job the other day when she compared the House of Representatives to a plantation. Unfortunately, Hillary is a white girl, so she needs people like Eujean to lend her some cred.

My first trick is to downplay the racial angle while still mentioning it. I did this by adding an additional point; the idea that Republicans are simply mad at her for dissing Republicans:

She also described the Bush administration as one of the worst in history.

Predictably, Republicans are crying foul.

You see? It's not the plantation idea that they're upset about, it's the direct personal attack.

Next, I use some wishy-washy language while still mentioning the plantation idea. I'll emphasize the qualifying language that immunizes me from criticism:

But what did Hillary really say that's so offensive to those who see a grain of truth in her comments?

Of course it isn't offensive if you agree with it. See how clever I can be.

For African-Americans, the "plantation" analogy is a loaded reference, but she explained she meant the House was a place were dissenting voices were not tolerated and everyone was expected to follow orders from leadership even if they didn't agree.

And here we have the reason for the set-up. You see, there are a lot of bad things in the world. Charlie Sykes, for instance. But not all of these things can accurately be compared to a plantation. It's my job to dull your senses, so that when someone who I agree with tries to compare a plantation to a "lack of toleration of dissenting voices" you don't notice how offensive that statement actually is.

To be true, it would mean that one of the worst offenses of slavery was a lack of dialogue between slaves and masters, and while I'm sure that this was the case, it's really a symptom more than a cause. It's certainly not as serious as the forced labor, poor diet, rapes, murders, destruction of families, etc.

The cause was that rich, white people owned black people. The cause of the phenomenon mentioned by H.C., on the other hand, is the Democratic party's inability to win an election. In other words, democracy.

Basically, Hillary compared slavery to democracy. Some might consider that to be pretty offensive.

But she's on my side, and she's a liberal, so we should cut her a little slack.

Monday, January 16, 2006


Martin Luther King advised us all to judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

This is a noble sentiment, and one that I am often accused of flouting. The fact of the matter is that other people still judge us by the color of our skin, and these other people are mostly white. Until they stop paying attention to the color of our skin, can we really avoid paying attention to their skin?

I pay attention to the content of your skin.

Think about that.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Expressing an opinion without expressing an opinion.

This column is a good example of a tactic I use when I might express an opinion that my base does not approve of. Instead of offering my opinion, I simply quote someone else while adding nothing.

I should also mention that I think that Sam Alito probably is a racist, but I'm not 100% sure. That is why I didn't hyperlink to any stories about his Princeton alumni group that I mentioned here:

It was an attempt by elected representatives to determine if the guy's touting of his membership in a racist Princeton alumni group represented his true attitudes on diversity.

I mean, I've clearly read about the group, and obviously there are two sides to the story, and I know how to hyperlink. I hyperlinked earlier in the post:

I'll admit, you have to have a heart of stone not to react to shots of Samuel Alito's wife crying at his confirmation hearing.

But you see, it's better that you get your news through the filter of a mainstream media outlet. Why research it yourself when old Eujean can just lay out the good parts for you?

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

The sorry state of rap.

You know, between this travesty and this white boy poseur material, rap is really in the dumps lately.

Where's the expression of black culture?

What has happened to the time honored tradition of muscled black men telling us how cool they are and how much bling they have acquired, while hanging out with prostitutes.

It saddens me. I blame Eminem.

The Racist Magazine Industry

You people are relentless. Some people think that I may not know that many people in the magazine business compared to the newspaper and television business simply because I work for a large newspaper and television company.

Others have suggested that while TV and newspapers are meant to play to a wide audience, most magazines are specialized to a specific topic, often appealing to a specific racial demographic. Some have even had the nerve to point out that their probably are not many white folks at Vibe, as it specifically caters to African-American hip-hop lovers.

Perhaps an analogy. I also don't personally know many minorities in the National Hockey League, and few would argue that Hockey lacks racial diversity. Understand?

My instincts are quite good on this subject, and if I don't know them, they probably are not there.

The New York Observer article makes it clear. The problem with the magazine industry is segregation. There should be white people at Vibe and Ebony, and there should be Black people at Martha Stewart Living and Sport Fishing Magazine, and all of the other lily-white magazines out there.

We should not cater to an audience simply because they are interested in a topic.

Equality is more important. Always.


I just wrote this at Raising Kane, and I thought I would post the unedited version over here. The material that was edited out will be in italics.

Mob beating in South Carolina called lynching

This is an interesting story that has some relevance to Milwaukee's history of mob-beatings.

Although I'm using it primarily to show that occasionally, white people engage in "lynchings" too, in case we have forgotten.

According to this story five white teens who beat a black man were charged with lynching due to a South Carolina law that defines lynching as a mob attack against an individual where the victim survives.

What an odd choice of language for South Carolina. It's like they are attempting to soften the image of lynchings. But that is the kind of thinking that you get in the racist south.

Although the convicted teens were white and the victim was black, apparently the "lynching" designation doesn't require victims and assailants to be of different races.

Everyone knows that this is silly. Only white people can lynch black people. Just as only white people can be racists.

It's interesting because in Milwaukee, the beatings of Frank Jude Jr and Samuel McClain and other victims who survived a mob attack were never described as lynchings.

Correctly, of course. Lynchings require some racial motivation. These were likely troubled youths lashing out against extreme poverty and utter hopelessness.

Neither was the word "lynching" used when the victim died, like Charles Young Jr. and David Rutledge, black men who were beat by all-black mobs.

These are more serious, of course, but they are still not lynchings. We need a different word for crimes like this. Maybe something like "povercides." Something that conveys the underlying social causes.

It's a curious use of language for the South Carolina legal system to adopt. Particularly because, decades ago in the Deep South, when a black man was lynched he usually didn't survive.

South Carolina is clearly creating an incentive for hicks to murder black people, because if they do so, they will avoid the emotionally charged "lynching" accusation.

Racists, all of them.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006


Charlie Sykes has now picked up on my "conversation" with Willis Martin, ensuring that this will be discussed on the radio tomorrow. I've already called Journal Communications in an attempt to get them stop Sykes (if there is one thing worse than unregulated blogs, it is unregulated airwaves), but to no avail.

I can't believe these people keep calling me a punk. A thug. It's so openly racist and hateful, and yet they get away with it, and some people simply eat it up.

Where do they get these ridiculous ideas. Lousy Sykes. Maybe I'll key is car tomorrow. That'll show him who the thug is.

Time to turn in for the evening. Some "My Humps" and then straight to bed.

What you talkin' bout Willis?

I'm now receiving criticism for an e-mail response that I sent to a man named Willis Martin. He accuses me of failing to rise above the level of a thug.

I'd like to get one thing straight. When I worked with Ms. McBride at the paper, we were never close. At least, after the restraining order was taken out against me. Anyway, I'm not a thug for one simple reason.

She started it. Nyah, Nyah, Nyah.

Granted, it was her taunting that led to this whole blogospheric feud and the creation with this blog, and in fact, I have probably seemed a bit obsessed about Ms. McBride, BUT I'M NOT!

Sorry, sorry, I got a little carries away there.

So Willis, I have a question to pose to you. Are you going to let women walk all over you your whole life? Is that how it's going to be?

Well, Eujean isn't some little wuss boy. He's a big boy, and he doesn't take guff from nobody.

Screw you Mr. Martin. You're making us all look bad.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to take my pills.

The Trouble With Cosby

I hope that the allegations against Bill Cosby are false, as I respect the man greatly.

Even though Mushmouth perpetuates terrible stereotypes.

He also inflicted "That's So Raven" on everyone.

But nobody's perfect.

Perhaps his greatest battle was his tireless effort to prevent the Jello company from eliminating Pudding Pops. Both of us couldn't get enough of those delicious frozen treats, and when we heard they were cancelled, we both went on a huge, four day bender of epic proportions. Bill even caught some of it on his stupid Kodak film.

Eventually he got over it, but I hadn't seen him that depressed since New coke.

Bill is probably in that kind of mood right now. Stay strong, Brother.

And for god's sake, leave the camera at home this time.

A few notes on today's column.

I did base my JS column, which appears in today's paper, on my tire-slashing blogpost, but the editors forced me to ditch the tire analogy in favor of my old stand-by, Jim Crow laws, which means I also got to talk about voter fraud, or more accurately, the lack of voter fraud.

Just because the children of a few prominent Milwaukee democrats slashed the tires of vans at a republican "get out the vote" organization does not mean that there was any voter fraud. No one has any evidence of any multiple voting going on, and I should know. I altered my appearance using several clever disguises which allowed me to vote seven times, and there is no way that anyone could possibly have guessed that it was me, old Eujean, in that Amish outfit, and again in the oversized sombrero. And since no one needs an ID to vote here in Wisconsin, how could anyone possibly have proof that any fraud occurred?

The answer is that they can not and they do not. They're making much ado about nothing.

Anyway, I was a bit miffed at the Journal for making me alter the contents of my column, after all, I’m from North Philly; nobody gets a free shot at me without getting smacked right back, so I managed to convince the editors to move the one white kid, Lewis Caldwell, to the most prominent position on the page, while keeping the black kids underneath him.

It seemed more fair that way, and in retrospect, the column turned out pretty well.

Compromise is a wonderful thing. It is the "mainstream media" at its best.

Monday, January 09, 2006

The Bloviating Conservatives

at the Badger Blog Alliance have apparently noticed me, mockingly referring to this site as a parody! Such gall! This is exactly why the legal system may eventually step in to regulate such activity.

Bring it on!

The sad story of a college kid.

When will people finally wake up.

Marcus, by all accounts, was a good kid, trying to follow in the footsteps of his cousin Aaron and his brother Michael by attending a major American University. Unfortunately, that dream came to a halt yesterday when Marcus was forced to quit school and start looking for work.

Like so many young men in the African-American community, Marcus just couldn't seem to shake trouble. His situation makes us all question how such a promising kid could fall in with the wrong crowd, even at school.

His friends say that he's not the kind of person to pull a gun at a McDonald's:

Former Virginia Tech quarterback Marcus Vick, booted from the team last week for his behavior on and off the field, was charged Monday with pulling a gun on three teenagers during an altercation in a restaurant parking lot.

And yet, the charges seem undeniable.

Marcus was the star quarterback for his team, possibly with pro prospects. Every time I see a young black quarterback fail I can't help wondering about the lingering effects of Rush Limbaugh's comments on Donovan McNabb. Since Limbaugh made the comments, Daunte Culpepper has fizzled, and suffered terrible injuries, as has McNabb. Steve McNair may soon be retiring, and Marcus's cousin Aaron Brooks has been benched, and will probably be released. Only Marcus's brother Michael has managed to have much success.

I suppose there is also the largely immobile Jacksonville quarterback, Byron Leftwich, but I feel he deserves an asterisk, as he is not representative of the black quarterbacking mainstream.

Can Marcus possibly escape such fate in this environment? It will be more difficult for him in such a hostile environment, but those who know Marcus still believe in him, and have pledged their support. It's that kind of support that we all need in times like this.

Oh, and those that refer to Marcus's actions his final bowl game as a "Ghetto Stomp" are beyond the pale, so to speak.

Real Ghetto Stomps are much more viscous. That was the work of an amateur.

Which means that for Marcus, there is still hope.

The Tire Slashing

The Tire Slashing case is about to get underway. It is a very misunderstood case.

Tires are dirty, they get no respect even though they carry the car along, and they do the grunt work too often ignored by society.

And of course, tires are black.

Isn't it a bit strange that, given all of the colors out there, tires are all uniformly black?

It is this notion, that the unsophisticated car part that cuts through the snow must be black, that these boys were rebelling against. Some in the blathering talk-radio community will try to link this to the election of course, but this action goes much deeper. It was a statement, a cry to society to stop looking at blacks like they are the tires of society.

Of course, none of this excuses the actions of these boys. If they looked a little deeper, they would have seen that the entire economy was based on the work of the tires. There are all kinds of tires. Farm tractors ride on enormous tires, Semi trucks carry our goods around the nation on tires, and even heroes like Lance Armstrong need their tires.

These boys were tired of being victims, but instead of embracing the tire, as they should of, they decided to kill it.

I don't agree with their interpretation, but I do understand it.

Maybe someday tires will come in as many colors as cars do. Then, incidents like this will finally be a thing of the past.


This anonymous blogger is abusing the civil rights masterpiece "Bring It On" in order to slander me. Granted I used similar language in my JS blog, but this heresy is just the kind of thing I was talking about in my previous post.

"Bring It On" tells a story that is all to common to the African Americans. Privileged white students benefit from the labor of a poor, black, cheerleading squad in Compton California. The privileged kids steal their routines, and because Compton is such a poor school and unable to compete in expensive cheerleading competitions, no one is the wiser.

The Compton squad is a group of plucky fighters though, and they manage to finally raise the necessary funding to travel to the national competition, while the privileged kids are forced to hire expensive choreographers just to produce a routine.

Warning! Spoilers!

Eventually, the Compton squad, finally managing to overcome every obstacle, manages to win the national title in dramatic fashion.

It's a harrowing tale, and one that is needed in this day and age more than ever, but in the blogosphere I guess nothing is sacred.

For shame.

Plus that Gabrielle Union is pretty hot.

Free Speech

A Marquette professor is accusing me of being anti-free speech. It's hard to imagine a sillier argument, as I make my living on my speech. The passage responsible for the controversy is as follows:

The blogosphere has no sheriff to police most of the comments or statements. But I predict the legal system eventually will step in to restrain some of the more outrageous commentary sent out over the blogosphere.

Some of this stuff is just too ugly to let go unchecked.

Nobody checks your credentials - or your credibility - at the blogosphere door.

I love free speech, but I don't love all free speech, and really, if we listen to certain things aren't we less free? What this professor doesn't seem to understand is that there are many types of freedom, and some of the greatest freedoms that we have derive from the restrictions that we place on ourselves.

Look at affirmative action, for instance. Some freedom may be lost by a few privileged white kids, but don't we end up with more freedom for a group that has typically lacked for freedom?

Free speech isn't just about unregulated speech, it is about speech that promotes freedom. Some of this blogospheric nonsense flies in the face of our freedoms, and it is up to all of us to take this ability away.

Some of you may ask whether or not such restrictionon would affect my livelihood.

Of course not. I work for a newspaper. And newspapers are the proper outlet for all of the free speech that we need.

Why I'm Doing This.

I'm a columnist for Milwaukee's largest newspaper, and I write about race, which makes me controversial. Recently, I wrote a column that was critical of blogs, and the backlash has been intense. I decided to start this blog as a way to fire back immediately, away from the editorial control of my editors. Here we'll explore topics like, "Do we really need white chocolate Reese's Peanut Butter Cups?" and, "Is it fair that white things reflect more light than black things? Can we change this somehow? How did things get to be this way?"

You'll notice that I chose a black background for this blog. I originally thought about having black lettering as well, but the powerful symbolism that I had intended was forced to give way to more pragmatic concerns. I suppose that life is like that sometimes.

I will occasionally be expanding on the ideas that I put forth in my columns, as well as offering columns that were deemed too controversial by the paper, and comments will always be open for instant feedback.

And of course, I'll be taking on those pests in the Wisconsin blogosphere at every opportunity.

So, let's give this a try.