bounty44
Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014 Status: offline
|
this is going to take delicacy to describe, particularly the last part... if you read the clarion-ledger article, there's actually very little about the legislator in question but when you do read it, parts of it (the very part we are talking about) don't seem to jibe well with the rest of the article. as I was reading it I thought, okay, this sounds like a couple of quotes from a larger context where perhaps they might be less inflammatory as opposed to how they are received when they are quoted in isolation. in short, they just don't seem to fit---its hard to figure why they are there. the rawstory headline: "Mississippi lawmaker opposes more school funding because ‘blacks’ get ‘welfare crazy checks’" is inflammatory itself and misrepresents, or at best oversimplifies the case and if you read the rawstory piece, the author does not connect those dots. in that regard then, the title is irresponsible. if you read what alday himself is saying, you don't get the sense at all that the reporter said, "so, why are you against increased funding here?" and he plainly answered right away, "well because blacks get welfare crazy checks duh." so is it possible that alday actually opposes additional funding on grounds other than "gee we already give these gosh darned black folks too much!" he's further gone on to say he is not a racist, likes everyone, has helped people of all races in his home town, has supported and marched for civil rights, and he has since apologized for his comments. I don't like what he said, but I can also see it not solely as comments with racial overtones, but also as expressions of frustration with a nanny system that entraps people into lives of poverty and violence. if there is some truth to that, then the color of the skin of the people inhabiting those positions, is more or less interchangeable, and maybe a smidgen less important to the conversation.
< Message edited by bounty44 -- 2/17/2015 2:56:29 PM >
|