Kane Watch: Chirp, Chirp, Chirp

I know I can't be the only one wondering: Where in the world is Eugene Kane? After the strong stance he took against Imus, you'd think he'd be frothing at the bit to take some shots at the most recent outrageous comments aired out on the radio waves.

After all, I have to believe that Eugene can no longer claim, "The most offensive thing I've heard recently on Milwaukee radio was the suggestion that voters in Ald. Michael McGee's district were less intelligent or criminally minded for supporting him against the wishes of outsiders."

You know, I'd bet my life on the fact that more outrageous things have been said on the airwaves recently. And if the above "offensive" statement was worth putting in a column, then I sure as hell think the recent ones are even more so.

Just where in the world is Eugene Kane on this? I know that Kane feels pretty strongly about these issues. Consider his most recent blog headline, yet another one about Imus:

Hey Gene, you out there? We're all dying to know, where do you stand on this? Are you outraged? Or, should we just chalk it up to a silly blogger attacking yet another McGee in what is an out-of-context situation and nothing but a waste of time?

Boy, it must be a tuff time to be Eugene Kane. Between all his support of the McGee's in the past, his recent bandwagon jumping Imus and the completely misinformed blasting Patrick and all bloggers in general, there really isn't a right answer for him right now.

My guess on what we'll hear:
Chirp...Chirp....Chirp....

UPDATE: At least one black leader in the community has something to say about this. And I emphasize the word leader.

UPDATE: Kane's newest column, a piece about a not racist book that is written from a racial point of view (the author's own depiction) is posted now. Let's call it another shining example of racissism with such brilliant statements as: if it's a judge like Thomas - notoriously conservative on issues such as affirmative action, criminal justice and the 2000 presidential election - sometimes it's hard to appreciate having such a powerful black figure deciding important issues who doesn't think the way most black people do.

Regarding McGee, it's as I said, chirp, chirp, chirp....

Kane Watch: Blogging Welfare

I've got an idea for Gene: How bout all of us white bloggers create a blogging welfare system, and start giving some of our posts to the minorities since minorities are at a blogging disadvantage? That way, none of them will have to actually do anything to have a blog!

They won't have to put in the time, effort or research to write anything!!! Since it doesn't cost anything to blog, and since there are no gatekeepers to blogging it's really the only logical thing that can be done, right? I mean, clearly, anyone who's not white is at a disadvantage when it comes to blogging because white folks actually have the desire to put thoughts in to words that are published on the internet, and that's just not fair!

Okay. I'm being incredibly facetious, but it's my guess that this is the kind of blogosphere Kane is advocating for. Seriously! Just look at this comment:

It was clear the blogosphere in Milwaukee is similar to most institutions in town: predominantly white and filled with folks who only want to talk about race relations if they can blame all of the problems in the black community on Ald. Mike McGee.

The only similarity I see that can be made between the world in general and blogging is that it takes a little effort to get anything done, on either front. If anyone wants a blog, all they have to do is start typing. I can't make anyone's fingers do the talking for 'em.

But I digress. The real point here, and the most telling aspect of Kane's entire column, is that there are plenty of diverse voices around the cheddarsphere. Kane doesn't bother to do any research before making such sweeping claims, and he just doesn't recognize anyone that doesn't sound like him.

He's the worst kind of narcissist. He's a racissist*. And that's all I have to say about that.

*A racissist is one who believes that the ethnicity of one's peers is valid if and only if said peers reflect the exact same beliefs as oneself.

Kane Watch: Dubious Reporting

Gene, Gene the Spin Machine is up to his old trick of under-reporting a story in an effort to make his point.

Citing a New York Times article claiming that most Americans want the job in Iraq finished and calling the poll upon which the story is based dubious, Kane points out that the group who conducted the poll is " basically a bunch of political hacks who blindly support Republicans."

All fine and well if he had stopped there, but he continues with the following snarky remark...

...no wonder they [the pollsters] are still pushing the war even as Bush's
good buddy Tony Blair is cashing in his chips with a withdrawl of British
troops.

I would like to direct Eugene to Patrick McIlheran's blog (I'm sure he must know the guy) where a little more analysis is done on the troop withdrawl story than just reading the headline...

...The British are leaving troops in Iraq, mainly to train Iraqis. This
differs from what we're doing there -- because the British are in a different
part of Iraq, where conditions differ. As Prime Minister Tony Blair pointed out,
"The situation in Basra is very different from Baghdad," he was quoted in the
Times. "There is no Sunni insurgency. There is no al-Qaeda base. There is little
Shia on Sunni violence. The bulk of the attacks are on the Multinational Force.
It has never presented anything like the challenge of Baghdad."

In fact, the British are turning over their main base near Basra to the
Iraqis. Swaths of the south, the part of Iraq they cover, are in Iraqi control.

This withdrawal is a landmark of the very thing the surrender side here
claims can never happen: Iraqis controlling their own country...

Of course, attention to detail would have prevented Kane from blindly opposing success in Iraq.

____________________________

Kane Watch: Something missing?

Eugene Kane's column today covers the Tim Hardaway-anti-gay-remarks controversy. In it he discusses how it bothers him that, in general, the African-American community has a streak of homophobia. Overall, it's a good piece, but something is conspicuously absent.

Citing the high-profile bigoted remarks from Mel Gibson (anti-Semitic), Michael Richards (n-word) and Isaiah Washington (anti-gay), Kane completely ignores the far more pertinent and local tie-in to the story: Alderman Michael McGee, Jr.

With a long history of anti-gay remarks, one might think that bringing up McGee in this context would be tremendously appropriate. And what makes McGee's remarks even more striking is that, unlike Gibson, Richards and Washington, entertainers, and Hardaway, an athlete, McGee is an ELECTED OFFICIAL. The other four men here are ultimately inconsequential in our day-to-day lives, but McGee is someone put in office with the assumption that he serve the interests of his constituency. For better or worse, he is a community leader. And I have it on good authority that a number of McGee's constituents are, in fact, gay!

So far Kane has expended countless words in both his blog and column on four men who ultimately can do no worse than hurt feelings and embarrass themselves while he closes his eyes to the antics of someone who actually has an impact on the operation and future of this city.

I might think that odd were it not for the fact that Kane has pretty much admitted it's unlikely he'll stop defending McGee.

Goodbye journalistic integrity. Hello hypocrisy.

____________________________