Is Obama a Political Genius?
(Or Was he Just in the Right Place, at the Right Time in ’08?)
During the fall campaign and into the first months of Barack Obama’s Administration we heard much about this Democrat’s “political genius.” And while I credit him with a powerful presence and a way with words (especially when speaking those appearing on a teleprompter), after watching his first eight months in office, I don’t see much evidence of that genius.
In the campaign, he had precisely the right slogan for the time, “change.” During the financial crisis, he demonstrated the right demeanor for the job at hand, calmness (especially in contrast to the erratic behavior of his rival for the White House).
But, as President, few of his moves seem particularly skillful. He had outsourced the drafting of his Administration’s policy initiatives to Congress. And when they present their packages to them, he often just puts his stamp of approval on them, even if he had little say in their drafting. He may increasingly come to be seen as a creature of Congress. And those folks aren’t particularly popular.
I just wonder why he, like his predecessor, constantly caves into the legislative branch, not asserting his executive authority, particularly when he was polling (in his first few weeks in office) in the stratosphere. Can you imagine how he would have flummoxed Republicans, if when Democrats presented him with the $787 billion “stimulus,” he had said that he understood Republican concerns about the cost and thought they should send him a new bill, including only expenditures for the current fiscal year and promised to revisit the other provisions of the bill should they become necessary. (And if they sent back the same bill or one with only slight modifications, well, he’d veto it.)
He might not have secured all the handouts to favored interest groups, but he would have defined himself as a powerful force in Washington and appeared to be the man he claimed to be in his campaign. And might even have a few Republicans praising him for standing up to a spendthrift Congress, while winning media accolades for listening to Republicans.
And showing strength by offering to veto a big spending bill.
88 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
A community organizer, a state senator, served one year of a us senators term before running for office.
Who had less life experience or qualifications to be President than BHO? As a history buff I’m going to look into it.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 21, 2009 @ 9:23 pm - September 21, 2009
Barack won because leftists, blacks, and young people thought it would be cool to have a black president. And that’s it.
Here’s the truth about the “racist” thing. What’s really happening is that the black community is unwilling to take a look at itself (much like the gay community). It doesn’t want to admit that its members are at fault for creating the image of black people as sexually irresponsible, education-hating, drug using, violent criminals. The reason the black community has that image is because there is a large segment of black people who reinforce that image. Did you see any black people go down to New Orleans after Katrina and help rebuild?
Many people are tired of blacks acting like victims when they could get off their asses, get a job, get married, go to school, and maybe even give their children normal names. But blacks believe they deserve special treatment. And Obama will give it to them. One of the motivations for universal health care is a kind of reparation for slavery–if they have health insurance, they never have to work. If they get subsidized housing, they never have to work.
So, many non-blacks are sick of this violent, lazy, uneducated, drugged-up, sexually irresponsible subgroup of society complaining about being victims and wanting the government to take care of them.
But, of course, that’s a racist attitude. It has to be racist–it holds blacks accountable. People are racist because they believe blacks can be better than this subgroup.
P.S. I could say the exact same thing about gays.
Comment by Ashpenaz — September 21, 2009 @ 10:54 pm - September 21, 2009
Ash…You almost sound like a Red Neck!!! However, I appreciate your honesty and concise dialogue. Some of your content is a bit edgy but, I like the well thought out blog.
Comment by Duffy - Native Intelligence — September 21, 2009 @ 11:19 pm - September 21, 2009
OMFG. Ash, “the truth about the black community”, AND “the gay community” and every other conceivable kind of alleged community, is that none of them exist because WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS.
Cut the stereotyping “they” groupthink…. puh-leez!!! You haven’t spoken the truth about anyone here!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 21, 2009 @ 11:42 pm - September 21, 2009
P.S. If you must group people and evaluate them, please at least do it on matters of choice, like actions (e.g., the group “murderers”) or professed convictions (e.g., the group “fascists”). Not things that are inborn (and therefore morally irrelevant).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 21, 2009 @ 11:50 pm - September 21, 2009
P.P.S. and I’ll stop: Grouping and evaluating people on their inborn traits is… what leftists do.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 21, 2009 @ 11:52 pm - September 21, 2009
(see? “leftists” being an *ideological* and behavioral grouping)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 21, 2009 @ 11:53 pm - September 21, 2009
Apologies – Still not done.
No, Ash. The following quotation would be a racist attitude:
Hint: THOUSANDS of people went down to New Orleans after Katrina and helped rebuild, some of them black. That you could seriously suggest there could not have been “any black people” among them… yikes! Reprehensible!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 22, 2009 @ 12:05 am - September 22, 2009
#2
“But, of course, that’s a racist attitude’
The one and only sentence in your screed that I agree with.
For shame…
Comment by Tano — September 22, 2009 @ 1:41 am - September 22, 2009
I gotta go with Ash on this one, ILC, save that one comment about N.O. I’m not so sure that he’s saying that there is a black community or a gay community as such. Rather, he’s referring to the communities that they believe exist.
I could be wrong and agreeing with Ash slightly differently, but for the most part, he’s correct.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 22, 2009 @ 1:47 am - September 22, 2009
I would add that I think a high percentage of whites who voted for him did so out of White Guilt. That or because he was the candidate and the rest didn’t matter a damn.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 22, 2009 @ 1:48 am - September 22, 2009
“Change” was also a slogan of Bill Clinton’s in 1992. It doesn’t take a political genius to figure out that “Change” is going to win votes when the other party has been in the White House for 8 or 12 years.
Geraldine Ferraro and Joe Biden had it exactly right about Obama during the campaign. Biden said, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s storybook, man.” Ferraro said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.” In other words, Obama was an affirmative action candidate. The American electorate then made him an affirmative action president.
I would argue that of all the presidents ever elected to office, only Abraham Lincoln had a resume as thin as Obama’s, and something tells me Obama is no Abraham Lincoln.
Comment by Conservative Guy — September 22, 2009 @ 2:47 am - September 22, 2009
Is there anything he didn’t recycle from Clinton? Or anybody else, for that matter?
The electorate or the media?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 22, 2009 @ 4:11 am - September 22, 2009
Conservative Guy, Lincoln actually did have some accomplishments in his law practice (one indeed was the subject of a celebrated John Ford movie, starring Henry Fonda, Young Mr. Lincoln. And he was involved in serious debates to set the set the agenda of the then-nascent Republican Party, offering substantive suggestions on not just on the strategy it should pursue, but also on the policies it should adopt.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — September 22, 2009 @ 5:30 am - September 22, 2009
I don’t believe that Obama is caving in to Congress. Rather, it’s the other way around. By naming so many “Czars” who are not subject to either Congressional scrutiny (read “vetting”) or oversight, he is moving to work around Congress and utterly ignore them. This is in direct violation of both the language and intent of the Constitution by removing the checks and balance design in the Constitution. He is smoothly replacing the legislative branch with the executive branch. Soon, it will be moot who we vote into or out of Congress. So, the elections of 2010 and 2012 are perhaps the most important to date in our country’s history.
Comment by Mary — September 22, 2009 @ 8:19 am - September 22, 2009
As an educated person I take offense to use of ALL or MANY when talking about a group of people. You don’t know ALL or MANY blacks, so you cannot use those words. As a black I take offense that ASH (or is that “As$”?) wants to include me, my family, and other good black people in with the degenerates that make only a small part of the black community. I have met my share of drugged-up, lazy, educating-hating, sexually promiscuous white people, yet I have NEVER used drugs and didn’t drink until I was 21. I am gay, but I have been in monogamous relationships most of my adult life. I have always worked, even when I was in university. (That is more than I can say about the many whites I saw either on their parents’ dime or on student loans not working at all while going to school. Yes, my father paid my tuition, but I worked to support myself. My father saved for my college education since I was a baby and yes, he was married to my mother.) And what in the hell is a “normal” name? If you mean “English” name, you are then making light of most people on the planet.
There are many blacks who are like me out there who love education (at the moment I am working on two grad degrees in addition to my law degree and bachelor’s and I am an educator). There are some people who do make the whole look bad, but you need to restrict your comments to those people and not the whole group.
I don’t like to call people racists, but Ash, your comments weren’t honest. They were discriminatory and hateful. By painting a whole group as degenerates, you have earned the badge of “racist”. You, sir, are the problem.
Comment by Keith (a Scottish name) — September 22, 2009 @ 8:52 am - September 22, 2009
My family is divided between members who were ecstatic that Obama won for its historic reasons and members who feel that if the first black president fails, it will be a blight on black chances to succeed again at the office any time soon again. A small few of us believe that voters will forget the novelty aspect and vote for competence, without regard to race or gender.
However, I am interested to see that Tano is all wrapped up in the racism card. Typical honky Democrat. I normally don’t call names, but Tano doubtlessly has no personal experience with bald racism so he can be trippingly flippant about it.
Comment by heliotrope — September 22, 2009 @ 8:59 am - September 22, 2009
when obama started his campaign, i remember hearing from the likes of al sharpton and other race baiters that obama wasn’t black enough for the blacks in america to vote for him. then something magical happened that changed that senerio. an all out effort was taken on to prove that he indeed was black enough. great pr strategy that got him elected. i also read that the group of 18 thru 30 year olds propelled him into office.
just remember that obama is half white. his mother was white and his grandparents that raised him were white. as for his black side, i’m not sure if he is kenyan or muslim, but surely he is not american black. imho
Comment by southernsue — September 22, 2009 @ 9:09 am - September 22, 2009
In other words: You concede that Ash’s N.O. comment is wrong.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 22, 2009 @ 9:48 am - September 22, 2009
(and thank you, btw)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 22, 2009 @ 10:24 am - September 22, 2009
As usual, I’m not talking about individuals. But there is a large visible segment of black society (and gay society) which reinforces the stereotypes– yes, stereotypes–I’ve listed. And it is frustrating that we can’t name what we are looking at without being called racist (or homophobic). I am tired of all the great things in the black community being obscured by hip-hop culture. Why can’t we name that? Why can’t we criticize it? And I think a lot of Obama’s policies are motivated by reparations for slavery–a sense of entitlement–which will just encourage more laziness and victimhood.
If there was a million-man march on Washington, why wasn’t there a million-man march on New Orleans?
Comment by Ashpenaz — September 22, 2009 @ 10:27 am - September 22, 2009
Exactly the problem. Just as I said.
There is a lot wrong with gang/rap culture, just as there is a lot wrong with Gay Lib or Gay Left culture. Notice how the preceding statement groups people based on *matters of choice*, i.e., on their behavior or chosen convictions. Not on their inborn traits (which are morally irrelevant). You can be part of gang/rap culture without even being black, you know. Same with gay left-lib culture; I’ve met straights who were part of it.
Furthermore, what is wrong with gang/rap culture is *not* that it “obscures all the great things in the black community”. Because again, in reality, there is no “black community”, “gay community” or other kind of alleged community, because EVERY HUMAN BEING IS AN INDIVIDUAL, even those who try to reject their individuality. What is wrong with gang/rap culture is something else entirely: that many aspects of it lead individuals to bad choices. Repeat: Not that it affects some imaginary group’s image in ways you claim, but that it expresses bad ideas, which draw individuals into bad choices.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 22, 2009 @ 10:57 am - September 22, 2009
No, I don’t think it is an inborn trait. I think it is a set of bad choices which a group makes in common.
Comment by Ashpenaz — September 22, 2009 @ 11:44 am - September 22, 2009
Groups don’t make choices, Ash. Individuals do. (Even elections are only a formal process of totalling *individual* votes.)
And sorry, but “being black” (i.e., possessing variations of skin and features associated with African ethnic groups) is an inborn trait. To group people on the basis of an inborn trait, *and* then attempt to apply moral judgments or evaluations to all members of that group, is reprehensibly primitive and unjust.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 22, 2009 @ 12:21 pm - September 22, 2009
(even, btw, if the moral evaluation/claims in question are allegedly positive, or meant as praise. “These people show us what’s good in the black community” would be as racist, i.e. as reprehensibly primitive and unjust, as its counterpart negative statement.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 22, 2009 @ 12:29 pm - September 22, 2009
ILC,
I give you great props for making some very important points about that disgusting racist screed that appeared in the comments. And I note your unwillingness to call it that too – probably a smart move, since people get very defensive even when the charge is apporpriate.
But I do think you go too far in your philosophizing. Yes, we are all individuals. But also yes, there are such things as communities. Your position is as extreme in the one direction as a North Korea is in the other – where they seem to stress community and deny individuality.
The fact is that human beings are, and have been, from long before we even were humans, social beings. Probably since the rise of mammals a couple of hundred million years ago, we have been selected for sociality, and cooperation – family based, clan-based, tribe-based etc.. Since as humans, our most important adaptation is our brains, and our brains are structured largely by experience, and each of us has unique experiences, we are extremely individualistic at the same time.
Finding the appropriate balance between these two factors – our need to live authentic lives as unique individuals, and our inherent nature as social beings (and, of course, the fact that we live in highly complex, highly interdependent societies) is a constant struggle. Neither part of our nature can be denied or ignored without serious pathologies emerging.
You seem to have what I view as a very immature attitude – reminds me of all those teenage kids who read Ayn Rand for the first time, and get off on the simplicity (simplemindedness) of it all. You highlight one extreme to such an extent that you even try to deny the other. This is not healthy, and would lead to a monstrous result.
But I dont mean to be too critical. Big kudos for being just about the only person here with the decency to push back against that disgusting comment.
Comment by Tano — September 22, 2009 @ 1:29 pm - September 22, 2009
ILC, groups are aggregates of individuals. I think Ash is referring to the specific blacks who knowingly or unknowingly join the ‘Plantation Black’ group, whose members are the ones sitting on their asses, blasting hip-hop/rap, and collecting welfare checks. Just because he’s referring to a group, does not mean that a collection of individuals don’t match that group description. Come sit a spell in Philadelphia, and you’ll see what I mean. Of course, that is if you’re not killed on public transit or on a dimly-lit street.
Comment by Brendan In Philly — September 22, 2009 @ 1:30 pm - September 22, 2009
ILC makes my point that any critique of the black community for obvious, visible bad choices on the part of a large segment of that demographic is “racist.” We can’t discuss the problem of fatherlessness in the black community because some black men are good fathers. We can’t discuss drugs in the black community because some blacks are drug-free. Etc. Apparently all we can say about the black community as a whole is that they deserve reparations because their ancestors were slaves (excepting of course Obama whose ancestors were black slave merchants).
And we can’t discuss the drugs and STDs in the gay community because some of us are Lutherans.
Comment by Ashpenaz — September 22, 2009 @ 1:33 pm - September 22, 2009
Yes. Right Place Right Time. If Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and the Republican establishment would not have been so blah and driven away so many voters (myself included) the outcome might have been different. Then there was the Clinton factor.
Gene, I did a complete eval of all the Presidents and VP’s compared to BO. He was not THE most inexperienced, but pretty close to the bottom. My blog hosting service completely crashed and I lost much of my data. It looks like I might be able to get some content back. If I can get that chart back, hopefully in the next day or two , I’ll forward it to you through Dan.
Comment by Sonicfrog — September 22, 2009 @ 1:45 pm - September 22, 2009
Tano – You remain the blog’s big loser. I don’t need or want your compliments. Especially not when you promptly undercut them to make your own sick leftist, collectivist points that resemble Ash’s philosophy far more than you apparently realize. You both want to group people by inborn traits and then give them a different kind of status based on that. Ash’s form of it is to make moral claims applying (allegedly) to all members of the alleged group. Your form, I doubt not, would be more along the lines of having different standards in hiring, education and criminal justice based on race – under such Orwellian euphemisms as “hate crimes laws” and “affirmative action”. Guess what, Tano? If I’m right, such things would make YOU a big, fat racist. So please, have a nice big cup of STFU. When it comes to the topic of racism, you and other of today’s leftists haven’t got a leg to stand on.
Brendan: Yes, groups are mere aggregates of individuals. That is part of my point. For the rest: Please let Ash speak for himself. I am going here by Ash’s presentation of his argument. I am certain you speak the truth, that there are blacks who behave badly. And there are whites and yellows and purples who behave badly, and for that matter, blacks, whites, yellows and purples who behave well. My point is: If we’re going to morally evaluate groups of people – and there are times when we should – let’s group them by their choices, like behavior, personal character and convictions. Not by inborn traits, such as their alleged race.
Ash: You have now misrepresented me – in other words, borne false witness. The Bible commands you not to bear false witness. To take it piece by piece:
That is literally true – but not in the sense you mean. IF you ascribe the choices of individuals to the *racial group*, then attempt to ascribe motives to (and make moral claims about) all members of the group, subsuming the individuals: yes, that is indeed racist. You are engaging in racism, at that point. It is vile. It is reprehensible. BUT,
Of course we can. To claim otherwise, is ridiculous and not my view. (False witness.)
…and because some white, yellow and purple men are bad fathers. In other words: What has race got to do with fatherlessness? Why not simply discuss the problem of fatherlessness, in general? What is “black” about it?
Ditto to above. What is “black” about the drug problem? Drugs are a universal human problem – why not discuss that? What is your obsession, Ash, with grouping people racially (or on other inborn traits) before you can begin a discussion of real problems? That’s what you need to look at.
Nope. Can’t say that either. Now you are trying to ascribe a particular racial position (racial thinking) to me. False witness.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 22, 2009 @ 2:05 pm - September 22, 2009
I agree with SonicFrog and others: Right Place. Right Time.
That isn’t to say he’s a cunning campaigner, willing to say or do anything to get elected, with an easy campaign message that seemed to evoke the Passion of JFK, the Wisdom of Lincoln and the Timeless Truth of our greatest NonPartisan Prez Geo Washington… and I think in the overhyped MSM lead-up to the Inaugural he was compared to each of those men as his true mentors… but it really devolves to Right Place, Right Time, Pretty Face.
Frankly, I think Obama is more of a snake oil salesman than ANYone we’ve had in the office to date. He could out-charm SlickWilly away from a herd of sex-starved coeds or AndieSullivan away from a bareback bug-chasing convention… Obama’s got the metrosexual thing down like no one before.
He belongs on a vacuous cover of Details, not in the Oval Office.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 22, 2009 @ 2:10 pm - September 22, 2009
Give me the absolute fawning of the media and the guilt of white elites and I could get a ham sandwich elected President.
And the sad irony is that the sandwich, unlike Obama, would actually be somewhat useful.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 22, 2009 @ 3:13 pm - September 22, 2009
One more thing….allow me to say whatever I want and make whatever promises I want without ever being held accountable for or expected to keep them, and see how easily I could get elected to office.
For example: Barack Obama promised repeatedly that every single bill that was brought to his desk would be posted on the White House website for five days for review prior to his signing it.
Which he then broke within days of taking office.
But of course, this is perfectly acceptable to Tano and the Obama Party because Obama hasn’t in their eyes violated any principles. It is perfectly acceptable to lie, cheat, steal, and break promises as long as you stay truthful to your minority allegiance.
This is why Sotomayer’s comments insisting that a Latina woman would always come up with a better judgment than a white male did not bother Obama Party members in the least. She was reinforcing her minority status and allegiance; therefore, her behavior is acceptable.
Conversely, this is why the Obama Party and Barack Obama sanctioned attacks on Michael Steele calling him “Sambo” and “oreo”, and why they did the same to Condi Rice as a “house slave”. In their mind, these individuals are race traitors, and therefore must be punished, regardless of anything else they do.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 22, 2009 @ 3:30 pm - September 22, 2009
“You both want to group people by inborn traits and then give them a different kind of status based on that.”
Hmmm. Where did I say that? Nothing quite like buidling strawmen..
“Your form, I doubt not, would be more along the lines of having different standards in hiring…”
Ah yes, you doubt not. That buddy, is your problem. You are comfortable raging against cartoon characters that you imagine in your head – or that you get from popular rightwing culture.
“If I’m right, such things would make YOU a big, fat racist.”
But ILC, you are not right, not by a very long shot. So why dont you STFU and learn about the world a little bit instead of playing in your little comic book world.
Comment by Tano — September 22, 2009 @ 3:48 pm - September 22, 2009
#1
Was there a more unqualified inexperienced person elected President than Barack Obama. I took a look….
President #10 John Tyler. Nope not Tyler. He was a US Representative for 4 years, served in the Senate and was Governor of VA before being elected Harrisons VP. No not Tyler.
#14 Franklin Pierce. No not Pierce. Pierce also served in the US Senate and House. He served in the military during the Mexican War. His start in politics began at age 24 in the NH House of Reps. Later becoming it’s Speaker. No not Pierce.
#11 James Polk. Hmm no not Polk. Polk graduated with honors from the University of NC. He was elected to the House of Reps and served as Speaker as well. Before returning to TN to be Governor. Polk was very experienced. No not Polk.
#30 Calvin Coolidge. No not Coolidge. Trained in the law and politics Cal rose up the ladder starting with councilman in Northampton MA eventually to Governor of MA. Lots of executive training for the 30th President.
#21 Chester Arthur. hmm. Arthur was the collector of the Port of NY customs house. A system of graft and corruption was rampant. As the chief customs officer he was an honest man, but kept far too many employees on board vs the work undertaken. Serving during a time when the spoils system was entrenched, Arthur made little headway in cleaning it up. And was later fired.Earlier in his life Arthur had graduated from Union College and taught school for a while.
I think it may be a tie. Between Obama and Chester Arthur as to who was the least quailfied and least prepared to be President.
Back when Arthur was chosen VP it was done more as a favor. He was elevated to the Presidency when President Garfield was assasinated.
I’m going to search a few more bios of our Presidents but this is as good as I can do for now for Barack.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 22, 2009 @ 4:11 pm - September 22, 2009
he’s a genius. and, the timing was right for him.
Comment by buckeyenutlover — September 22, 2009 @ 4:13 pm - September 22, 2009
So, Tano, then:
- Do you oppose hate crimes laws based on racial categories?
- Do you oppose affirmative action programs that give extra status to minority applicants? (For example, the University of Michigan giving extra points on their admission scale to applicants who claim to be of African-American ancestry).
- Do you condemn the ACLU insofar as it favors both of those things?
If you are what your comment #33 would pretend you are, then your answers should be “yes”, “yes” and “yes”. Without hesitation. Any other response – including silence – will indicate that I did guess right about you. I’ve posed the questions.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 22, 2009 @ 4:25 pm - September 22, 2009
ILC,
I am not a fan of hate crime laws. I find them redundant – prosecution for the actual crime should be sufficient, irrespective of the motivation.
I think it patently offensive for you to try to argue that it would be racism to recognize the harm that has been done to a group of people by the larger society. It was the larger society that imposed the racial distinction, and made it the basis of brutal enslavement, and then segregation. That is the racism. The day that the larger society decides it will no longer discriminate does not then usher into being a world in which the distinction simply vanishes. It is only when you eradicate the legacy of the discrimination that we can finally be over all this.
I support affirmative action because, whether you like it or not, 400 years of oppression has left an enormous legacy on the black community. For all or most of this time education of blacks was suppressed, opportunities for advancement were suppressed, ambition itself was suppressed. Thus it was extremely difficult for these values to grow and be nourshed within the community. Getting too educated would more likely get you killed than get you ahead.
Even though legal discrimination is over, there remains unofficial discrimination, and there has been a terrible lack of role models for kids – and too often a resulting lack of belief that a successful and prosperous life would be available to them.
I dont think that black individuals should be given positions they are not qualified for, but I do think that, when all else is relatively equal, giving a position to an unrepresented minority can have an enormously good benefit to society, and can help to finally bury the wounds of the centuries of oppression. I think Gen. Powell has been quite eloquent on this subject, and I pretty much agree with him.
The ACLU is one of the finest and most important organizations in America. They have done more to protect and defend the freedom of individuals than any such group I know. I don’t track all their activities and I am sure that I would disagree with some positions they take, but there is no way I would condemn them as a group. Quite the contrary.
Comment by Tano — September 22, 2009 @ 4:51 pm - September 22, 2009
Well. That’s something. I guess.
…with the Democratic Party as its agent, and dating back to its dawn.
In U.S. history, the Democratic Party has consistently been the party of people who (1) think in racial categories and (2) want to maintain racial divisions and distinctions. Thomas Jefferson, its founder, was a famous racist who could hardly even bring himself to free his own children by Sally Hemings. Throughout the 19th century and until the 1970s, the Democrats were the party, first of slavery, then of Jim Crow. (Abraham Lincoln, who wasn’t perfect but who was the Great Emancipator, was a Republican.)
In the 1970s, the Democrats ‘made the switch’ from racism on behalf of whites, to racism directed in some part against whites. But there they are today: the party of people who think in racial terms and seek to keep racial divisions and distinctions alive in the twenty-first century. For example, racial preferences in hiring, education and criminal justice.
The average Democrat is not necessarily a racist; that is, they probably mean well and simply haven’t thought about these matters. But the hardcore leftists – say, the people on this blog who lie and spin for Democrat leaders relentlessly; that would be you Tano – must be aware of the Democrats’ continuing racist policies, on some level. Insofar as they relentlessly support the Democrats and their racist policies, those people would be… racists.
I specifically asked whether you oppose the type of “affirmative action” that goes so far as to “give extra status to minority applicants; for example, the University of Michigan giving extra points on their admission scale to applicants who claim to be of African-American ancestry.”
It should have been easy to say “yes”, that you oppose such a clear-cut, extreme example. You couldn’t and didn’t. In other words: I guessed right about you, Tano, didn’t I? Maybe you don’t like hate crime laws – fine, point taken – but in other areas, you have the racist views typical of the modern Left.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 22, 2009 @ 5:20 pm - September 22, 2009
(sorry for the misquote above; the word “But” was written by me and intended for the beginning of my comment; not intended to be part of Tano’s)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 22, 2009 @ 5:22 pm - September 22, 2009
Dr. Martin Luther King:
Emphasis added. Expresses my stand.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 22, 2009 @ 5:26 pm - September 22, 2009
As for the ACLU: I was a member and contributor for over a decade… until I became aware, i.e., could no longer deny, that they were working actively on behalf of racism, in the Michigan case and others. That’s when I quit them.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 22, 2009 @ 5:32 pm - September 22, 2009
I’m not sure it’s bearing false witness–it’s more “seeing the inner contradictions of what you are trying to express and playing it back for you in a way which exposes the faulty reasoning which underlies your comments.”
I think we can criticize “hip-hop culture” and its stereotypes and still acknowledge that not every black is a part of that. There is a problem with fatherlessness and drug abuse in the “black community” which we need to look at. The problems are there because a lot of different individuals are making the same bad choices. Grouping together those different individuals into larger segments gives us a way to deal with the larger issues rather than go at solutions one person at a time.
Obama is successful because he manipulates these stereotypes. He plays to victimhood and entitlement. And he gets votes from white guilt and black victimhood and young “coolness.”
Comment by Ashpenaz — September 22, 2009 @ 5:37 pm - September 22, 2009
P.S. It’s the same demographic that thinks 30 Rock is funny.
Comment by Ashpenaz — September 22, 2009 @ 5:38 pm - September 22, 2009
No. It wasn’t.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 22, 2009 @ 5:39 pm - September 22, 2009
In the 1970s, the Democrats ‘made the switch’ from racism on behalf of whites, to racism directed in some part against whites. But there they are today: the party of people who think in racial terms and seek to keep racial divisions and distinctions alive in the twenty-first century.
Absolutely.
Take a look at Tano’s statements.
I think it patently offensive for you to try to argue that it would be racism to recognize the harm that has been done to a group of people by the larger society.
Notice the clear separation there; those of one skin color versus those of another skin color.
Nowhere in that does Tano recognize those white people who treated blacks equally, or those black people who behaved abominably. It’s all or nothing; if you are white, you are the oppressor and everything is your fault, and if you are black, you’re oppressed and nothing is your fault.
Same here:
For all or most of this time education of blacks was suppressed, opportunities for advancement were suppressed, ambition itself was suppressed.
Again, the only delineating factor is skin color. Not individual circumstance, not individual behavior, but skin color. Whites are evil people who forced black people to be uneducated and lazy. More precisely, ALL black people are uneducated and lazy and need white peoples’ plantation kindness to “help” them.
Patently and obviously racist. But Tano and his leftist ilk have cemented a bloc of voters by using it, and they are not inclined to start treating this bloc as equals who are entitled to their own opinion — hence their vicious attacks on conservative and Republican black people as “Sambos”, “oreos”, and “house slaves”. The message is clear; if you are a minority, you will vote Obama Party, or you will be punished.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 22, 2009 @ 5:55 pm - September 22, 2009
(#45 continued) Ash, I repeat my earlier questions to you, which you haven’t answered:
Your comments at #45 are not an answer, merely a re-assertion of your desire to make sweeping moral claims about people that you’ve grouped together on criteria that aren’t matters of choice, and that should therefore be ignored when discussing moral questions.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 22, 2009 @ 7:18 pm - September 22, 2009
I looked at the biographies of every president who was elected to the office of president, thus I didn’t review Chester Arthur’s record (he was elevated from v.p. after the death of a president). In my estimation, Obama and Lincoln came out on the bottom, but Dan, I’m perfectly happy to learn that Lincoln’s career prior to being elected president included more accomplishments than Obama’s.
I still maintain that Sarah Palin had more experience than Barack Obama. If you don’t like her policies, or her way of governing, that’s fine, that’s your right as an American voter. But to argue on the one hand that Palin didn’t have enough experience even to be VICE president and on the other hand support Barack Obama for president, as many leftists did, made no sense at all.
Comment by Conservative Guy — September 22, 2009 @ 7:32 pm - September 22, 2009
ILC,
I know maybe you get a lot reinforcement from all your fellow rightwing extremists for calling liberals “racist”, but it doesnt really extend much beyond your sick little circles.
Liberals were in the forefront of ending segregation. Most were Northerners in the Democratic Party – and a few Southerners. There were plenty of liberal Republicans as well, before they were all driven out of your party.
Conservatives were hellbent on perpetuating segregation – they fought it every step of the way. That includes the intellectual heros of your movement – like Bill Buckley, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. The Republican party absorbed all the Southern racists who fled the Democratic party when we stood for civil rights, and these people have become the core base of the Republican party. I can accept that many of them have outgrown a lot of their overt racism – I certainly believe in givng people a chance to redeem themselves, and crediting them when they do so. But there is a fair bit of racism that still exists, and most of it is in your party.
I know this, you know this, everyone knows it. Thats why so many rightwingers try to avoid the issue by mounting this silly campaign to accuse those who fight racism of being racists themselves.
Racism is the belief that one race is superior to others, or several are superior to a particular one. That is what justifies, in these people’s mind, slavery or other forms of oppression. Noticing that one group of people have always been separated out and oppressed, and seeking to redress that oppression is not racism – no one but howling denialists on the fringes of the right believe that.
OF course, if you want evidence of an implicit racist attitude, you need look no further than this question of today’s Democratic party. I suspect that you feel that you are fully capable of judgeing political candidates, and making rational decisions about which candidates and which parties best reflect your values and promote your interests.
Why do you not accord similar level of respect to black people? If 90% of all blacks consistently vote for the Democratic party – well, how can that be in your worldview? Are black people inherently stupid and unable to think through the simple matter of figuring out which party respects thier values and promotes their interests? Maybe you think they should not have the vote? Are you just smarter than them? MAybe you should make it your mission to teach the poor little black people how to think through this “racism’ issue – and how they can one day maybe learn how to figure out for themselves who the racists are. What a wonderful contribution you could make.
Comment by Tano — September 22, 2009 @ 7:51 pm - September 22, 2009
Racism is the belief that one race is superior to others, or several are superior to a particular one.
Such as your belief that black people like Barack Obama never do anything wrong, so criticism of them is unjustified and based on their skin color.
Or such as your belief that all black people are superior to white people; therefore, they should receive additional points on their college applications and preferential treatment in receiving government contracts. Furthermore, since black people are superior to white people, any test for employment or promotion in which no black people in a group score sufficiently to pass, but white people and other minority members do, is racist and should be thrown out, according to your Obama Party and your Barack Obama.
Why do you not accord similar level of respect to black people? If 90% of all blacks consistently vote for the Democratic party – well, how can that be in your worldview?
That’s easy. If black people vote against the Obama Party, they are physically threatened, verbally abused, and called race traitors, Uncle Toms, Sambos, oreos, and house slaves — with the full endorsement and support of the Obama Party’s leaders.
The fact that you and your party viciously and brutally attempt to destroy any minority member who dares speak out against you, Tano, is an excellent argument for why so few do. Your argument hasn’t changed from back when you argued that your slaves must be happy because they stayed on the plantation — ignoring the fact that you brutally beat, whipped, and often murdered any who dared do otherwise.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 22, 2009 @ 8:05 pm - September 22, 2009
Meanwhile, it’s so hilarious catching the racists like Tano in their contradictions.
For example:
Are black people inherently stupid and unable to think through the simple matter of figuring out which party respects thier values and promotes their interests?
But what did Tano say above?
For all or most of this time education of blacks was suppressed, opportunities for advancement were suppressed, ambition itself was suppressed.
So Tano has already stated that black people are uneducated and lazy — and that they need affirmative action precisely BECAUSE they are unable to succeed otherwise due to their lack of education and laziness.
If Tano wants to claim that blacks are equal to whites, then that undercuts his blabbering argument for affirmative action. But if Tano wants to claim that blacks need affirmative action because they are uneducated and lazy, that undercuts his blabbering argument that he considers blacks to be equal.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 22, 2009 @ 8:10 pm - September 22, 2009
And to put a final point on this.
Conservatives get called racist by liberals like Tano because conservatives believe that black people are equal to white people and therefore don’t need affirmative action.
Liberals like Tano ARE racist because they believe that black people are inferior to whites and cannot compete without it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 22, 2009 @ 8:14 pm - September 22, 2009
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-SimpleSamboandgnorantMammy&page_id=95&tp_preview=true
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 22, 2009 @ 9:07 pm - September 22, 2009
“Such as your belief that black people like Barack Obama never do anything wrong, so criticism of them is unjustified and based on their skin color.’
You have an amazing capacity to just make things up, don’t you? I think Obama is a great politician, and a great leader. Have you never felt that way about anyone in your life? You have no reason, other than your oft-displayed racial obsession, for thinking I support him because of his race. If you supported Bush, or some other pol, should we assume it was because they were white? I wouldn’t assume that about you, even though there is some evidence that you have deep seated hostility to blacks. You have NO reason whatsoever to claim that I support Obama on the basis of race.
“Or such as your belief that all black people are superior to white people; ”
You see, you are a blatant liar – and a very twisted person, especially on race matters. You have polluted this site for a very long time with your constant race baiting, and race obsessions. You really are not worht engaging with anymore.
Comment by Tano — September 22, 2009 @ 9:38 pm - September 22, 2009
People,
Tano is not worth engaging, unless you find a stunning display of moral and mental vacuity to be worth your efforts.
Anyway, no, President Obama is not a brilliant politician. If he was, he wouldn’t have doubled down on his mistake in Honduras.
President Obama got elected, because he was portrayed and portrayed himself as someone different.
Since then, President Obama has proved to be nothing more than a Chicago Machine politician.
Republicans spent their way out of office and McCain was obviously more of the same.
Republicans best not get too excited, though, because more McCains will mean more electoral defeats.
Comment by Blake — September 22, 2009 @ 10:04 pm - September 22, 2009
Tremendous political controversy ensued following remarks Lott made on December 5, 2002 at the 100th birthday party of Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Thurmond ran for President of the United States in 1948 on the Dixiecrat (or States’ Rights) ticket. Lott said: “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”
Thurmond had based his presidential campaign largely on an explicit racial segregation platform. Lott had attracted controversy before in issues relating to civil rights. As a Congressman, he voted against renewal of the Voting Rights Act, voted against the continuation of the Civil Rights Act and opposed making Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday a federal holiday. The Washington Post reported that Lott had made similar comments about Thurmond’s candidacy in a 1980 rally. Lott gave an interview with Black Entertainment Television explaining himself and repudiating Thurmond’s former views.
Lott resigned as Senate Republican Leader on December 20, 2002. Bill Frist of Tennessee was later elected to the leadership position.
In the book Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig argues that Lott’s resignation would not have occurred had it not been for the effect of Internet blogs.
He says that though the story “disappear[ed] from the mainstream press within forty-eight hours”, “bloggers kept researching the story” until, “[f]inally, the story broke back into the mainstream press WIKI
and more on Lott in a piece out of TIME
Lott, Reagan and Republican Racism
By Jack White Saturday, Dec. 14, 2002
Yet it’s with Reagan, who set a standard for exploiting white anger and resentment rarely seen since George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, that the Republican’s selective memory about its race-baiting habit really stands out.
Space doesn’t permit a complete list of the Gipper’s signals to angry white folks that Republicans prefer to ignore, so two incidents in which Lott was deeply involved will have to suffice. As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s’ ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for “states’ rights” — a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters.
Then there was Reagan’s attempt, once he reached the White House in 1981, to reverse a long-standing policy of denying tax-exempt status to private schools that practice racial discrimination and grant an exemption to Bob Jones University. Lott’s conservative critics, quite rightly, made a big fuss about his filing of a brief arguing that BJU should get the exemption despite its racist ban on interracial dating. But true to their pattern of white-washing Reagan’s record on race, not one of Lott’s conservative critics said a mumblin’ word about the Gipper’s deep personal involvement. They don’t care to recall that when Lott suggested that Reagan’s regime take BJU’s side in a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, Reagan responded, “We ought to do it.” Two years later the U.S. Supreme Court in a resounding 8-to-1 decision ruled that Reagan was dead wrong and reinstated the IRS’s power to deny BJU’s exemption.
Republican leaders and their apologists tend to go into a frenzy of denial when members of the liberal media cabal bring up these inconvenient facts.
Comment by rusty — September 22, 2009 @ 11:28 pm - September 22, 2009
We should also remember what the screaming bigots of the Obama Party previously said about Reagan.
To liberals, however, employing the phrase “states’ rights” in any context is to waive the bloody shirt of racism and segregation. Little time was wasted in accusing Reagan not simply of pandering to old-fashioned segregationist sentiment in the south, but of actively sympathizing with it. Patricia Harris, Carter’s secretary of Health and Human Services, told a steelworkers’ union conference in early August: “I will not attempt to explain why the KKK found the Republican candidate and the Republican platform compatible with the philosophy and guiding principles of that notorious organization.” (A KKK chapter in Louisiana had scored some cheap publicity by endorsing Reagan in 1980, which endorsement Reagan immediately and forcefully rejected.) But, Harris added, when Reagan speaks before black audiences many blacks “will see the specter of a white sheet behind him.” Andrew Young went even further, saying that Reagan’s remarks seemed “like a code word to me that it’s going to be all right to kill niggers when he’s President.” Coretta Scott King managed to top Young: “I am scared that if Ronald Reagan gets into office, we are going to see more of the Ku Klux Klan and a resurgence of the Nazi Party.” Maryland Congressman Parren Mitchell, a leader of the Congressional Black Caucus, said that ” Reagan represents a distinct danger to black Americans.” Reagan, it should be noted, received the endorsement of several black leaders in 1980, including the Rev. Ralph David Abernathy, Martin Luther King’s successor as head of the Southern Christian Leadership Council, and the Rev. Hosea Williams, another prominent cleric from the civil rights movement.
Even the bastions of media liberalism knew that attacking Reagan as a racist was wrong. The New Republic: “President Carter has made a grave moral error in trying to portray Ronald Reagan as a racist.” Carter’s statements “are frightful distortions, bordering on outright lies.” Washington Post reporter Richard Harwood wrote that “There is nothing in Reagan’s record to support the charge that he was ‘racist.’” The editorial page of the Post said that “This description [as a racist] doesn’t fit Mr. Reagan.”
The fact that Coretta Scott King started screaming “racist” and calling Reagan a Nazi makes me wonder if her husband actually believed a word he said — or if she was just a race-baiting idiot who was willing to do whatever her white massa Carter told her to do like a good Obama Party slave.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 23, 2009 @ 1:27 am - September 23, 2009
You have NO reason whatsoever to claim that I support Obama on the basis of race.
Actually, there are several reasons, such as your belief that black people like Barack Obama never do anything wrong, so criticism of them is unjustified and based on their skin color.
You see, you are a blatant liar – and a very twisted person, especially on race matters.
Or so claims the race-obsessed child who insists that any and all criticism of Barack Obama is racist and that black people need affirmative action to make up for his beliefs that all blacks are uneducated and lazy.
You have polluted this site for a very long time with your constant race baiting, and race obsessions.
See above. The pathetic child who accuses everyone who criticizes Barack Obama of being a racist and of hating black people is actually trying to argue that other people are race-baiting.
You really are not worht engaging with anymore.
Engaging is not the point, Tano. You are beyond engaging because you are a brainwashed ideologue whose sole purpose in coming here is to spew talking points. The point in directing anything at you is to demonstrate the lies, racist beliefs, and fascist ideology that is at the core of your insane party and how puppets like yourself reflect the Trutherism, Marxism, anti-Americanism, and racist hate that motivate your Barack Obama.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 23, 2009 @ 1:42 am - September 23, 2009
#54: “You see, you are a blatant liar – and a very twisted person, especially on race matters. You have polluted this site for a very long time with your constant race baiting, and race obsessions. You really are not worht engaging with anymore.”
Tano, NDT’s criticisms of your views is completely legitimate and neither he, nor anyone else on this blog has mischaracterized your positions. What you really have a problem with is people like NDT and ILC (who actually DO think for themselves) accurately summarizing the logical conclusions and practical effects of your robotic, DNC-approved talking points and platitudes. Like all narcissistic liberals, you INSIST on being perceived and discussed only in the precise, subjective terms that you would use to describe yourself and your beliefs. The problem is that like liberalism, your core beliefs only sound acceptable when confined to the purely theoretical and presumptively well-intentioned. You are absolutely intolerant of people like NDT and ILC who have the temerity to apply your sick beliefs outside the flowery mirage of good intentions. You support policies that discriminate solely on the basis of skin color. That’s a fact. You admit it. And in your delusional, narcissistic world it’s perfectly noble because you’ve convinced yourself that it is motivated by your compassion for “oppressed” minorities. Thus, YOU know you’re not a racist, so if someone else calls you a racist, they MUST have mischaracterized your beliefs, right? But there’s been no mischaracterization, Tano. You just want it both ways: you want to endorse and champion policies that victimize others based on their race, but you don’t want to be called a racist. Hence, your statement to ILC: “I think it patently offensive for you to try to argue that it would be racism to recognize the harm that has been done to a group of people by the larger society.” Tano, what you find offensive is ILC’s refusal to play along with the Orwelllian characterization of the racist policies you support. Affirmative action is not “recognizing the harm that has been done to a group of people by the larger society,” you dimwitted fu*k. It’s racism and your “offense” is nothing more than a manifestation of your panic because you know ILC is right.
And Tano, your reaction is NOT a surprise because it’s perfectly consistent with the tireless defense you provide Obama with on this blog. 95% of your arguments defending Obama boil down to the same thing–that it’s wrong and unfair to criticize Obama for being X or doing X because in a SPEECH Obama unequivocally stated that he is not X or doing X. Sorry, Tano. When you’re among people who think for themselves (non-liberals), you don’t get to decide and control how you are judged and perceived in the subjective vacuum of liberalism.
That being said, here’s some more truth for you to choke on: you are not only a racist, but a colossal narcissist. You are so obsessed with feeling good about yourself and patting yourself on the back for embracing liberalism that you’re willing to endorse the same kind of insidious discriminatory practices that victimized minorities in the past as long as the liberals get to choose the victims. Affirmative action rewards people that have never lived with the oppression of discriminatory laws or state-sponsored racism based SOLELY on skin color, and it punishes people SOLELY for the color of their skin even though they did not participate in, nor perpetrate the discrimination of the past. THAT, Tano, is racism, and your support of it makes YOU a racist. Period. It also makes you a narcissist because your unapologetic support of discrimination against caucasians conclusively proves that your views are NOT based on a belief that discrimination and racism is wrong. You’re fine with it, obviously. What’s really going on is that it just makes you feel really, really good about yourself to pretend that you care deeply about injustice, oppression, discrimination, etc. If you really did care about those things, you would oppose the practices that perpetuate them. You don’t. Consequently, you’re a racist.
You won’t listen or believe me Tano, but I’ll say it again: YOU are one of the bad guys. You and NOT one of the good guys. You are on the side of the oppressors, and as such, you are an enemy of freedom. The way you perceive yourself is just that, a perception. It’s a delusion. What you believe to be your own compassion, is nothing more than pure narcissism. You are, among other things, a racist, and no euphemism or slogan, no matter how lofty or clever, will ever change that.
Comment by Sean A — September 23, 2009 @ 1:44 am - September 23, 2009
But Rusty FAILs to mention this bit:
By Chris “Countrywide” Dodd. The liberals IGNORED his comments, it got buried by the liberal media and he still has his job today.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 23, 2009 @ 2:53 am - September 23, 2009
Oh and who could forget Fritz “Wetbacks” Hollings?
Or Rev. Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson?
Or Dan “Buckwheats” Rather?
Not to mention the democrat militant wing, the KKK.
Shall I go on, Rusto?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 23, 2009 @ 2:59 am - September 23, 2009
Not to mention Dhimmi Carter’s persistant racism, including his campaign against Reagan.
Not to mention Calypso Louie Farakhan
Not to mention Al Franken
Not to mention, oh, never mind.
Comment by The_Livewire — September 23, 2009 @ 6:55 am - September 23, 2009
OMG Thank you LW and TGC I did look up the ugly Racist Dems.
The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators:
- Hill and Sparkman of Alabama
- Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas
- Holland and Smathers of Florida
- Russell and Talmadge of Georgia
- Ellender and Long of Louisiana
- Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
- Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
- Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
- Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
- H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia
- R. Byrd of West Virginia
My those Southern Dems . . .
Comment by rusty — September 23, 2009 @ 8:21 am - September 23, 2009
Ok, the Genius of Barack Obama has apparently reached its expiration date
So Barack Obama now announces he’s inherited a somewhat adrift stratergy from… himself.
Comment by The_Livewire — September 23, 2009 @ 8:30 am - September 23, 2009
Speaking of inheriting problems from himself.
Rusty here
“Republican leaders and their apologists tend to go into a frenzy of denial when members of the liberal media cabal bring up these inconvenient facts.”
Yet when NDT and TGC shred his arguments like a Rose Law Firm billing document, his reply is “but all those Dems were southerners you can’t trust them!”
So I’d say Rusty tends to go into a frenzy of denial when peoples bring up those inconvenient facts.
Comment by The_Livewire — September 23, 2009 @ 8:36 am - September 23, 2009
ILC, I agree with the thrust of what you are saying, but I do think Ashpenaz makes some good points. No, I don’t buy the point about there being no Blacks that went to help out after Katrina, unless he is privy to the demographics of people that went there, and it supports his claim.
We should all be treated as individuals, and not based on characteristics such as race, ethnic group, sexual orientation, etc. A student yesterday told me that another professor told her that, homosexuality is like smoking, because statistics show that the life expectancy of homsexuals and smokers is lower than the general population. Another example of cringing from abuse of statistics. I am not disputing the statistics, but the conclusions. Whereas a behavior such as smoking, in and of itself, reduces ones life expectancy in general (and yes, I’m aware that there are plenty of smokers that make it to their 90s), that is not the case with homosexuality. It was apparent that this professor did not make this clear, and missed the point about individual behavior.
On the other hand, when a group has a much higher rate of a certain behavior or quality, especially something that is nothing to be proud of, I don’t think we can ignore it. Sure, a good part of it is a lot of individuals making poor choices. And there are inividuals in different communities making the same poor choices. But the question is, why should this percentage be much higher for a particular community? Are there external factors that cause this?
Obviously, past injustices would contribute to such discrepancies in the past. And even when the injustices are eliminated, it doesn’t mean that change is instantaneous. Also, the remedies to deal with past injustices can make things worse.
I look at this problem two ways. If a young gay person comes to me and says he had it bad growing up, parents who chastised him for being gay, a church that constantly spoke of evils of being gay, friends that constantly made fun of or bullying gay people, and now as a young adult wants to have all the promiscuous sex he can get. I would advise him that behavior is harmful, and would strongly suggest he not engage of it, and to succeed in spite of what happened to him. That he is now responsible for his behavior.
But when looking at this problem on a whole, it should be no surprise that there is a higher rate of promiscuity or other bad behaviors among those who endured this type of childhood than one who didn’t. This still does not excuse the bad behavior of such persons. Far from it. I’m also saying that we shouldn’t also excuse the bad behaviors of others that lead to the problem as well.
I’m rambling on here. I just realize that this is a subject in which it is hard to articulate all the different issues that arise from it.
Comment by Pat — September 23, 2009 @ 8:37 am - September 23, 2009
Tano, NDT’s criticisms of your views is completely legitimate and neither he, nor anyone else on this blog has mischaracterized your positions.
Sean, I disagree. I don’t see how what Tano said could lead one to conclude…
Actually, there are several reasons, such as your belief that black people like Barack Obama never do anything wrong, so criticism of them is unjustified and based on their skin color.
I’m not saying Tano’s posts are worthy of criticism. In fact, I don’t agree with all that he says either. I just don’t see why one has to make such stuff up.
Comment by Pat — September 23, 2009 @ 8:45 am - September 23, 2009
Dan, as for Obama, being in the right place at the right time, is a good part of why he won. His race could have been a factor. A percentage of people voted for him and against him because of race. Nothing new here. We have a history of using characteristics such as race, religion, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, as a factor when making voting decisions.
I also agree with your point about spending. A few months ago I stated that I wasn’t sure about the stimulus plan, but was willing to give Obama a chance, as long as that after the recession was over, we get the deficit at least back to the levels that Bush had while in office. But Obama did promise that he would look at all spending proposed and cut out the waste. However, even Obama admitted he did no such thing when he signed one of the big spending bills.
Comment by Pat — September 23, 2009 @ 8:55 am - September 23, 2009
Doesn’t reach me, Tano, as I am personally neither a conservative nor a Republican. Better luck next time.
Classical liberals, yes: People who truly believe in individual liberty and equality-before-the-law. I am that, in today’s world.
But your left-liberals – people who believe in Marxism, fascism, Big Government, etc. who are today’s so-called “liberals” – in other words, people like you, Tano – what about them? Not so much. FDR, remember, gave the order to intern Japanese-Americans in WW2. He did other things to maintain segregation and was generally a big racist.
Fixed it for ya, Tano.
Remember those movies of civil rights marchers being sprayed with giant water hoses, on the orders of Southern governors? Guess Which Party those governors belonged to?
By way of contrast, remember those grainy pictures of the first African-American Senator, governor, etc.? Guess Which Party they belonged to? For that matter, Tano, which party passed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution? Hint: It wasn’t the Democrats.
Independents? Registered Independents (in California, “Decline to State party affilliation”) are a party? And we are racist? Wow, I learn so much from you.
Which is the position of left-liberals today: that other races are superior to whites.
Also, Tano, your definition is misleading. It is only one of the definitions. Here is Merriam-Webster’s:
In other words: Racism is “racial prejudice or discrimination” *of any kind*. And which party in America seeks to keep racial distinctions and preferences alive? Which is the party of people who think in racial terms? It is, and always has been, the Democratic Party. I was a Democrat for 15+ years before I turned Independent, and heard a LOT of racist comments in private from liberal Democrats in that time, so trust me, I know.
Anticipated and answered in an earlier comment. See #39. Oh heck, you didn’t read it before, so you won’t read it now either. Here is the relevant passage:
Try to *think in principles* for once, Tano. Take the general terms I spoke there, put on your thinking cap, and figure out for yourself how they would apply to blacks who vote Democrat as well as anyone else.
Oh heck, you won’t do that either, I will have to spoon-feed you the answer. So here’s that:
- Race doesn’t prevent racism. (It would be racist, to think that it does.)
- Therefore, blacks are capable of being racists (i.e., promoters of racial categories, thinking and discrimination).
- Some of them are.
- The rest probably mean well, but are misguided or haven’t thought about things alot… JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER Democrat voters.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 23, 2009 @ 9:32 am - September 23, 2009
Pat,
In reading through Tano’s writings I’ve found two things that stand out:
“I support affirmative action because, whether you like it or not, 400 years of oppression has left an enormous legacy on the black community. ”
So where does this stop? Since the U.S. has only existed for 222 years, and the civil war ened approx 1865 we’re ‘paying for’ 322 years of someone else’s actions? Why not affirmitive action for the Irish then for the grief they took in the east? or the Chinese in the west? Or the Jews for all those years of servitude to Pharoh? Or hells, why not affirmitive action for left handers, who were consider wrong and ‘broken’ until the 60′s?
And this:
“I dont think that black individuals should be given positions they are not qualified for, but I do think that, when all else is relatively equal, giving a position to an unrepresented minority can have an enormously good benefit to society, and can help to finally bury the wounds of the centuries of oppression.”
Who has been through ‘centuries of oppression’? If you’re taking two exactly the same candidates, and you pick the black one, you’re not a racist because you’re addressing ‘centuries of oppression’ of some people long dead? If you hire the Irish guy instead, you’re a racist, complete with free complimentary bedsheets?
That’s just in this thread, I’ve not gone through to cull other statements from him to the same effect.
It’s pretty clear, Tano does discriminate on colour, when it suits his purposes.
Comment by The_Livewire — September 23, 2009 @ 9:33 am - September 23, 2009
…in the sense of racial preferences. Precisely.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 23, 2009 @ 9:47 am - September 23, 2009
TL, thanks.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 23, 2009 @ 9:52 am - September 23, 2009
And Sean A, thank you. You rock. You are in so Cal, right? If yes, I wish we could have met at Leah’s BBQ in August. Maybe next time.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 23, 2009 @ 10:04 am - September 23, 2009
It’s pretty clear, Tano does discriminate on colour, when it suits his purposes.
Livewire, I saw those posts that you referred to. I have no problem with those criticisms. I still doesn’t see how that translates to an unconditional love of Obama because of his race. If there is plenty of evidence to criticize a poster’s comments, why make stuff up, or write something that requires twisted mental gymnastics to reach such a conclusion?
Comment by Pat — September 23, 2009 @ 10:14 am - September 23, 2009
Pat, that’s a better way to say it. Better, because it’s more careful and honest.
Suppose I say the following. “Fatherlessness [or other problem] is universal. We as a society group people by race more than we probably should, but when we do, there does seem to be a higher *rate* of fatherlessness among blacks. Why could that be? Let’s inquire.”
Notice that I haven’t pre-judged the answer. I haven’t tried to blame the group in question. I haven’t inferred causality where there may only be correlation. The causal factor may well be economic status, rather than race. (Many seeming racial differences vanish, when you adjust for that one factor.) I’ve posed a potentially interesting question, in a neutral and open-minded way.
I claim all that is very different from what Ash said, which was (#2) “the black community is unwilling to take a look at itself… It doesn’t want to admit that its members are at fault for creating the image of black people as sexually irresponsible, education-hating, drug using, violent criminals… Did you see any black people go down to New Orleans after Katrina and help rebuild?” In other words: Pre-judging the question, casting aspersions on the whole group, and making giant, unwarranted assumptions. Not fair.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 23, 2009 @ 10:26 am - September 23, 2009
And here is the latest example of Tano and Barack Obama’s racist views.
This… there’s nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem.
We’re in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.
In short, Barack Obama, Tano, and the Obama Party support firing qualified people from their jobs because they’re the wrong skin color or sexual orientation.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 23, 2009 @ 11:56 am - September 23, 2009
Pat,
ILC might be prone to hyperbolie in his statements at times, so I went blog post hunting.
Tano’s shown a history of forgiving radical viewpoints as indiscressions then staying silent when he’s shown it wasn’t.
He also has spread his share of slander then shuts up when shown he’s wrong
He also is prone to justify Obama’s lies long after they’ve been shown to be, well, lies.
ILC may go too far in saying that Tano will let any comment made by a non-white person slide, but between the above links and Tano’s eagerness to embrace and defend an anti-semite like Carter, one could understand a basis of Tano’s patern of racism.
Comment by The_Livewire — September 23, 2009 @ 12:43 pm - September 23, 2009
TL, I think you mean NDT
(Since I didn’t say the above)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 23, 2009 @ 1:51 pm - September 23, 2009
ILC, TGC,…. D’OH!
Sorry I was channelling my inner Tano, thinking you are all the same person.
Comment by The_Livewire — September 23, 2009 @ 3:13 pm - September 23, 2009
LOL, sorry, meant NDT.
I need a nap.
Comment by The_Livewire — September 23, 2009 @ 3:14 pm - September 23, 2009
I’m sure there were some blacks helping rebuild Katrina–probably as part of groups headed by whites. But there was no Million Man March on New Orleans. There was not a concerted effort of blacks helping blacks, or even blacks who lived there picking up hammers and saws to help rebuild. All the rebuilding has been led by whites.
This could have been a time for the black community to come together, but no, they chose to blame the hurricane on whites, paint themselves as victims, sit on their asses and do nothing.
Find me a photo of a group of mostly blacks helping to rebuild in New Orleans. And then find me a picture of a group of gays educating teenagers about the positive effects of abstinence until marriage.
Comment by Ashpenaz — September 23, 2009 @ 4:51 pm - September 23, 2009
OMFG, Ash. There you go with the sick, racist comments again.
Folks, need I detail the ways in which Ash’s claims are some combination of FALSE, unprovable, or otherwise unwarranted? And thus tending to smear an entire group which Ash has singled out on the basis of race? Or is it too obvious?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 23, 2009 @ 5:35 pm - September 23, 2009
A single photo will prove me wrong, ILC.
Comment by Ashpenaz — September 23, 2009 @ 7:15 pm - September 23, 2009
Ash: You are the one making the nutty, racist comments. The burden of proof is on you to show your claims are true. Let me refresh your memory. Your claims that:
- Blacks haven’t helped rebuild New Orleans after Katrina, except as led by whites.
- Blacks had zero “concerted efforts” to help each other after Katrina. (Note: It might be a bit racist, if they did. I do not accept your premise that they should have. The spirit of helping after Katrina was one of everyone helping everyone, and rightly so.)
- Not a single black “who lived there” would “pick[] up hammers and saws to help rebuild.”
- Blacks universally, and as a 100% monolithic community, chose to “sit on their asses and do nothing” in the rebuilding.
They’re your claims. Step up to your burden of proof, Ash. Either that, or stop making racist comments in public, taking them back into the dark where you can beg God for His forgiveness as you ought to.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 23, 2009 @ 9:02 pm - September 23, 2009
P.S. The fact that your claims are “negatives” in the sense of “how can one prove a negative?” is again your problem. You are the one who asserted the claims as true. In so doing, you have created an enormous burden of proof for yourself. *You*. The fact that proving them will be very, very difficult indeed for you speaks to their basic nuttiness, and is not my problem.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 23, 2009 @ 9:29 pm - September 23, 2009
ILC [sic] may go too far in saying that Tano will let any comment made by a non-white person slide, but between the above links and Tano’s eagerness to embrace and defend an anti-semite like Carter, one could understand a basis of Tano’s patern of racism.
Livewire, I’ll concede any of us are prone to hyperbole. But it’s another thing to repeat it when called out on it. And then add on a new piece of hyperbole as a bonus.
It’s no better than a liberal, leftie, Democrat, or whatever calling a gay conservative a self-loather. Then when called on it, repeat the charge, justifying it through some twisted logic, and then add another lie onto it. Unless, of course, the goal is to show one can be just as bad as a leftie who engages in such wrong behavior.
Comment by Pat — September 24, 2009 @ 7:19 am - September 24, 2009
Find me a photo of a group of mostly blacks helping to rebuild in New Orleans. And then find me a picture of a group of gays educating teenagers about the positive effects of abstinence until marriage.
Ashpenaz, besides wha ILC said, I’m not sure why the people who assisted in the New Orleans relief have to be in groups of one race, unless this form of segration is still mandated, and I wasn’t aware of it.
As for the other comment, that’s a different can of worms, and perhaps a good topic for another thread.
Comment by Pat — September 24, 2009 @ 7:26 am - September 24, 2009
And Pat – Do you think the reason there might have been no Million Man March (of people of any races, black or otherwise) might have been because the area was just wiped out by a disaster? to the point where the National Guard had to supply basic necessities even to people 40 miles away? What would have been the logistics, never mind the purpose, of such a crazy march?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 24, 2009 @ 8:48 am - September 24, 2009