Sharron's angle ...

Puns before 8am & caffeine ... always dangerous.

I have a question. Your critique of the Angle illegal-immigration ad brings up an interesting point. I've seen the ad a few times (it just aired seconds before I clicked "new post", ironically enough). And at first I must admit I was rather surprised she put clearly Latino (presumably Mexican) men, complete with neck tattoos & bandannas (posing for a mug shot no less) in the commercial. And true, for about 5 seconds (all other images are of Harry Reid & Mexico's President) those images are juxtaposed against a white teacher & school children (boys and girls). And while I think the Wilson endorsed Birth of A Nation comparison is a stretch, I see what you're saying. For those historically aware it can be reminiscent of ads run in newspapers decades ago, which focused around a disturbing message that the result of black civil rights (lower case "civil", this predates the 60's) would be to put "white women" in danger of hoards of black males, whom were portrayed in these cartoonish images as almost sub-human, roaming the streets. But here's a thought ...

We're big here on "accuracy", right? Statistics, history, etc, we prize getting it "right." Titus even takes this to annoying extremes at times. My point being, throughout the South West there is a huge law enforcement problem with a Mexican street gang named "MS-13", which rose from petty thuggery to a region-wide organized crime syndicate. They don't have the Italian suits, nor old school "rules" about civilians and reporters, but they are organized nonetheless, and viscious. Beheadings, drug running, coyote rings, human sex trafficking. And to the member, they look like the mug shot posing gents in Sharron's ad. They are a clear and present danger to border states, and although their ranks are swollen with legals and non legals alike, their illicit income is unquestionably tied to a porous border. And the majority of residents in these border states do happen to be white. So ... is Angle's ad, while probably in bad taste, not defensible as at least "accurate", if one is to point out the ill effects of a Ried border agenda (or lack of one)? Personally, were I to advise her on the ad, I would have insisted that Latino victims be portrayed as well, as they are undoubtedly the highest percentage victims of these gangs (as is the case in almost any minority dominated crime, they hurt people of their own race the most). But again, I ask, is it not an "accurate" ad?

I'm not trying to be cute here, I'm just curious. In an era when political correctness can cost you your job, shun you from society & prevent common sense anti-terrorism measures, I'm merely trying to establish a demarcation line between that which is clearly bigoted and that which is clearly accurate. I mean, if any politician wants to shoot a commercial about illegal immigration are they required now by the rules of PC to NOT include anyone "Hispanic looking" in the ad? That seems a bit ridiculous to me. It is a border with Mexico after all. Do the rules of PC prevent us from acknowledging even that? Do they preclude the legitimacy of my even asking the question?