joan-walsh

“Sometimes it helps to laugh. But Romney’s smirk is disturbing. It betrays a preternatural sense of entitlement and self-satisfaction that comes out, often inappropriately, in all sorts of ways, from his odd remark that “I like to be able to fire people that provide services to me” to insulting the cookies supporters served him or the rain gear fans wore to a NASCAR event. It seems related to the calm self-importance with which he belittled British planning for the Olympics, insulting our closest ally. The smirk is a cousin to another odd Romney tic – his tendency to chuckle at the wrong time, like when he was trying to deny cutting the hair of a gay high school classmate. Who chuckles when they’re trying to project compassion?”

-Joan Walsh, “Romney’s haunting smirk”

northernarrow  asked:

Colbert doesn't have any input in the Colbert Report's Twitter account. It's operated by Comedy Central and he disliked the tweet as well. So please educate yourself before you go spouting off about someone who didn't even tweet the damn tweet.

[re: this post or this one]

um…thanks(?) for riding all the way over to my askbox to Whitesplain that to me, but I never even mentioned the tweet (because research) so you can climb down off that high horse whenever you’re ready

the tweet was a direct quote from the dialogue on his show (which, for fuller context, I provided a link to in my original post), so it rly doesn’t matter who tweeted or “disliked” an actual quote of something he actually said 

and just to save you another trip to my askbox, yes, I am also aware of “acting” and “satire”…but that still doesn’t mean that every single White person on earth gets to take turns using and re-using that same old tired excuse each time they feel like saying something racially insensitive

like I said before, sometimes it almost seems like “White people will always defend the inalienable right of other White people to make racist “satirical” jokes about people who AREN’T White

Here’s the thing: he could have approached it a million different ways. It doesn’t matter if it was his “character” or satire or performance art. I am fucking tired of alleged comedic “satire” repeatedly shitting all over Black people and other PoC. And I’m tired of all the White “comedians” who each take their perpetual turns at “satirical” ironic racism and then always get a pass for doing the same thing over and over and over and over (no matter HOW much ppl of color say it’s problematic) because diehard MackleStanz™ or other White people crawl out of the woodwork to Whitesplain shit like “acting” and “satire” to me as though I have seriously never heard of those words before.

so yeah, lots of people (coincidentally disproportionately White men) aren’t really as interested in anti-racism as much as they are in defending alleged White knights and the status quo, even to the point of attacking the very PoC who they are supposedly “defending”

So this is what typically happens to minorities and Asian ppl like @Suey_Park who won’t blindly endorse White hegemony and instead try to speak their own truth:

The message here is, “we can all fight racism, just so long as White people get to define what is and isn’t offensive to minorities…because satire

Please see also: misogyofeminists

Yes, dickhead, you and White people are the ~*only*~ ones in the entire universe—the chosen few—who understand the concept of satire

SMDH…

we all get it, Colbert was trying to use ironic racism to deride Dan Snyder —but there’s also a concept that says that the ends don’t always justify the means - why would a White person even feel so free to use language that is offensive to Asian Americans…to show that racism against Native Americans is wrong? Especially when he isn’t a member of either group?

look, there’s a BIG problem when marginalized groups are continually (often tacitly) told that the *only* voices in the anti-racism struggle that we should value and listen to are the White people who disproportionately dominate spaces that they are not even members of 

and I could go on, but if you’re honestly more interested in genuine anti-racism than just  closing ranks & blindly circling the wagons, then this post ➤right HERE explains it far better than I could (no rly…read ➤this post in it’s entirety before anyone even thinks about coming at me on this again)

Author Joan Walsh on her book, What’s The Matter With White People and the notion that minorities get handouts while whites work hard.

JW: Far too many white Americans – especially those who do not come from wealth or privilege – don’t understand the extent to which they’ve had help. There are so many fault lines in the GOP theory of individualism, self-reliance and this latest rhetoric of “we built this.” White men, in particular, have enjoyed a de facto affirmative action for centuries, but even [white] women’s suffrage in the 1920s did very little for women of color.

I’m not a sociologist, but I believe that the liberal left often focus too much on the racist, white fringe in our society. We must stop that. Instead let’s educate people who aren’t racist, yet remain ignorant and ill-informed. History matters. There is a terrible tendency to see every black person who gets an Ivy League degree as having gotten help getting there, but whites somehow “deserve” it. Our society, culture and media all participate in that misguided narrative.

Watch on blog.worshiptheglitch.com

Chris Matthews Skewers Tea Party Express Co-Founder Over Michele Bachmann’s Speech

You need to watch this. Even more ridiculous than Bachmann, who is ignorant enough to fearlessly propagate her lies, is Tea Party Express co-founder Sal Russo, who clearly knows better.

See also:

salon.com
Why Mitt Romney Will Never Be President

- by Joan Walsh at Salon.com

So here’s what happened:

  • BEFORE the attack in Benghazi (Libya) that killed 4 American public servants, the US Embassy in Cairo (Egypt) released a statement in response to an anti-Islam film on YouTube in a attempt to “ reduce tensions inflamed by the hate-speech of Terry Jones and his Muslim-hating supporters.”
Their statement:

“The United States Embassy in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.” 

  • The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was attacked, resulting in the death of 4 Americans. 
  • Mitt Romney tells a horrific lie. 
From his comments:

I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

NOTE: He’s referring to the statement released by the US Embassy in Cairo (not the Obama Administration or the State Department) before this attack had taken place. 
  • The next day, Romney was asked to correct his statement. He did not.

“When our grounds are being attacked and being breached, the first response should be outrage.”  “Apology for America’s values will never be the right course. We express immediately when we feel that the President and his administration have done something which is inconsistent with the principles of America.” 

From Joan Walsh’s piece at Salon:

So Romney wasn’t criticizing Obama’s Libya policy with his statement. He was lying. He was making cheap political points out of the killings of four American public servants. From his tin-eared criticism of our closest ally during the Olympics, to his bluster on sensitive dealings with China and Iran, to his failure to even mention troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq during his Tampa speech, Romney is proving he would be a disaster as president.



thenation.com
Why I’m Supporting Hillary Clinton, With Joy and Without Apologies
I got to spend last week in France talking—and not writing—about the 2016 presidential election. It turned out to be a gift: a week of distance from the feverish, trashy tumult of American politicking on the eve of the first vote in Iowa. I’ve come to feel passion for Clinton herself, and for the movement that supports her. By Joan WalshTwitter Yesterday 1:18 pm

I got to spend last week in France talking—and not writing—about the 2016 presidential election. It turned out to be a gift: a week of distance from the feverish, trashy tumult of American politicking on the eve of the first vote in Iowa. I hate this point in our election cycle, when pundits fill up the silence compulsively, anxious to get in as many misguided predictions as possible while no actual voters are available yet to prove us wrong.

Invited by the French Institute for International Relations to join its Annual Conference on the United States in Paris, along with my new friend Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review, I went on to address several classrooms of university students in Toulouse. I got the most questions about Donald Trump, of course, but the Hillary Clinton–Bernie Sanders race was a close second. French students are excited to know there’s an actual socialist in the race; female French students are worried that Clinton could lose, yet again. “Do you think women—especially women—are ready to vote for a woman?” a young woman in Toulouse asked me nervously.

After 40 years of voting for male presidents, I’m supporting Hillary with excitement, even joy.

“Yes,” I told her. Then I added, reassuringly: “Yes, we are.” Faced with her anxiety—and I admit I could be projecting across cultures here—I did something in France I don’t often do at home: I came out of the closet as a full-fledged Hillary Clinton supporter. And this time, as opposed to 2008, I’m backing her without apology, as the right and even radical choice. More than without apology; after 40 years of voting for male presidents, I’m supporting Hillary with excitement, even joy.

Had I not declared myself last week, in a Toulouse university lecture hall, I’d have probably done it here anyway, after watching the CNN Democratic presidential town-hall meeting Monday night. The town hall itself was great; Clinton, Sanders, and Martin O’Malley all looked admirable and presidential, in contrast to their awful Republican rivals. Democrats have a lot to be excited about this year.

But one moment got me particularly excited, and not in a good way. It came when a young white man—entitled, pleased with himself, barely shaving yet—broke the news to Clinton that his generation is with Bernie Sanders. “I just don’t see the same enthusiasm from younger people for you. In fact, I’ve heard from quite a few people my age that they think you’re dishonest. But I’d like to hear from you on why you feel the enthusiasm isn’t there.”

LIKE THIS? GET MORE OF OUR BEST REPORTING AND ANALYSIS

“I’d like to hear from you on why you feel the enthusiasm isn’t there.” I’m not sure I can unpack all the condescension in that question. I heard a disturbing echo of the infamous 2008 New Hampshire debate moment when a moderator asked Clinton: “What can you say to the voters of New Hampshire on this stage tonight, who see a resume and like it, but are hesitating on the likability issue?” Yes, the “likability” issue. I found myself thinking: Not again. Why the hell does she have to put up with this again?

My problem wasn’t merely with the insulting personal tone of the question. It was also the way the young man anointed himself the voice of his generation, and declared it the Sanders generation. Now, I know Bernie is leading among millennials by a lot right now in the polls. Nonetheless, millions of millennials, including millions of young women, are supporting Hillary Clinton. And my daughter, as Nation readers know, is one of them. I find it increasingly galling to see her and her friends erased in this debate.


When I’ve disclosed that my daughter works for Clinton—in The Nation, on MSNBC, and on social media—we’ve both come in for trolling so vile it’s made me not merely defensive of her. It’s forced me to recognize how little society respects the passion of the many young women—and men—who are putting their souls into electing the first female president. It’s one thing to note that Sanders is winning among millennials; that’s true. It’s another to impugn the competence and dignity of the literally millions of millennials who support Clinton. Social-media trolls have had several fascinating and stunningly sexist reactions to the news of my daughter’s position. Obviously, she can’t be competent; I must have gotten her the job (in fact, she got it through a high-school friend who worked for Clinton and recommended her.) Obviously, she can’t think for herself; I must have indoctrinated her to support Clinton over Sanders. Or the flip side: Obviously, I have no integrity, and I support Clinton over Sanders only because my daughter is on her payroll.

Watching people trash your daughter on social media isn’t fun. It got worse when Hillary Clinton’s Twitter account retweeted her, and worse again when she tweeted about Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards, a woman she admires, in the wake of the group’s controversial decision to endorse Clinton. It turns out Richards’s daughter works for Clinton as well, and that began a new round of insults to both our daughters. Either they were beneficiaries of our nepotism, or they somehow used their influence to corrupt their dimwit mothers into ignoring Sanders’s obviously superior feminist qualifications. It is interesting to me that none of the ladies—not Clinton, not me nor my daughter, not Richards nor her daughter—are credited with competence or integrity when the Berniebot keyboard warriors break it all down.

Which brings me to another reason I’ve felt compelled in the last week to come out publicly and forcefully for Clinton, which is Sanders’s dismissing Planned Parenthood’s endorsement (and that of NARAL Pro-Choice America) by labeling them part of the “establishment.” I appreciated Sanders supporter Kathy Geier’s acknowledgment here in The Nation that her candidate once again came off as tone-deaf on an issue of gender. Yet Geier seconded Sanders’s assertion that these two groups fighting for reproductive justice deserve to be termed “establishment”—and therefore unfavorably compared to the upstart, grassroots, and genuinely radical groups that back Sanders.

There are few issues as radical as advancing the reproductive autonomy of women.

I just don’t see it that way. I think there are few issues as radical as advancing the reproductive autonomy of women. And I think it’s hard to be truly establishment when dangerous men are shooting up your clinics, and the Republican Congress is persistently voting to strip you of your funding. Yes, Planned Parenthood and NARAL have worked hard to become respected political players in the last 30 years, because the women they represent need political clout, not just services. But I’m old enough to remember when feminists were told that our issues—“cultural” issues like abortion and contraception—were costing Democrats elections, so couldn’t we pipe down for a little while? Now we’re the establishment?            

           


Just like my lefty friends who praise Sanders for loudly promoting the single-payer solution to healthcare because it’s important to raise the issue’s standing and profile, I praise Clinton for making repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which bars Medicaid from paying for abortion for poor women, a major public campaign issue. I acknowledge Sanders has voted the right way, and I’m grateful for it. But Clinton is leading on it, the same way she brought up the vile Planned Parenthood video hoax in the very first Democratic debate. That leadership matters to me. Also: Cecile Richards is a longtime progressive activist who won the 2010 Nation/Puffin prize for creative citizenship; NARAL’s Ilyse Hogue is on The Nation’s editorial board; before she joined NARAL she was director of political advocacy and communications for MoveOn.org, one of the Sanders-supporting organizations that’s being promoted as more authentically progressive than the “establishment” NARAL. These women are now supposed to be our establishment enemy, according to Sanders partisans? This is getting silly.

Finally, I’m struck by the insistence among Sanders supporters that Democrats who support Clinton—and right now, we are still the majority—are doing so joylessly, like party automatons. On Monday, on my Facebook page, where a lot of my close friends are supporting Sanders, three people I love shared the same op-ed by Republican operative Alex Castellanos, which purported to explain why Clinton’s campaign “sags” (get it?) while Sanders “surges.” This is the same Castellanos, by the way, who defended calling Hillary Clinton a “white bitch” during the 2008 campaign, when Jeffrey Toobin complained about it. “Some women, by the way, are named that, and it’s accurate,” he said smoothly. Trust me: If Castellanos had used a racial slur against Obama eight years ago—”Some black men, by the way, are named [N-word, or your slur du jour], and it’s accurate,” for instance—no progressive would be enthusiastically touting his views on the 2016 Democratic campaign. Not one. Could I really be the only one who remembered his ugly sexist attack on Clinton?

I’ve always admired Sanders, but I happen to think he has more than a tin-ear on gender.

Eight years ago, I found myself drawn into the media vortex, standing up for Clinton in the face of extraordinary media bias and sexism of the type Castellanos typified. I styled myself as a Clinton defender, not exactly a supporter, partly for journalistic reasons, and partly because I was genuinely torn about not supporting the amazing African-American senator running in the primary against her. This time, I feel a slight twinge of regret that I’m not supporting the socialist in the race—I want to do it for my old friend Jimmy Weinstein, the late founder of In These Times, where I once worked—but it’s not at all the same. Yet I’m being told it should be, that once again the historic quest of the first front-running female presidential candidate should take a backseat to another historic crusade, that of our first Brooklyn-born Jewish socialist.

I’ve always admired Sanders, but I happen to think he has more than a tin-ear on gender. He routinely talks about “mothers” needing family leave, and he doesn’t even seem to try to substitute the now-customary (on the left, anyway) “he or she” or “him or her” into his speeches. I noted that Monday night, when he declared “I believe that every kid in this country who has the ability and the desire should be able to get a higher education regardless of the income of his family.” For making this observation, I’m still being told I’m a PC shrew on social media two days later. Bernie is building a movement, we’re told (with little evidence of lasting organization, by the way), but it’s a movement whose loudest advocates are entitled young men who heap the vilest abuse on women who don’t deign to join it. To his credit, Sanders rapid response director has seen the online abuse, and warned on Twitter Monday night: “If you follow Bernie Sanders, please follow the senator’s lead and be respectful when people disagree with you.” Still, the larger message to Clinton supporters is that our demand for equal representation at the highest level of government at last, by a supremely qualified woman who is thoroughly progressive if not a socialist, must sadly wait. Again.

I won’t wait. I’m supporting Clinton, joyfully and without apologies. That’s not the same as without reservations; I continue to wonder whether she’ll be more hawkish on foreign policy than is advised in these dangerous times. I’m concerned that she’s too close to Wall Street; I really wish she hadn’t given those six-figure talks to Goldman Sachs. But I genuinely believe she’ll make the best president. My colleagues at The Nation know this, and when the editors decided to endorse Sanders, I was graciously offered a chance to write a brief for Clinton. (We have also agreed that I won’t cover the Clinton/Sanders race in Iowa, or anywhere my daughter works next.) I declined to respond to the endorsement; after all, I contributed to the magazine’s excellent “Who’s Ready For Hillary?” feature last year; our readers know what I think.

I’m tired of seeing Clinton confronted by entitled men weighing in on her personal honesty and likability.

But then I reread that piece and realized: No, they don’t. I was actually kind of horrified at my careful, qualified quasi-endorsement. I wrote it much the way I wrote about Clinton in 2008: defensively. Here’s the gist: “My willingness to accept Clinton as a Democratic presidential nominee doesn’t stem from any great passion for Hillary herself—though I respect her—but from my aversion to the impotent game of ‘Let’s find an insurgent candidate who will topple a centrist front-runner!’ played by the left every four to eight years.”

I don’t feel that way anymore. I’ve come to feel passion for Clinton herself, and for what I see as a movement that supports her, even though only Sanders is judged a “movement” candidate. I believe she’s evolved back to be the progressive Democrat she used to be, more progressive than her liberal husband. Some of my feelings remain defensive, but in a warmer sense: I really don’t want to see her abused again. I’m tired of seeing her confronted by entitled men weighing in on her personal honesty and likability, treating the most admired woman in the world like a woman who’s applying to be his secretary. I’m stunned anew by the misogyny behind the attacks on her, and her female supporters, including my daughter. I’m sick of the way so many Sanders supporters, most of them men, feel absolutely no compunction to see things through female Clinton supporters’ eyes, or to worry they might have to court us down the road, take special care not to alienate us lest we sit the race out in November, if our candidate loses.

Of course we won’t do that; we’re women! We’re trained to think about everybody else’s needs first. It’s not just that: women will be hurt the most by a GOP presidency. Naturally, I will back Sanders if he’s the nominee. I promise I’ll eventually feel joy about it—after grieving, if Clinton were to lose again. But if that were to happen, it wouldn’t be because I was too busy protecting my lefty bona fides to say I support her, enthusiastically, this time around. I stand with a lot of women who feel the same way, including my daughter, and we won’t be erased.

6

The Weekly WORD, Brooklyn

  • You sure know a lot about baseball…for a girl. On Wednesday, March 12th, at 7 p.m., we’ll talk America’s pastime with author Caryn Rose (B-Sides and Broken Hearts, Raise Your Hand) in honor of her new book, A Whole New Ballgame. Caryn will be joined by Joan Walsh (Splash Hit, Salon), Taryn Cooper (of Gal For All Seasons), and Diane Firstman (Value Over Replacement Grit). Kimberly Austin of Rock Book Show will moderate. Batter up, readers; this one’s a home run; a grand slam of an evening…and all other baseball puns! But seriously, join us; this is going to be great.
  • Friday, March 14th, at 7 p.m., WORD Brooklyn will be celebrating its 7th anniversary (!!!) with special guests Mohsin Hamid (How to Get Filthy Rich in Rising Asia) and Anya Ulnich (Petropolis). They’ll talk the wide world of international fiction, as well as recommend some of their favorites. There’s a big, big world in our little store. Explore it!
  • On Saturday, March 15th, we’ll host meetings from two of our book groups. At 1 p.m., YA Not?, our young adult book group for all ages, will meet to discuss The Impossible Knife of Memory by Laurie Halse Anderson. Then, at 3 p.m., our British Lit Book Group will talk Observatory Mansions by Edward Carey. As always, book group picks are 10% off in-store.
  • Sunday, March 16th, at 11 a.m., we’ll chase the cold season away with a seasonal story time. Author Christina Pastor and illustrator Kate Nielsen invite kids of all ages to join them for a reading of their book Everybody Gets the Flu. Ah-Ah Achoo! Just kidding. Flu season is over.

Next up, next up: Saul Austerlitz on I Love Lucy, and science both real and imagined with Cecil Castellucci. Good work team.  

McCain Calls Obama A Coward, Joan Walsh Reminds Us That McCain Cowardly Chose Palin To Appease Conservative Base (VIDEO)

McCain Calls Obama A Coward, Joan Walsh Reminds Us That McCain Cowardly Chose Palin To Appease Conservative Base (VIDEO)

External image

It’s probably the worst decision John McCain ever made, and he should continue to be uncomfortably reminded of it every time he opens his mouth.

Such was the case during a broadcast of PoliticsNation on MSNBC, when contributor Joan Walsh appeared on the program to discuss deplorable remarks made by John McCain in a recent interview with Sean Hannity.

McCain accused President Obama of being a…

View On WordPress

Made with WordPress
salon.com
Ferguson’s booming white grievance industry: Fox News, Darren Wilson and friends

Not surprisingly, a thriving franchise of the nation’s booming white grievance industry has opened up in Ferguson, Mo. over the last week.  It’s worth examining closely. As usual, it consists of two parts lies, one part paranoia, but at its heart it’s a big grift.

The weekend featured multiple protests supporting Darren Wilson, the missing Ferguson police officer who shot an unarmed Mike Brown on Aug. 9. His superiors apparently withheld Wilson’s name long enough for him to delete all social media accounts and skip town, but his supporters are declaring Wilson, not Brown, the victim here. A GoFundMe site raising funds for Wilson’s defense – though he’s not been charged with anything – garnered not only $250,000 in donations, but so many ugly racist rants GoFundMe administrators had to disable comments for the site. (They’ll have no trouble taking a cut of the racists’ money, of course.) Wilson’s supporters say they’ve raised $374,000 online and at local events, “to support his family,” one woman told MSNBC.

Why, besides racism, are Wilson’s supporters so convinced of his innocence? Well, any good grift will involve a hoax or two, to gin up the sense of outrage. First there was “Josie,” a purported friend of Wilson’s who called into a radio show helmed by gun-loving wing-nut Dana Loesch to tell Wilson’s side of the story. “Josie” insisted that Brown attacked Wilson, grabbed his gun, and the terrified cop shot only in self-defense. The problem? The details were almost identical to those shared on a fake Facebook page set up to look like Wilson’s own. But before the tale could be debunked, not only Fox but CNN had reported on “Josie’s” tale with some credulity. As karoli notes over at Crooks and Liars, it’s not clear whether Loesch was punked, or was in on the punking.



Then we saw right-wing blogger Jim Hoft, named “the dumbest man on the Internet” by Media Matters, peddling a phony X-ray or CT scan purporting to show that Wilson suffered a fractured eye socket scuffling with Brown. Unfortunately, a little sleuthing revealed the image in question came from a facility at the University of Iowa and had nothing to do with the Ferguson case. Oops. Of course Fox ran with the story, but ABC News also reported that Wilson had suffered a “serious facial injury,” claiming its own local source.

Of course Ferguson’s white grievance industry is getting major help from Fox News, the grievance industry’s biggest grifters. It’s funny, a couple of weeks ago Attorney General Eric Holder spent a few days as Fox’s favorite administration figure, with Bill O’Reilly and the crew at The Five piously instructing Ferguson protesters to trust the attorney general, who had taken over the inquiry into Mike Brown’s shooting. No more. On Friday’s “Five” Andrea Tantaros declared that Holder “runs that DOJ like the Black Panthers would,” while the whole team endorsed her claim that the attorney general is “race-baiting.”

Fox has peddled every allegation of wrongdoing by Mike Brown from the beginning of the story. On Fox and Friends Monday morning, Linda Chavez argued that the media should stop calling the teenager “unarmed” because “we’re talking about an 18-year-old man who is six foot four and weighs almost three hundred pounds, who is videotaped just moments before the confrontation with a police officer strong arming an employee and robbing a convenience store.” So Mike Brown can’t be considered unarmed because…he had arms?

It’s worth noting the way the phony information and paranoia peddled by well-known, oft-discredited right-wing media activists like Hoft and Loesch makes its way into the mainstream media ecosphere, again and again. CNN media critic Brian Stelter called out Fox this weekend for peddling the fractured eye socket story, and good for him, but to my knowledge he didn’t rap his own network for peddling the phony “Josie” story. The right’s influence on big stories like this can be more subtle and insidious: who believes the New York Times would have stooped to calling Mike Brown “no angel” – the evidence? He’d been in some “scuffles” and had “taken to rapping” – without the right wing braying about Brown’s stealing cigarillos and making up stories that he did even worse?

All that media support fanned the flames of white paranoia that manifested in the pro-Wilson activities back in Ferguson and St. Louis. You could see the trademark combination of innocence, fear and near-hysteria that powers the white grievance industry. “We will no longer live in fear,” one woman told The Guardian, as though a white person had been gunned down, not an unarmed black teenager. “We’ll all see this in the end that it was a good shooting,” a Wilson supporter named Tina Morrison told Buzzfeed, more than a little creepily. “You know, it was a good kill.” Unlike Morrison, most Wilson supporters refused to tell journalists their names, claiming they fear retribution at the hands of Brown’s defenders.

That paranoia about retribution is shared by the backers of Wilson’s GoFundMe project. It’s organized by Shield of Hope, a “charitable organization” that lists Ferguson Police Department public relations officer Timothy Zoll and Missouri State Rep. Jeffrey Roorda as directors. Roorda became nationally known for a 2009 bill that tried to keep the name of police officers involved in shootings private, because “releasing a name could put someone in grave jeopardy,” he explained.

Of course Mike Brown was the one in “grave jeopardy” in his clash with Darren Wilson. So far Wilson’s shrill supporters have raised an estimated $374,000 for a man who hasn’t been charged with a crime, who never produced an incident report of his confrontation with Brown, and who’s consistently been protected by his superiors. Meanwhile, they’ve outraised supporters of the Brown family, and they’ll likely raise more. The white grievance industry is getting good at this.

h/t: Joan Walsh at Salon