This is Braswell’s opinion. The other members of Free State Radio may or may not share my opinion in this matters.
This is also subject to grammatical editing. I wanted to get this posted before our show tonight.
The Anthony Cumia Affair, as I have come to call it, hit harder than I thought. Over the course of last week, I spent my time watching a sea of humanity in Myrtle Beach, arriving the same day SiriusXM handed Cumia his walking papers. Instead of relaxing and enjoying my beach time, hoisting enough cocktails into the air to make even the hardiest of Brazilian soccer fans smile, I’ve been debating whether I should address this situation given its inflammatory nature. Sure. Why the hell not.
No, this is not a First Amendment issue. We can put that to rest. SiriusXM fired Cumia and will likely owe him the rest of the money due under his current contract. I’m sure there’s no morality clause in the employment agreement given the fact Howard Stern remains employed.
So, what is this? Why am I so fervent about Cumia’s firing? It has to do with the spirit of what happened, what our country has devolved into. I’m going to take this step-by-step. It’s easier that way.
The Media’s Role
It starts with how it came to pass. Some hipster named Aleksander Chan from Gawker Media – a notorious liberal “news” operation that caters to bedwetters and thirty-year-old men who still hug their Care Bears – saw an opportunity with Cumia’s angry comments on Twitter. The new media parasite stung with his tiny little pincers and cost Cumia his job.
Let’s look even deeper.
Chan likely followed Cumia on Twitter. That’s right. He elected to follow Cumia. This isn’t a case where Cumia took to a stage erected in the middle of Times Square and shouted his viewpoints to everyone. This was to his followers, people who likely listen to him on a daily basis.
What does this tell me? Chan wanted to dig up a story (likely to boost his blog totals for the ridiculous low amount Gawker pays per post). He’s almost like insurance salesmen, getting paid for bulk rather than quality. There was no other reason for him to follow Cumia. His politics didn’t match up with Cumia. He obviously wasn’t a fan.
Like a snake in the grass, Chan waited for an opportunity to twist a man’s words to fit his agenda. To hell with context. To hell with the truth. Don’t believe me? Look at Chan’s post.
There’s something even more telling. Chan drove the narrative. He explicitly stated, “Cumia then took to Twitter – for hours – for a racist, violent tirade.” The media clung to Chan’s words, especially the term savage, and ran with it without addressing Cumia. They created the narrative that Cumia cast a large net over the entire black population in America.
Notice also how Chan not only ignored Cumia, but he affirmatively asked SiriusXM to “comment on the situation.” You think he might’ve slipped in a “what do you think about Anthony Cumia’s violent and racist tweets.” Sounds like awesome reporting.
But what did Cumia say when finally given a chance to address his comments? During Fox’s Red Eye this past Friday, Cumia said he was referring to a violent culture, a culture that uses violence first instead of other means to approach a confrontation. He even stated that in the tweets that people twisted. Makes perfect sense to me. FBI statistics included. But more on that later.
Another curious item was the media – including Chan – disregarding the fact that Cumia was attacked and the victim of racism. Cumia stated she called him a “white motherfucker.” Was that ever brought up? No. Was the fact he was hit ever brought up? No. The media completely ignored it in its “open and honest conversation.” Chan didn’t see the need to address it in his post either. Very telling of his agenda.
But when Anthony brought it up again on Twitter, I read several posts from people dismissing the use of “white motherfucker.” Many claimed that Anthony made it up, or that she had every right to lash out at him because he was taken unwarranted pictures (despite it being in a public place). Notice also that they condoned violence as a means to address Cumia’s behavior.
Now, I’m sure this same community of hate-filled people would never, and I mean NEVER, be hypocrites. They would surely apply the same level of proof to all instances of racism.
Even more, I’m sure this same community of people would dismiss any claims of racial violence.
Seriously, look at the comments under the story I linked to. It’s borderline absurd what people will back when race is involved. Sad, really. It’s the reality we live in these days.
The above example in a nutshell is everything that is wrong with the distorted media these days, and even bigger, what’s wrong with our bullshit PC society. There’s more scumbag Internet website cowboys who don’t do proper reporting, instead looking for shock value.
I could write more, but I don’t want to bore you to death. I want to address something as, if not more, important than the media’s reaction – Cumia’s choice of words.
First, let’s review Cumia’s tweets (paraphrasing, of course)
“So, I’m taking pix in NYC & a black girl who was in frame punched me in the face. I called her a fucking “&$;;-;” cause that’s what she WAS! Then she punched me 5 more times. She’s lucky I was a white legal gun owner or she’d be dead. Then 5 blacks started giving me shit! I told them to back the fuck off, this wasn’t their show. The cunt then punched me again. Seems white boys don’t hit back. Lucky savage…Im fucking livid. If I was an illegal savage I’d have shot her….It’s a jungle out in our cities after midnight. Violent savages own the streets. They all came 2 defend this pig. I had to yell like at dogs…the automatic jump to violence in that community is astounding. No discussion. It’s start punching at the least little thing. Uncivilized!” – Anthony Cumia
There’s more. But you get he gist. Let’s leave it at that.
Was it brutal? Absolutely.
Was it honest? Yep.
Were words taken out of context? Damn straight.
This is what happens when we’re angry. Everyone is guilty of it. And sometimes we’re brutally honest. I only think Gandhi and Mother Theresa could’ve resisted the urge to say things in anger.
That’s not what I’m getting at though. I think it’s more important to address the absolute truth in Cumia’s statements and the fact he was dubbed a violent racist for addressing a situation. If we’re really going to have an “open and honest” discussion, then let’s have a damned open and honest discussion.
There is without a doubt a culture of violence within the inner city. I live close enough to Baltimore City and have poured over crime statistics to know this. Black on black crime and black on white crime is at ridiculous levels. But Cumia was dubbed a racist because he addressed it? Really? Because he called them savages?
To be blunt, that’s fucking ridiculous. Why? Let’s read a quote from one of my favorite authors, one of the men who influenced the founding of this country.
“I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction; for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred; and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same person that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of common law of reason; have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.” – John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter III.
Did John Locke really call people who rush to violence dangerous and noxious creatures? Abso-freakin-utely. Because it’s true. People who rush to violence are guided by something far more primitive than what modern society should accept. They are savages. I could go on and quote Aristotle and his idea of living in the polis, but that would spin some of your heads. The fact remains that Cumia was attacked for the same idea Locke espoused. Odd, if you think about it.
It’s true that there is a problem with violence in the black inner city community, just like there’s a problem with Oxycontin and SSD abuse in Appalachia, and just like there’s a similar problem of violence with inner city citizens in England (Read Life at the Bottom by Thomas Dalrymple – See, I’m being fair.) And until we can have an honest and open discussion about it, it’ll never be solved. But that’s not the point of this post. The point is Cumia was fired for a bullshit reason and one that the media drove without being checked.
It should be noted that the reaction of certain people was automatic guilt on Cumia’s part. Aren’t some of these the same people who ‘fought’ against unjust rulings? Seems awfully hypocritical.
In the end, this is the type of garbage that creates a slippery slope. We live in a society governed by the PC police. You can’t as so much look at someone the wrong way without being labeled as one of those disastrous terms we all scowl at, the type that can now ruin your career because someone’s feelings might get hurt.
Words. They’re only stupid words.
Should we allow the blessed media to drive the conversation? Oh, I don’t know. I’m sure they have everyone’s best interests in mind.