ABC smells racism behind Walmart’s price cutting of black barbie dolls.
Walmart is raising eyebrows after cutting the price of a black Barbie doll to nearly half of that of the doll’s white counterpart at one store and possibly others.
…”To prepare for (s)pring inventory, a number of items are marked for clearance, ” spokeswoman Melissa O’Brien said in an e-mail. “… Both are great dolls. The red price sticker indicates that this particular doll was on clearance when the photo was taken, and though both dolls were priced the same to start, one was marked down due to its lower sales to hopefully increase purchase from customers.”
“Pricing like items differently is a part of inventory management in retailing,” O’Brien said.
But critics say Walmart should have been more sensitive in its pricing choice.
“The implication of the lowering of the price is that’s devaluing the black doll,” said Thelma Dye, the executive director of the Northside Center for Child Development, a Harlem, N.Y. organization founded by pioneering psychologists and segregation researchers Kenneth B. Clark and Marnie Phipps Clark.
This is so dumb. Goods are priced based on sales. The price of the doll with the lower number of sales was cut so that sales would pick up.
ABC is scraping the bottom of the barrel here. It isn’t necessarily surprising that they were able to find so many race-obsessed “critics” to spout such nonsense. The race mongering industry is thriving, after all.
But this is a clear case of starting from a conclusion (raaaaaacism), and finding a story to fit it. Just imagine, for instance, if the price differential had been reversed. What is black barbie cost more?
Why, that would be racist against black barbie, too. Rather than being “devauled,” ABC would find “critics” to argue that Walmart was trying to hurt sales of black barbie and keep it out of the hands of poorer black customers.
This is agenda journalism, plain and simple.
Hat-tip: Right Wing News
Comments
Print This Post
Rubio is a coconut! That racist slur comes courtesy of MSNBC contributor Donny Deutsch.
Conservative minorities will not be tolerated by the identity politics adherents on the left. Watch, this vicious attack machine is only getting started. They will target him for personal destruction the way the left targets all minorities who wander off the reservation of government dependency and adherence to the Democratic Party.
Comments Print This Post
It’s as predictable as the sun. Conservatives are in the news, so the left cries racism. What horrible racism was committed this time? According to the New York Times, a speaker criticized Obama “in racial tones,” blares the headline. But where is the actual racism? Only this single line deals with the accusation:
He then mocked what he described, with a Chris Rock voice, as “diversity,” including, he said, college classes on “cyber feminism” and “what it means to be a feminist new black man.”
A Chris Rock voice! What was this idiot listening to? That’s how the guy talks. He talked in the same voice the entire time.
More stupid accusations of racism at Newsbusters.
Comments Print This Post
The race-mongering never stops. John Conyers avoided my by no means exhaustive list of the most egregious plays of the race card in 2009, but he’ll certainly be in the 2010 edition:
Fox has obtained a letter that Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton asking that she demote Rajiv Shah, the Director of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
It’s rare for a lawmaker to write to a cabinet secretary and demand specific action on a personnel matter.
In the letter, Conyers says that he was “alarmed and chagrined” to learn that Shah did not bring any African American staff to a meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus on Wednesday to discuss Haiti.
…“This is so serious an error in judgment that it warrants his immediate demotion to a subordinate position at AID,” Conyers wrote, noting that there was “under-representation of minorities in key positions at the State Department.”
How post-racial of him.
Comments Print This Post
Retracto, an impressive alpaca with a stare that could make Clint Eastwood jealous, has a field day with Salon.com and Max Blumenthal.
Go ahead, liberal media, make my day.
Print This Post
I recount a year’s worth of race-mongering in my latest article on Big Government:
CommentsBarack Obama came into office with a promise of ushering in a new post-racial era. One year into his term and Chris Matthews has already declared, “Mission Accomplished!” He forgot Obama was black, you see. America is now post-racial! Sadly, the facts tell a very different story. Over the last year, we have witnessed a proliferation of indiscriminate accusations of racism, or a period of what I like to refer to as hyper-racialism.
Print This Post
Apparently Chris Matthews forget to tell Keith Olbermann that Obama was not black during the State of the Union:
“But our winners, these guys, assessing not the speech, but the president himself,” Olbermann said. “Erick Erickson, ‘cocky.’ John Stossel said he hoped the president would admit he was, quote, ‘arrogant.’ Jay Nordlinger, ‘looks arrogant whether he is arrogant or not.’ Marc Thiessen, ‘defensive, arrogant.’ John Hood, ‘flippant and arrogant.’ Glenn Beck, ‘like a punk.’”
…
“Here’s a little secret, gathered, sadly, from witnessing it my whole life, even from some in my own family,” Olbermann said. “When racist white guys get together and they don’t want to be caught using any of the popular epithets in use every day in this country about black people – and there’s a chance one of them, or worse still a white guy who doesn’t get it, might wander in and hear the conversation, when there’s a risk even in saying “uppity” or “forgetting his place,” the racist white guys revert to euphemisms and code words.”
…
“And among the code words that they think they’re getting away with are cocky, flippant, punk, and especially arrogant,” Olbermann concluded. “Mark Thiessen of The Washington Post, Eric Erickson of Red State, John Hood and Jay Nordlinger of the National Review and Glenn Beck and John Stossel of Fixed [Fox] News, today’s ‘Worst Persons in the World.’”
Didn’t the left routinely call Bush arrogant? Doesn’t that contradict the notion that merely lobbing such criticism is proof of racial intolerance?
Comments Print This Post
Regarding his moronic comment the other night, Chris Matthews offered this clarification:
“I think he’s done something wonderful,” Matthews said. “I think he’s taken us beyond black and white in our politics, wonderfully so, in just a year.”
This is a ridiculous bit of revisionism. What honest observer of the last year can say that we have forgotten about race? On the contrary, this President and his supporters have been hyper-racial in all things. Chris Matthews himself has been a prolific participant in such racial mongering.
He accused Joe Wilson of being racist for saying that Obama lied. He also said the town hall participants were racist. Now, he wants to pretend like Obama has removed race from the discussion? Chris Matthews, you lie!
Comments Print This Post
The night was full of stupid lines. Obama gave his song and dance, bedazzling the nation with his usual pack of lies, silly excuses and tired divisiveness. And yet, it was MSNBC blowhard Chris Matthews who stuck his neck out to claim the title of Moronic Dolt for the evening with this gem following the State of the Union speech:
“You know, I forgot he was black tonight for an hour.”
Those of us not obsessed with race forgot it a long time ago, and never cared to begin with.
Isn’t constantly seeing and judging people by the color of their skin the very definition of racism?
Comments Print This Post
When the city of New Haven tried discriminate against the police officers who passed their promotion test, because they weren’t appropriate ‘diverse’ for the PC crowd, the Supreme Court rightly struck it down. Now, the Justice Department’s Civil Right Division is suing New Jersey for not discriminating on behalf of black and hispanic officers who don’t pass the written exam for promotion in the same numbers as white officers. Though of course that’s not how they frame it.
The exam, a written test that New Jersey police officers must pass in order to advance to the rank of sergeant, quizzes candidates on state and local laws.
“This complaint should send a clear message to all public employers that employment practices with unlawful discriminatory impact on account of race or national origin will not be tolerated,” said Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department will take all necessary action to ensure that such discriminatory practices are eliminated and that the victims of such practices are made whole.”
Actually, what this complaint tells us is that it’s more important to bow at the alter of identity politics than to insure that police officers know and understand the laws which they are tasked to enforce. Unless there is evidence that the test itself is inherently racist, i.e. that the questions somehow lend themselves to be answered better by white test takers than others, then there is no discrimination. But there is no such evidence.
The entire argument of discrimination is based on nothing more than a few percentage points of difference between how white and minority candidates perform.
White officers pass the New Jersey test at a rate of 89 percent, as opposed to 77 percent of Hispanic candidates and 73 percent of African-American candidates.
So what? What percentage of right-handed and left-handed people pass the test? What percentage of blondes and brunettes? How is race any more relevant to understanding the law than these entirely superficial characteristics? The fact of the matter is that races are not taking the test – individuals are. Individuals who study and know the material pass, individuals are not prepared fail. Those who fail should not be promoted. Dicing these individuals into artificial categories and comparing passing percentages is entirely meaningless.
“Our suit does not have an issue with a written exam period, but we do believe it has a disparate impact on African-American and Hispanic candidates,” Alejandro Miyar, a spokesman at the Justice Department Civil Rights Division, told The Daily Caller.
Disparate impact is a little-known legal term that describes an employment practice that isn’t intentionally discriminatory, but which results in a discriminatory outcome. It is forbidden under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Disparate impact was first described by the Supreme Court in the 1971 case Griggs v. Duke Power Co. which found that “good intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as ‘built-in headwinds’ for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability.”
One would think that understanding the law goes to the heart of measuring the job capacity of police officers.
This is the same Justice Department that dropped the charges of voter intimidation against the Black Panthers after the case had already been won.
No, there’s no radical, racial agenda at Eric Holder’s DoJ.
Comments Print This Post
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.
I am a libertarian-conservative blogger living in the DC area. I have a Master's degree in Political Science, but please don't hold that against me.
