Skip to main content

Ben Stein is really worrying me...

If you want to read one of the most strangely structured articles out there and one with more than just a hint of racism, I recommend reading Ben Stein's blog, "The Trayvon Martin case is worrying me," over at the right-wing site The American Spectator.

Stein starts his piece by talking about how hot it was in Sandpont, Idaho, before randomly saying, "I had a tough time sleeping last night. The Trayvon Martin case is worrying me. I'll tell you a few reasons:"

That would be like me writing a blog which started in this manner:

"The weather has been nice and cool for this time of year. I've been able to get more work done outside than usual. My dog - a Siberian husky - has been able to take more decent length walks with me than is typical during the summer months. Anyway, the NSA spying is really starting to bother me..."

Okay, Mr. Random, I mean Stein, please continue...

"First of all, the media have made this case into the lynching of Zimmerman supposedly because he murdered an innocent sweet little black child..."

"Lynching?" There's a wisely-chosen word right there, especially in conjunction with how Stein labeled Trayvon Martin - sarcastically calling him an "innocent sweet little black child."

Stein then says, "But according to what I read, Zimmerman - while a fool - was attacked by Mr. Martin, who was far from unarmed..."

Yes, the skittles and iced tea can really come in handy in the field of battle...

Stein continued with this:

"He was armed with his skills as a martial artist and his strength and size. He wasn't the sweet altar boy shown on the cover of magazines and on TV. He was a big, strong kid with a history of drug use and a bit of bragging online about his fighting skills. He didn't start a conversation with Zimmerman when Zimmerman got out of his truck. He attacked Zimmerman, who possibly would have been killed if he had not defended himself."

Who followed and killed who here? "He (Martin) attacked Zimmerman, who possibly would have been killed if he had not defended himself." Martin would not have been killed if Zimmerman didn't follow him against the authorities' orders. Also, of what relevance is Martin's history of marijuana use? Give me an angry, violent pothead and I'll give you a loud mime.

A little later in this racist rant, Stein says this:

"It horrifies me that the media has tried to turn this sad case into an occasion to make black people hate white people. It horrifies me that Mr. Obama has joined in. His assertion that he could have been Martin is breathtakingly dishonest. If Obama had been Martin, he would have talked Zimmerman out of his watch and his wallet and then gotten a scholarship to college for writing about it..."

Obama was honestly talking about how many black Americans, himself included, have at one time or another been followed by a complete stranger, who was suspicious about what they were up to, and how it feels during such occasions. Once again, if Zimmerman had left Martin alone, both men would be alive today. Mr. Stein and many others seem to miss that fact. I won't even touch on that final line of the quote. It speaks for itself.

Stein continues his POS with this:

"But it's worse than this: the black community in this nation is in crisis. It has a disastrous situation in terms of education, lack of work habits, complete collapse of the family, wild overuse of drugs, violence, and generally behavior that is destructive to itself and far too many other people. (Obviously, this applies only to some black people. I work every day and you work every day with black people who are in fine shape, much better shape than I am in.)"

The Ben Stein community appears to be in crisis as well. It has a disastrous situation in terms of exaggeration, denial, racism, complete collapse of their mental capabilities, wild overuse of fallacies, and generally behavior that is destructive to itself and far too many other people. (Fortunately, I and most others don't work with anyone in the Ben Stein community, but yes, we are in better shape than most of them are in - him, in particular).

A bit later in this pile of garbage, Mr. Stench, I mean, Stein, says this:

"The answer is sadly easy to see: white people have pretty much given up racism as a factor in their lives. They have to worry about jobs and education and families. Thus, there are none, not any major white leaders of any kind whose stock in trade is whipping up race hatred. That movement simply does not exist."

According to CNN, Stein is full of poppycock. Almost exactly one year ago, CNN released a report which showed that hundreds of white supremacist groups are active in the United States, and they are, in CNN's words, "experiencing a kind of resurgence, experts say."

Anything else you'd like to BS about, Mr. Stein? Oh, he wasn't done. Surprise, surprise. As you were saying...

"But among 'black leaders,' who really can no longer make credible claims about racism now that we have a black President, who really have no answers to the crisis in the black community, a chance to distract people from their own powerlessness is a golden opportunity."

Let's check this country's track record. We've had 44 different presidents - 43 which have been white and 1 which has been a mix of white and black. For the sake of argument, I'll refer to President Obama as black, which means that only 97.7% of our presidents have been white. With Mr. Stein's logic, all it takes is one honest politician to decry the notion that political corruption still exists. Oh, and as I already reported - there are still hundreds of white supremacist groups in this country.

Mr Stein doesn't stop there. He immediately follows with this:

"Among the liberal media, who have really been missing someone to hate for a long time, the Zimmerman case is heaven-sent. They take this poor soul, trying to patrol his community, who is getting beaten to within an inch of his life by a black kid and who saves his own life - and they make him into a Klansman. Into a whole posse of Klansmen."

Zimmerman is a "poor soul?" Who killed who here? Who died again? Trayvon Martin was unarmed and followed by Zimmerman due to being "suspicious," felt threatened and defended himself, only to be killed - and Zimmerman is the "poor soul?" I feel sorry for the "poor souls" (like myself) having to read this migraine-inducing blather.

Before randomly talking about Los Angeles, Sandpont, the heat, dinner, and his wife, Stein finally closed with this:

"Race has always been the main problem in America, at least since World War II. We had a spectacular triumph in ridding ourselves of white racism at all but the most trivial levels (like excluding me from a country club). For the President and Eric Holder and the liberal media and the 'black leaders' to turn up the heat under a new evil cauldron of racism is terrifying. The only solution is a spiritual solution. Let's pray for it to come in our lifetimes. If you really try to love your neighbors, you can. It is not easy but it can be done."

Race has only been the main problem in demented people like Ben Stein's eyes. Race hasn't been the main problem - poverty and with that, a lack of opportunities have. Also, what good will praying do? While it's a nice thought and all, we're not going to solve problems in this country simply through thinking about them via prayer. What needs to be done is to increase funding for education, provide equal opportunity for all people, and provide livable wages for the minimal-paying jobs. This will result in more people becoming better educated, less people living in poverty, and with that, less people resorting to crime.

In response to this article, someone should seriously write one of their own, entitled, "Ben Stein is really worrying me." Actually, I may have just done that.

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/07/22/feeling-the-heat

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/07/us/white-supremacist-groups

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"