This is an open thread. Post what you want. Neat links — including self-links — are encouraged.
I don’t have much time right now, due to being busy with cartooning stuff, which is why I’ve been so little on “Alas” lately. So no link farm from me this week, alas.
However, the “What ____ Is Reading” sidebar links have been restored! These are just the “shared links” feature of Google Reader. Only Jeff, Myca, and I are listed because (as far as I know) we three are the only “Alas” bloggers to use this feature of Google Reader. (So far.)
Finally, here’s one of the best, most fascinating music videos I’ve seen. However, if you’re triggered by car accidents, you’d might want to skip watching it.
The “Uterus? You hardly know us!” thread inspired me to create my own blog: Gratuitous Uterus Pictures. Adorable crocheted uterus gets its picture taken doing all kinds of stuff. If the GOP wants to reduce a person to hir uterus, the uterus must become a person.
How often do siblings share the same father? To put it another way, of all mothers with multiple kids, the percent that have had kids with more than one man is a) 10%, b) 20%, or c)….
I found this great ASL version of Lady GaGa’s Bad Romance that I think is really worth the watch.
‘The Root’ Is Wrong, Kobe’s Slur is Anti-Gay: Looking at why comparing the N word and the word f#ggot do not need to be compared to be viewed as horrendous.
Apparently, Black Friends Gives White People a Free Pass On Their Racism: Examining Tea party activist Marilyn Davenport’s defence for sending an email of president Obama depicted as an ape and why she believe she should not resign.
Don’t People Realize Gwyneth Paltrow Works Her Ass Off? : Yes Paltrow is actually pushing meritocracy rather than admitting that she was born in privilege and continues to live in privilege.
nobody.really – Ah, yes. I Tweeted that story with the line “Many US researchers have sexism problems in how they frame research questions or writeups.”
Reviewer thinks fantasy is for boys. Oh, but it’s OK…if you add some gratuitous sex, then it’s accessible to women.
http://tv.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/arts/television/game-of-thrones-begins-sunday-on-hbo-review.html?scp=1&sq=game+of+thrones&st=cse
I made a slightly wrath-of-god response but all the comments and responses are currently blockaded, which might have something to do with the fact that the entire SF/F blogosphere is apparently dropping similar wrath bombs on the hapless review writer.
The funny this is that usually the argument is reversed, that fantasy is for laaaaaaaaaaaaaadies but if you add the T&A then maybe boys’ll open it up.
What is the term for bikini babe in epic fantasy? It has leaked out of my head?
chainmail bikinis!
but dudes, they do not like teh sex in teh fantasy. ;-)
*watches video* Ah, so it’s the depressing version of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
Yes with the well-done, but I do sort of wish I hadn’t watched it this morning.
The research results surprise me, but I struggle with how to characterize them. “Of all mothers with multiple kids, the percentage that…”does not exactly trip off the tongue. But I couldn’t find a better phrasing. Do you have something else in mind?
Or are you suggesting that there would have been some better line of research to explore this phenomenon?
The strange thing isn’t the results, it’s that they don’t even mention how many fathers have children by multiple mothers. Are we supposed to assume that it’s none? Or are men reputedly so ballsy that it’s just assumed we’ll knock up any fertile chick within 100 yards? Or are we entirely irrelevant–and if so, why?
It’s not necessarily presenting inaccurate data, it’s just bizarrely incomplete and therefore not much can be drawn from it.
That’s a really cool video. I think I will have to watch it several times to understand it better.
Grace
Hey, is anybody else experiencing trouble with their Skynet system?
If Ms. Davenport misappropriated public assets to create and send out that e-mail then appropriate action should be taken.
If that’s not an issue, though, consider that numerous American Presidents have been depicted as apes and chimpanzees. Abraham Lincoln was commonly referred to as an ape by his detractors on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. A quick search will show you numerous cartoons, signs, and even videos depicting President Bush as a chimpanzee.
I can’t say that her action was not racist. But it seems to me that depicting a President as a chimpanzee has such a long history and has been so recently used by the supporters of President Obama to so depict his predecessor that it cannot be fairly presumed that it was racist. Does the fact – and I agree that it is a fact – that depiction of black people in general as chimps has been done with a racist motive outweigh the other fact that such depictions of Presidents specifically has been commonly done and without racist motives?
“Does the fact – and I agree that it is a fact – that depiction of black people in general as chimps has been done with a racist motive outweigh the other fact that such depictions of Presidents specifically has been commonly done and without racist motives?”
I’d say yes.
Elusis, G&W, Nobody(really),
I was wondering what Elusis meant too, but I wonder if it’s what G&W pointed out? I read her as not saying the results were poorly worded but that the original research question was…
NLRB sues Boeing for transferring production line from union state to non-union state
Having experienced numerous strikes in their Puget Sound, Wash. facility, Boeing built a plant in South Carolina (a right-to-work state) and hired 1000 people there. Just prior to starting the line up the NLRB has decided that doing so is discriminatory and is attempting to stop Boeing from moving production there. Various links are in the link above to the text of the complaint, etc.
The link above has an anti-NLRB point of view. There are links in it to the NLRB itself that gives their point of view. I was unaware that the choice by a company with unions to locate work in a right-to-work state was illegal. This is going to be in the courts for a long time.
Oh, and my answer might change once we’ve had a significant number of black presidents. Race is inevitably foregrounded with the first black president since racism is what makes him the first black president, and critiques exist in that context.
Anyway, I don’t see why “this insult has racial baggage; use another one” is an onerous request. Give him Dumbo ears or something (altho that might be problematic because elephants are Republican?). Asses’ ears like Midas? Probably also there are lots of other negative animal associations that people could make if they were not as melty-brained as I currently am.
Further anyway, I’m not sure why the observation that humans look like apes is supposed to be clever (I intend this as a criticism of both sides). It’s kind of like default in being human since we are apes. “My, that human looks like an ape!” “Yes, and also he is made of mostly water!” “What an unusual human!”
I don’t care about him. As President of the U.S., I don’t think Obama (or any other President) needs protection from anything. He holds the most powerful role in the world, bar none: he is a President before he is a person. If he doesn’t like the attacks that come with the Presidency, he can resign.
But I don’t like it in general, because the effects of it aren’t limited to Obama. Anyone else in the world is not him, and doesn’t have his power. And I don’t like it for Mrs. Obama, for the same reasons.
So in the end I’m not a fan. But I have to admit that anything (even tiny things) which in any way stifles citizen criticism of our government, makes me really nervous. I don’t think the “not OK” answer is obvious.
My guess is that this has something to do with a union contract which puts limits on Boeing’s ability to cut union jobs. If they are moving an entire plant from union to non-union status, even if they add jobs, they are cutting union jobs.
But I’m just guessing.
Grace
The write-up that nobody.really links to includes this bit:
Which made me wonder if they didn’t study fathers because fathers have already been studied.
I found this study on multiple-partner fertility among men, which found that 15 percent of men over 40 have children with more than one woman. This isn’t exactly apples to apples, because the study of mothers looked only at women with more than one kid. However, the study also says that men who have children with more than one woman tend to have more kids than men who have children with one woman (cue evo-psych blah blah blah i don’t care), which might also explain why/how a lower percentage of men than women have children with multiple partners.
I’m not sure I actually find the numbers that surprising. I’m also not sure it’s particularly sexist to want to know what these numbers are. I guess I’d be interested to hear that fleshed out a little more. I did think it was interesting that one of the researchers said she was well into the study before she realized her mother was one of these women.
A little snarky . . . but the animation of the text is fun, and the reading is supremely silly:
oh. well. that didn’t work.
I thought this was interesting. Animator Lauren Faust writes about girl cartoons in general (this was written as a rebuttal to another Ms Magazine writer’s reaction to her “My Little Pony” cartoon that she’s supervising)
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/12/24/my-little-non-homophobic-non-racist-non-smart-shaming-pony-a-rebuttal/
That was an interesting article, thanks for posting it, Charles. It was also kind of funny how many comments were from 30ish men who say they love her My Little Pony show.
Grace:
It has nothing to do with any provisions in any contract.
If they are moving an entire plant from union to non-union status, even if they add jobs, they are cutting union jobs.
They’re not. The NLRB is basing this on the premise that putting jobs in a right-to-work state comprises retribution against the union workers – even though no union workers are being fired. In fact, they’ve been hiring. Check out the links.
Let me restate that, since the edit function is not active:
If they are moving an entire plant from union to non-union status, even if they add jobs, they are cutting union jobs.
It seems to me that the premise of the regulation is that you cannot punish a union worker for being in a union and striking. What the government seems to be saying is that Boeing is punishing the union workers by avoiding creating a large number of additional union jobs. This position – and yours – seem to me to mean that you and they consider union jobs to be an entitlement; that the union is entitled to have new jobs that a company creates be created as union jobs. Rights are one thing, entitlements are another.
@Amp,
It’s a great show, trust me on that. It has a pretty big fanbase amongst older guys even though the show is very much targeted to young girls.
Not all episodes are great, mind you (many people found that episode with the buffaloes to be problematic, for example), but when it’s good it’s good. If you’re looking for a good cartoon to show to girls (and boys!) it’s this one.
The best part is, because the show is technically a half-hour toy commercial (a very well-written and developed one at that) Hasbro doesn’t give a crap that every episode is on YouTube and you can easily find every episode there.
Women face no discrimination in the workplace. That’s a thing of the past. Or so I’m told.
Many comments on that post, though, are full of bigotry. Yes, I said it. Bigotry. On the plus side, there were many comments pointing out the bigotry in the bigoted comments.
BTW, as the admin, I always have the edit function. So I don’t notice that y’all don’t have it unless someone points it out to me. :-)
Anyhow, editing function should now be restored.
RonF wrote:
Whoa, Nellie. You have not stated my position on this, and I have not stated my position on this. I was simply speculating as to their reasoning.
Grace
Ah, sorry. My apologies.
That in fact does seem to be their reasoning, though. It’s as if the union as an entity has rights to jobs, both the ones that it’s members hold and any new ones that the company the union bargains with decides to create. That seems absurd to me.
Renee:
Solely on the basis of the common first name I’m guessing that you are the host on Womanist Musings. Since you posted here I’ll address you here. From the link you posted:
She didn’t say she had imaginary friends as a child. She says she has black friends now. Where did you get the “imaginary friends as a child” concept?
Of course it was offensive. I should think it was offensive to anyone who supports President Obama, not just blacks.
What are you, the Queen of England? I don’t think she was trying to amuse anyone by making a comparison to President Bush.
And here’s the nub of the issue. Obviously the fact that someone would portray George Bush as an ape has nothing to do with his race and had everything to do with the fact that he was a President whose policies the portrayer opposed. Just as the fact that many other Presidents have been so portrayed was completely disconnected from their race. So, now you have a person who is both black and President. Given the history of how American Presidents have been portrayed by their opponents – and depiction as an ape or chimpanzee goes back even further than President Lincoln, IIRC – your automatic presumption that this woman’s motives were racist and not political is invalid.
I oppose Obama’s policies. I don’t like de-humanizing anyone, regardless of race, ethnic origin, religion, or anything else that’s been used to dehumanize just about any group of people you can name – including white Europeans. So I would not use this kind of portrayal to criticize Obama or anyone. But given the fact that it can easily be construed to be racist doesn’t mean that it becomes proven that the person who did is racist and did so out of racial motives. I would say that the fact that it brings that kind of imagery to some people’s minds makes it ill-advised to have done so.
Whether that is reason for her to be forced to resign her position in the Orange County GOP Central Committee is frankly a function of how much notoriety is raised over the issue and what the impact is that it has on the GOP’s ability to get people to vote for their candidates.
(Deep male voiceover begins:)
RonF, constant and brave defender of all racist actions springs into action once more.
(heroic musical score begins quietly, but heroically)
Fear not,
(heroic musical score gains volume)
perpetrator of racist deed!
(heroic musical score reaches full volume, soprano chorus begins)
RonF will come to your rescue.
(heroic musical score, now with prominent timpani, continues as opening credits roll)
Two serious question, Ron. Are you aware of any racist action or speech in, say, the last three years? Have you ever not defended a racist action in your commenting on this blog?
Bizarrely over-detailed passport application form proposed. Comment period ends Monday night (April 25th).
Information required includes the address of everywhere you have ever lived, and every job you’ve ever had (including your supervisor’s name and the phone number of the business). And, if you weren’t born in a medical facility, then you have to list the dates on which your mother had pre- and post-natal care appointments, and the name and phone number of everyone who was present for your birth.
I’ve lived a pretty stable life, but I couldn’t fill out this form. What was the address of the house we called the Terwilliger Academy in Oberlin, or the address of Haggard’s Tower in Boston (thankfully, after that we called most of our houses by the address, so I still remember apartment K-7 and 17 Edgehill)? What was my supervisor’s name at any of the pizza places I worked for, or during that summer job cleaning dorms in Oberlin? Hell, what was the name of the pizza place I delivered coupons for right after highschool? I have no idea. So I could either commit fraud and not mention them, or the passport office can choose to deny me a passport because I can’t fill out the form completely.
The form can be found here.
Comments on the form can be submitted here.
That’s insane. I can understand why they want as much information as possible, but at 42 I’ve lived in at least thirty different residences in the course of my life, half of those before I reached the age of maturity. I could maybe provide five or six of the adult addresses, none of the childhood ones. My parents might be able to fill in a couple of blanks, but what if they were dead?
That’s an absurd level of detail to ask for. I couldn’t come up with the dates for my pre- and post-natal appointments NOW, and my daughter was born last year! Most passport applications are made years after a birth.
And I’m on my 15th residence, and some of the places I worked in high school and college are out of business now.
I’m going to submit a comment, and I’m going to share this on a couple birth/midwifery blogs I read. Thanks for the heads up.
Turns out the form is only for people who can’t provide standard documentation of citizenship. I’m not sure what the previous method for people who couldn’t provide standard documentation was, so I’m not sure of this is actually any worse.
I’m not sure what the previous method for people who couldn’t provide standard documentation was
From what I can see, the previous/current method is “you’re screwed”.
http://www.travel.state.gov/passport/get/secondary_evidence/secondary_evidence_4315.html
You can collect a bunch of documents and get people to swear you’re you, but it looks pretty damn involved.
My ex-wife had to do that. She didn’t have a birth certificate, she had a Certificate of Foreign birth. She had to collect her elementary school records, and have an affidavit or two to submit. It was ridiculous. What’s the point of a Certificate of Foreign birth issued by the feds if it isn’t as good as a Birth Certificate issued by a state?
The answer to both is yes, of course.
So, then, here’s a question for you:
Has there ever been an instance of an expression or action that could possibly be construed as having an appearance of racism that you have not immediately presumed was racism?
For what it’s worth, having a birth certificate ain’t all its cracked up to be either.
Last decade a friend who was born about 1940 began seeking US citizenship. Her parents were German. But as the Nazis rose in power, her parents opted to take temporary jobs in Istanbul or Cairo or somewhere (I forget), so my friend was born outside of Germany. Thus she ended up with two “birth certificates” – one from Germany and one from the place where she was born – and alas, the documents did not spell her name identically. Ugh.
So my friend had to decide which document to submit to US immigration authorities. She could present a document covered in Islamic crescents – not an auspicious thing to be presenting to US authorities since 2001. Alternatively, she could present a document covered in swastikas. Ugh.
I’ve since learned to stop asking about how her immigration status is progressing.
RonF,
Can you point to a thread on Alas where you weren’t defending the racist speech or action as not racist? I’m asking because I honestly can’t recall a single time you’ve commented on such a post and not denied the racism. The Miley Cyrus racist slanty eyes thing is the best example of your expected commenting that I can think of. I can’t think of a single time that you didn’t write something in the same vein when you’ve commented on a post addressing racism. I’d love it if you would show me that I’m wrong.
I would say that nowhere in Alas have I ever defended racist speech (presuming you mean the content and not an attempt to deny the speaker their First Amendment rights).
There have been times – such as now – where I have commented along the lines of pointing out that people are making a rush to judgement as to whether or not someone was, in fact, acting out of racist motives or whether or not a particular action was racist. But I have never defended racism, nor will I ever.
Ron,
You have consistently denied racism. Thread after thread after thread. Racism is pointed out and you jump in to say that there is no racism there. I’ll point you to the comment of yours on the subject and the example of your behavior that will always stick out in my mind.
Denying racism is often defending racism. If you always deny racism – and I believe that you do – you will often be defending racism. As you did in your comments to the above linked post.
Can you point to a single comment of yours to a post about racism on this blog that has not denied or excused the racist subject of that post? I don’t remember one, but then my memory is likely biased by my opinion of you as a racism apologist/denier. I realize that I could be wrong, that’s why I asked you for an example.
I’m pretty sure that I’m not the only regular here who sees racism denial as one of your major on-line attributes.
Jake, on that thread, Ron initially comments that he wouldn’t have seen any racism there, but then writes:
Maybe I misread it, but I took that as meaning that Ron did indeed acknowledge that the kids in that photo were making a racist joke, once it had been pointed out to him.
So he does. I must now change my opinion from “always” to “most of the time.” I’m very happy to be wrong about this.
Here’s something weird.
Before you turned the edit function back on, when I would load a post by clicking on a recent comment in the sidebar, it would load the whole post and move me down to the comment I clicked.
Now if I load a post by clicking a comment, it seems to load it one comment at a time and reposition to each new comment as they load. The result is a very fast scroll down the comment thread.
I am not sure that turning comment editing back on is the cause/difference, but it started to happen right around that time.
That is weird.
But a problem I’m willing to live with. :-)
Sure, YOU can live with it, with your special blog-owner edit functions and magic gizmos and widgets. Check your privilege, dude!
It isn’t actually a problem, it’s just a little weird.
20 blunders committed under Obama, and 20 solutions offered by the Libertarian party:
http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/lp-monday-message-20-obama-problems-20-libertarian-solutions
1. Cash for Clunkers
The government should not try to dictate what vehicles people drive, or what mileage they get. This program paid people to destroy their cars and buy new higher-mileage cars. It wasted both money and natural resources. Libertarians would never have done this.
2. War escalation in Afghanistan
We would withdraw American forces from Afghanistan. President Obama has escalated the war.
3. Giant government health care expansion bill
Libertarians would return health care to the private sector and the free market, instead of repeatedly increasing the amount of government interference.
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
Libertarians would end the post office’s monopoly, and allow competition and the free market to provide the mail services people demand.
5. Stimulus package
The key to a robust economy is shrinking government, not growing it. Libertarians don’t believe in stimulus packages.
6. Expansion of “state secrets” doctrine
The president is not a dictator. Libertarians would not allow presidential actions to avoid judicial scrutiny.
7. Big increase in unemployment
High unemployment is mostly caused by government interference. Libertarians would let the free market work.
8. “Bailout” Geithner as Treasury Secretary
Libertarians would appoint someone who understands economics and the importance of free markets.
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
Libertarians would would make huge cuts, not increases, in government spending.
10. Huge federal deficits
Libertarians would cut government spending so much that deficits would disappear.
11. War in Libya
Libertarians want to end America’s foreign wars, not start new ones.
12. Assassination doctrine
Libertarians would never claim that the president can assassinate American citizens just because he personally believes them to be terrorists.
13. Big-spending deals with Republicans
Last December, and again this month, President Obama and Republicans came together to keep federal spending huge this year. Massive defense spending, unemployment extensions, ethanol subsidies, etc. Libertarians would demand cuts in the current year, and we’d be happy to let the government shut down if our opponents refused.
14. Keeping Guantanamo open
Before he was elected, Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay. He hasn’t done it. Libertarians would shut it down.
15. Fed massively inflates fiat currency
With the support of President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner, the Federal Reserve has continued its massive inflation of the money supply. Libertarians wouldn’t allow it — in fact, we would end the Fed.
16. War on Poker
Less than two weeks ago, Obama’s Justice Department decided to trample on the rights of millions of Americans by shutting down several online poker websites and indicting their executives. Libertarians believe that Americans have the right to gamble.
17. Patriot Act extensions
Obama has signed bills to extend the life of the Patriot Act, which violates the civil rights of Americans. Libertarians would refuse to renew it.
18. Sustaining warrantless wiretaps
As a candidate, Obama said he would end these violations started during the Bush administration. But apparently he lied. Warrantless wiretaps are still being used today. Libertarian would end them immediately.
19. Sustaining War in Iraq
As a candidate, Obama promised the Iraq War would be over by now. But there are still upwards of 50,000 American troops in Iraq. Libertarians would end that war and withdraw all of the troops.
20. Medical Marijuana raids
In October 2009, we sent a press release commending the Obama administration’s new policy to end raids on medical marijuana providers. Unfortunately, they were lying. The feds have continued to raid medical marijuana providers. Libertarians would completely end the tragic and destructive War on Drugs.
That is funny. Disagree with Geithner’s position all you want, but are you really claiming he actually lacks understanding of what he is doing? that the Secretary does not understand economics? Seriously?
May I be so bold as to assume that the manner in which he could demonstrate his understanding would be “agreement with you?”
Is that also the way we demonstrate we’re not anti-free-speech?
C’mon, G&W, I get ditching the blog for a while after conflict; I’m all about the “aughhhhhhh flight” part of the fight or flight instinct myself. But you were pretty wrong and seem to have just bailed.
Re: what clothes etc people can take for charity: yeah, the rules about that can be pretty weird sometimes. I assume they make sense for reasons I don’t understand–or generally they make more sense once they’re explained to me–but from a donor’s perspective (mine, too) it’s frustrating.
Point taken.
I’ll even go so far as to say that, rereading the thread, I was plain old undiluted “wrong,” not “pretty wrong.”
Sorry.
Amp, when I post something in a thread, I can subscribe to the thread, and new posts to the thread get e-mailed to me. However, there is no way to subscribe to a thread without posting. I have so far refrained from posting something merely to get subscribed, but I’m sometimes tempted. Is there any way to enable a “subscribe without posting” feature?
Grace
Grace, I’ve added something which — if it works — will give you an option to subscribe without having to leave a comment. Let me know if it works!
Thanks, G&W. ;-)
Jim, do you know what “negative externalities” are?
—Myca
I had to wait for a post to a thread I subscribed to with the tool to confirm, but it works fine! Thanks very much.
Grace
There’s a few different things going on here.
First, I disagree with the extensions to the definition of racism that is generally put forward here. I go along with the definition that you’ll find in just about every dictionary out there: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”. But on here people tend to add that the person being described must also have the power to impose consequences of their beliefs on others. So, oddly enough, in the past I have been in the position of holding that a particular act or expression is racist when others here say it isn’t; normally when such an act or expression is committed by someone who is not Causasian. Until I decided to stop bothering debating the issue.
The second thing is that when I see someone getting pilloried for something that I agree is racism, I tend not to jump in and say “me too”. I spend too much time on here as it is, so I generally only post when I have something different to say.
Third; make a distinction between me saying “I don’t think that’s racist” and “I don’t think you can assume the person saying/doing that was racist.” The case in point here is the latter. Outside the context of who was being criticized, it’s quite legitimate to look at a black man being depicted as a chimpanzee and say “That’s racist.” But add in the context that the black man is President of the United States and white Presidents have been depicted as chimpanzees or apes for over 100 years and the presumption of racism can no longer be considered true; it has to be withheld until the person who actually made the depiction can be examined. As I’ve been told a great many times here, context matters. So does motive. Yet what I’m seeing here is that pointing that out is causing me to be considered a defender of racism. I deny both the assertion and the reasoning behind it.
When I posted my original question on the topic Mandolin said:
And I never got around to answering her, which is a fault on my part. I agree with the combination of her original answer and her expansion thereof. The woman may have had no racist motive here. But it does have baggage. I think that abandoning depicting people as anything but people is not an onerous request and is in fact a great idea. Just about any racial or ethnic or religious group you can name has been depicted as sub-human as a prelude to anything from legal sanctions to genocide – Jews, Arabs, Catholics, Protestants, blacks, Native Americans, whites, Japanese, Chinese, you can keep on calling the roll until you’ve exhausted it.
What I saw on the Womanist Musings link was someone using an accusation of racism against an individual to attempt to discredit a entire political movement. Either she lacks an understanding of the political history of the United States or she’s attempting to obscure the ambiguity of the situation to achieve political advantage.
When people of different races are involved in a controversy, it seems to me that very often on here people take it as a given that racism is involved. If the white person involved is identifiably either Republican or conservative it’s not only taken as a given, it’s claimed that this is an inherent characteristic of Republicans or conservatives. God knows there’s been a number of occasions when the person involved HAS indeed been racist. But it’s the concept that racism is an axiom is what I’m at least examining, as it seems to me that the motive is not to deal with racism but an attempt to smear political opponents without too much concern for the truth.