Teabag racism – where is the outrage?

February 6, 2010 by hippieprof

The teabaggers are it again…. and I am wondering…. where is the outrage?

(see footnote)

Oh – there is plenty of outrage on the left – just check out the #p2 hashtag on Twitter.

I am looking for outrage from reasonable people on the right – even perhaps from a few teabaggers themselves. Surely they realize that their movement has gone too far…. too far toward hateful, overt racism?

Yes – the teabag movement has always had its racists. Take a look here for a montage of posters from the rallies last summer….. or here for another group of photos.

Somehow, the teabaggers just write all of this off. Just a few crazies, they say. Or, better yet – they claim “liberuls” like me are just being too sensitive. Calling Obama a “lyin’ African” or a “Half-Breed Muslin” isn’t racist at all. Hey – maybe they are right. I bet that last poster is just decrying Obama’s fabric choices. Even I prefer my muslin curtains to be purebred – they are so much whiter that way…..

So – yeah – teabaggers have always been associated with racists.

But now it has gone farther – a lot farther.

If you follow the news, you know that the teabaggers are holding a convention in Nashville right this very minute. You can catch it on CSPAN if you like. There are a whopping 600 of them attending – paying a substantial fee to attend this for-profit event. I am indeed curious why 600 people attending a for-profit event is worthy of the national news…. but I digress.

The opening speaker at the convention was one Tom Tancredo. You may have heard of Teabag Tom before. He is a former Representative to the US House, hailing from Colorado. He briefly threw his hat into the ring as a possible GOP presidential nominee. He is pretty much a one-trick pony – that being an anti-immigration pony. That would be the ugly angry drippingly sarcastic racist anti-immigration pony.

Here are some quotes from his convention-opening speech:

“people who could not even spell the word ‘vote’, or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House. His name is Barack Hussein Obama.”

Tancredo goes on to propose a literacy test as a prerequisite to voting – to make sure that only the right people get to vote. After all – Obama apparently only won because – damn! – the wrong people were allowed to vote!

Maybe Teabag Tom needs a history and civics lesson of his own. Actually, I suspect he doesn’t – he knows what he is doing – but lets go there anyway. We have had literacy tests in this country before – in the Jim Crow south. Literacy tests were used to keep blacks from voting. Their use was restricted by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of these acts – literacy tests used to restrict voting are unconstitutional.

So – Tancredo wants to reverse the Civil Rights Act, reverse the Voting Rights Act, reverse Supreme Court rulings, and take us back to the Jim Crow south.

And people claim – with a straight face – that this movement isn’t racist?

Don’t worry – there is more. Tancrdo goes on to blame ”the cult of multiculturalism, aided by leftists, liberals all over who don’t have the same idea about America as we do.”

Apparently there is only one correct culture in America and only one correct idea about America. To Tancredo and the teabaggers, that is a hateful white racist idea about America.

The teabaggers can no longer claim that the racists are just a few fringe crazies. Tancredo was invited by the organizers – to do no less than deliver the opening speech of the convention. The opening speech is a big event – it is meant to set the tone for the entire convention. Tancredo’s views were well known prior to the convention.

The teabaggers cannot hide it anymore. It is a deeply hateful, racist movement. They embrace racism.

Again – where is the outrage?

———-

Footnote: I am well aware of the sexual double entendre surrounding the term “Tea Bagger” – although I must admit that I am not hip enough and had to look it up the first time it was brought to my attention. Since that time I have avoided using the term, and have called them “tea partiers” instead. Until now. Avowed racists are not deserving of that measure of respect. If they are offended – good! I am offended by them.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Politics | 29 Comments »

Back in the Saddle – Windmills Beware!

February 5, 2010 by hippieprof

When I first started writing this blog back in August, I posted something almost every day.  Obviously, that was unsustainable and I couldn’t hope to continue at that rate – but I had a lot of things I wanted to say, and I was encouraged that at least a few people were interested in reading my ideas and discussing the issues.

Then, after making a post on October 1st, I suddenly went silent.

Some people even noticed, and asked why.

I never made an active decision to stop writing – life simply intervened.  The last few months have seen a lot of stressful events in my family.  It started with my son hospitalized with H1N1, followed by the sudden and tragic death of a close family friend, followed 3 weeks later by the death of our 92-year-old family matriarch, and capped off with my 87-year-old Alzheimer’s patient mother breaking her femur and landing in the hospital.  It is perhaps understandable that my political ranting took a back seat.

(OK – a new Xbox under the Christmas tree provided some distraction as well.  Sheesh – I could probably lose my hippie card for admitting that.)

But – in all honesty – there is a lot more to the story….

I simply became burned out from the constant political roller-coaster.  Every time it looked like we were about to have a breakthrough in health care legislation, there was Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson or some other lowlife stepping in to crush the momentum.  Every time I dared to hope I ended up instead being frustrated and crushed. The Massachusetts election followed two days later by a devastating Supreme Court ruling was a nasty one-two punch to the gut.

I am tempted to throw up my hands and quit.  Perhaps I just don’t have the fortitude to withstand heated political debate.  I am a passionate guy and I care deeply about the issues – and it hurts to lose….

….but that would mean that the bad guys had won.

I have to get back up and get back into the fight.  Things are looking decidedly bad for Democrats and progressives.  I can’t walk away now.

So – it is back in the saddle.  The windmills have been getting downright bold – time to put them in their place.

Extensive blog posts will soon follow.  In the meantime, here are a few of my current thoughts.

– Scott Brown did not kill health care reform.  Joe “I have no ties to the insurance industry” Lieberman did.  Ben “pork belly” Nelson did.  There are others. This thing could have been done months ago – but instead they decided to drag their feet for personal gain.  Instead of doing their job, they decided to put personal power politics ahead of the public good.   Scott Brown is only relevant because they made him relevant.  Joe… Ben… people are going to die needlessly because of the game you played.  I hope your conscience is haunting you.

– Speaking of health care reform….. if Democrats had any guts it would NOT be dead.  My very first blog post (you can see it here) urged Democrats to have some guts and ram a progressive health care reform bill through – re-election be damned.  They can still do that and they should still do that.  Look – we are going to take a beating in 2010 midterms.  There probably isn’t much we can do about that now.  Instead of playing nicey-nicey and trying to save a lost election, use the time you have to get the job done.  You aren’t going to win the election anyway – so you might as well try to do the right thing on your way out.

– Ironically, the Massachusetts election provides an opportunity to have a better, more progressive health care bill than might have been imagined before.  All it would take is to have the House pass the Senate bill, and then to have the Senate add some progressive reforms via reconciliation.  But – that would take some guts.

– More irony:  In the era of right-wing “purity tests” the so-called savior of the Republican Party – Scott Brown – is decidedly to the left of any other GOP Senator.

– Scylla or Charybdis? Looks like we got both.

– Prediction:  The Supreme Court’s decision on campaign financing will go down in history as being one of the worst of all time.  In the end it will prove devastating to our form of government.  Or maybe not – corporations will control how the history books are written so it won’t actually go down in history that way.  It will still be true, though.

– Conservatives are ecstatic about the Supreme Court’s decision on campaign financing.  I can understand why rich conservatives feel this way – the investing class will certainly do better.  Hell, I have a good job and I have investments so chances are that I personally will do better financially.  What I don’t understand is how rank-and-file conservatives – the ones who do not have much money – think this is good for them.  Sorry – but corporate America does not look after the little guy.  Giving more power to corporations will do little more than make the rich richer.

– The constitution gives me free speech – but does it give me the right to drown out the guy next to me by shouting louder and louder until he can’t be heard?  I don’t think so.

– My party is greatly underestimating the danger of Sarah Palin.   I cringe every time I hear someone say they hope Palin is the GOP nominee because she will be so easy to beat.  Don’t be so confident – Massachusetts was supposed to be safe too.  She is far too dangerous to be taking so lightly.

– A new poll shows that 63 percent of Republicans think Barak Obama is a Socialist.  Wow.  I would wager that fewer than 10 percent of those people could actually define what a Socialist is.

– Did you catch Tancredo’s remarks at the Teabagger convention today?  Not just in any old speech but in the opening speech – the speech intended to set the tone for the whole convention?  I quote:  “people who could not even spell the word ‘vote’, or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House. His name is Barack Hussein Obama.” He goes on to blame this on “”the cult of multiculturalism, aided by leftists, liberals all over who don’t have the same idea about America as we do.”  Wow.  Can anyone honestly deny that this is a hateful, racist group?

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Politics, wordpress-political-blogs | 4 Comments »

Stuck in the middle with you (as long as you agree with me)

October 1, 2009 by hippieprof

Moonbats to the left of me, Wingnuts to the right…  Here I am, stuck in the middle with you

– with apologies to Stealer’s Wheel

Have you noticed that people on the left have trouble these days talking with people on the right – and vice versa?  Maybe, just a little?  Why is that?  Well, its because those guys on the other side are a bunch of wingnuts, that’s why!  Or, if you are starting on the right, it is because those guys on the left are all moonbats!

Before we delve into this any further let’s do a quick opinion survey:

Who is more radical (far from the center) in their political views:

A:  Rush Limbaugh

B:  Rachel Maddow

Which TV personality has the greatest bias in their political views?

A:   Glen Beck

B:    Keith Olbermann

Which politician has the most radical (out of the mainstream) agenda?

A:  Sarah Palin

B:  Barak Obama

Which TV Network is more biased?

A:  MSNBC

B:  FOX News

Which term describes you best?

A:  Conservative

B:  Liberal

Here is my prediction.  You either chose “A” every time or you chose “B” every time.  I doubt there are many BABAB or ABABA types out there – unless perhaps you think this is all about experimental design.

I think this has a lot to do with why we are having trouble talking to each other.

The inspiration for this post came yesterday, in the midst of a heated discussion on the Rutherford Lawson blog. A generally reasonable right-winger had complained about some Hollywood “radicals” on the left (specifically Bette Midler, Cher, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Janeane Garofalo).  I countered with a list of equally far-right people – and actually MORE far right in my opinion (specifically Glen Beck, Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter).  It quickly degraded into a bit of a row, each of us claiming that the folks from the other side were more radical and out of the mainstream.

Who was right?

I was – of course – but that isn’t really so interesting.

;)

The more interesting question is “How can this occur?”  How is it that two relatively reasonable people can complain, in good faith, that the other side is always more radical?

The short answer is that we tend to “fix” where the political middle is relative to our own position.  We tend to believe that we personally are closer to the middle than people on the other side.

The longer answer is that we all suffer from the false consensus bias.

Social Psychologists commonly study cognitive bias – a predictable tendency to come to false conclusions in specific situations.  There are many types of bias, but in the present case the false consensus bias is most applicable.

The false consensus bias is the tendency to believe that most other people agree with us.  As noted here, people tend to believe that their own view is held by the majority of others, regardless of what that view is.  If confronted with evidence to the contrary (in the form of polls or something similar) people will typically attack the “evidence” instead of admitting that their own view is out of the mainstream.

So – which is more radical and biased – MSNBC or Fox News?

The answer  - or more accurately your answer – depends on your existing political views.

Applied to politics, the false consensus bias tells us that we will believe our own political views to be more representative of the mainstream than they in fact are.  Suppose that we could measure the “liberal” versus “conservative” difference along a single dimension, like this:

(Lib)——————(Middle)—————-(Con)

My own political views, in reality, might be represented like this:

Me——————–(Middle)

However, my perception of my own views would look more like this:

———-Me———-(Middle)

Let’s throw Glen Beck into the picture.  In reality, our political views might look like this:

Me——————–(Middle)——————————–Beck

But when we apply the false consensus bias, my perception looks more like this:

———-Me———-(Middle)—————————————-Beck

In other words, Beck seems more radical to me – more divorced from the mainstream – because I view myself as closer to the center than I really am.

If you have followed along until this point you should easily be able to work it in reverse – noting how someone on the right might see a liberal commentator – a Keith Olbermann – as more radically divorced from the mainstream than he truly is.

What are the implications for this analysis?

On some level, it does not bode well for civil political discourse.  Political conversation these days seems to quickly devolve into the shouting of extreme labels – Socialist! Fascist! Moonbat! Wingnut! We all seem very ready to buy into the assumption that the other side is absolutely crazy and out of touch, while our own views are so much more sane, so much more in the mainstream.

So – the next time you find yourself ready to label the other side as extreme, it is probably wise to remember the false consensus bias.

Well……. except Palin and Beck and Limbaugh and Dobbs and Coulter really are radical wingnut whackjobs…..

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Politics, wordpress-political-blogs | 53 Comments »

Ralphie and Aldo and Stephen and Barak

September 25, 2009 by hippieprof

In recent years the “Ralphie Marathon” has become a Christmas staple.

You know Ralphie – the pudgy bespectacled hero of A Christmas Story? The film routinely ranked as “favorite Christmas special?”

What is your favorite Ralphie scene? I have many – but near the top certainly has to be this one – the scene in which Ralphie has finally had enough and wails on the bully Scut Farkas.

Everyone just loves that scene – perhaps because most of us have been bullied and most of us can identify with Ralphie. It is fun to finally see the bully get what he has coming, isn’t it?

But – hey – look – what are we doing cheering Ralphie on? Isn’t Ralphie being a BULLY beating up on Scut?

Huh?

Of course Ralphie isn’t a bully. He is fighting back - and fighting back against a bully is OK.

Of course, A Christmas Story is all warm and fuzzy and sentimental – probably a bit too syrupy for some people. Maybe Quentin Tarantino is more your style?

Have you seen Inglorious Basterds yet? It is frankly quite a bit better than the trailer would suggest – and Christoph Waltz very much deserves an Oscar nod…. but I digress…

One of the film’s subplots is about an elite group of Jewish soldiers, dropped behind enemy lines in occupied France – with the sole purpose of terrorizing Germans. It is indeed a gruesome and bloody business – including scalpings, swastikas carved in the forehead, and t-ball played with Nazi heads. Yet – despite the violence everyone in the theater was cheering those Jewish boys on – wishing that the war really had gone that way.

Wait – but those Jewish soldiers were killing Germans because they were Germans – isn’t that racist?

Ahhh…..

No…. Of course not….. the Germans started the whole thing, and in fact were systematically attempting to exterminate the Jewish race. The Jewish soldiers were simply fighting back – brutally, yes – but fighting back. Fighting back is just fine. In fact – its is downright heroic.

A Christmas Story and Inglorious Basterds are, of course, works of the imagination. Both films certainly draw on some historical events – but in the end they are indeed fictional.

Lets look at someone real. How about Stephen Biko?

You remember Stephen Biko, don’t you? He has been dead for over 30 years, but certainly he should remain in our memories. He was a prominent black activist at the height of South African apartheid. The South African government called him an agitator and a terrorist. They eventually arrested him, and he died in captivity. Nobody outside South Africa seriously believed he was a terrorist. His goal was to simply empower black South Africans to fight for their rights. His people were oppressed by a brutal racist regime, and he sought to see black people break free from those bonds. He is credited with coining the term “black is beautiful”…..

Wait – what am I saying? His goal was to empower black people? He thought black was beautiful – as opposed to white? Damn! Biko must have been a RACIST!!!!

Yeah – right….

Biko was a black freedom fighter – fighting back against an oppressive racist regime. Fighting back against an oppressive racist regime is NOT racism. It is fighting back…. and fighting back is just fine. It is in fact honorable. Biko is rightfully called a martyr.

So now we turn to Barak Obama.

In case you have not noticed, Obama is often accused of being a racist these days. Glen Beck does it. Rush Limbaugh does it. Lou Dobbs does it. It is all over conservative talk radio and is rampant in the conservative blogsphere.

Obama is a racist? On what grounds is that accusation made?

As far as I can tell, it is because he says things and has done things to empower African Americans and other minorities. It is because his advisers and “czars” and cabinet appointees and supreme court nominees have done likewise – they have done things to empower oppressed minorities.

But wait! Isn’t that racism? Isn’t that showing preference to blacks over whites? Racism! Racism!

Give me a F’ing break.

Obama is not a racist. His advisers are not racist. His Supreme Court nominee is not racist. Even his former pastor is not racist.

They are merely fighting back against an historically racist and oppressive regime.

I can hear the shouts rising….

“America isn’t racist anymore!”

“Just get over it”

“It is not my fault my ancestors were racist!”

“The liberals are just playing the race card!”

Give me a F’ing break again.

Racism in America is alive and well. Sometimes it is overt – as seen in hateful signs at teabag parties…. (http://hippieprofessor.com/2009/09/13/calling-it-what-it-is/). Often it is covert – hidden – and even unconscious… (http://hippieprofessor.com/2009/09/16/the-subtlety-of-modern-racism/)

Certainly we have made great strides in the last 50 years. I remember the pre-civil rights era. In the deep south it was not unlike South African apartheid. But racism will not be over until we live in a truly color-neutral society – where in Dr. King’s words we truly judge a man by the content of his character. We simply are not there yet.

White America (a demographic to which I belong, I will remind you) does not get to practice state-sanctioned racism for almost 200 years and then suddenly turn around and say “all done!” We certainly don’t get to claim it is all over until it is really is over – until all vestiges of racism are gone forever.

White America most certainly does not get to turn around and apply the racist label to those African Americans who seek equality and black empowerment – even when that means preferential treatment in the short term.

Ralphie wasn’t a bully – he was fighting back against a bully….

The Inglorious Basterds weren’t racists – they were fighting back against racists…..

Stephen Biko wasn’t a racist – he was fighting back against an oppressive racist regime…..

Neither Barak Obama nor his advisers are racists – they are fighting back against a long history of societal racism. Impressive strides against racism have indeed been made – but it ain’t over until its over. Until racism against African Americans is gone, then you really can’t call it racism to fight back.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Politics | 26 Comments »

Hoosier tort reformer?

September 20, 2009 by hippieprof

I lived in Indiana for about five years.  My first job out of graduate school was as a post-doc and visiting professor at Indiana University in Bloomington.  It’s a great place, and I eventually assimilated pretty well – I enjoyed the Little 500 and joined the wild celebration when Indiana won its last NCAA Basketball Championship in 1987.

I never really felt comfortable calling myself a “Hoosier” though.  I had particular disdain for the practice of using “Hoosier” as a contraction for “Who is your”  – and here I go using that device myself in the title of this post.

So – who is your tort reformer?

It might just be Indiana – at least when it comes to medical torts.

The battle for health care reform has certainly been loud and divisive.  There has been more shouting and protesting and marching than actual discussion.  There has been a lot of misdirection and misinformation.  Some of the issues raised are downright silly and would be funny if people didn’t actually believe them (fear of death panels and involuntary euthanasia, for example).

Some criticisms are decidedly not silly.  For example, conservatives consistently raise “tort reform” as an issue.  Why don’t liberals include tort reform as a part of the package?

My answer?  Yeah – why not?   You might be surprised that I support tort reform.  After all, aren’t liberals supposed to be against it?

I think this comes down to a “baby and the bathwater” issue – and most liberals err on the side of protecting the baby while most conservatives really want that bathwater gone.

Let’s concentrate for now on medical malpractice.  There are certainly other areas ripe for reform – but with the ongoing health care battle it seems particularly appropriate to look at medical malpractice suits.

Besides – I have something to write about medical torts.

There are plenty of very real cases of medical malpractice.  Physicians operate drunk and kill patients… nurses misadminister drugs… drug companies improperly label drugs resulting in accidental overdose….  Surgeons somehow manage to remove the wrong kidney…. Pharmacists and physicians fail to recognize fatal drug interactions.

In my opinion victims of such malpractice – and their families – should receive substantial compensation from the courts.  If tort reform means limiting awards to victims of serious abuse – well, then I guess I am against it.

But for every example of true malpractice there are many more “fluff” malpractice suits – groundless suits submitted by personal injury lawyers in the interest of nothing more than making a quick buck.  The “fluff” class-action suits are the absolute worst because the lawyers are the only ones to profit from those.  Our current system is nothing more than a subsidy for PI attorneys.  The fluff lawsuits must be eliminated.

Therein lies the Gordian knot.

How do we separate the true cases of malpractice from the fluff lawsuits?

Our jury system is not well equipped to handle this issue.  A “jury of your peers” will generally not include anyone with enough medical expertise to distinguish true malpractice from the fluff.  In fact, you could be certain that any physician in the jury pool would be challenged and dismissed.

How is a jury of non-experts to decide?  Both sides will have passionate lawyers – lawyers who know how to talk a good game.  Both sides will hire “expert” witnesses – who really aren’t experts at all.  No – expert witnesses are just whores who sell their souls to tell the jury what their side wants the jury to hear.

In the end it does not come down to the facts – it comes down to which side has the most convincing lawyers and experts.

This practice has to stop.  Unfortunately, the typical suggestion – a cap on damage awards – hurts the true victim as much as it does the non-victim.  The baby goes out with the bathwater.

Is there a way out of this bind?  A way to untie the knot?

A physician friend recently told me of a system in Indiana that just might offer a solution.

In Indiana, individuals wanting to claim malpractice first submit their case to a three-member panel of physicians.  That panel reviews the facts of the case and determines if malpractice may have occurred or not.  If the panel finds malpractice is unlikely the case ends right there.  If the panel finds malpractice may have occurred, the case can more forward to trial.

The system has a number of advantages.  PI lawyers are far less likely to file “fluff” suits because they will generally be unable to fool a panel of experts.  True victims of malpractice, on the other hand, stand to receive just compensation.    Physicians in Indiana will be able to concentrate on providing good health care instead of “defensive medicine” designed merely to avoid lawsuits.  Finally, malpractice insurance will be less expensive because fewer lawsuits will be filed and even fewer will go to trial.  In the end, medical costs go down – and that is a major goal of all reform efforts.

It certainly isn’t a perfect system.  I can see several possible concerns:

– The review process is apparently quite lengthy – it can add up to a year to the process.   Does this delay put an undue burden on the true victim?

– There is a worry among lawyers – perhaps a real worry – that the panel will always err on the side of the physician.

– There is always the worry of corruption.  There is lots of money floating around in the medical world, so the temptation to buy off the panel is certainly there.

I have had quite a bit of trouble finding additional information about this program.  It looks like an interesting solution, despite the problems.  I would be particularly be interested in hearing from people who know more about the system.  Do you think it works?  What are its problems?

Then comes the bigger question:  Should something similar be enacted nationally?  Should this system, or something similar, become a part of health care reform?

To me, it does look promising.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Health Care Reform, Politics, Uncategorized | 15 Comments »

The Subtlety of Modern Racism

September 16, 2009 by hippieprof

Today I get to be a psychologist and actually talk about something in my field….

A few days ago, I made a blog post in which I “called out” overt acts of racism found within the “tea party” crowd. It is safe to say that the post was controversial. Quite a few people responded – some with anger – that they oppose Obama because of his ideas and not because of racism.

Just yesterday, former President Jimmy Carter made a similar statement – claiming that much of the opposition to Obama was in fact racist in nature. Carter stated “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American.”

For some reason I can’t quite fathom, Carter’s remarks have generated even more attention than mine. Go figure. For example, Michael Steele (Chair of the Republican National Committee) is quoted as saying “President Carter is flat out wrong. This isn’t about race. It is about policy. This is a pathetic distraction by Democrats to shift attention away from the president’s wildly unpopular government-run health care plan that the American people simply oppose.”

(Note that the White House has been careful to distance themselves from such talk.)

Many people – correspondents, bloggers, tea-partiers, politicians, average citizens – have said similar things. “I oppose Obama because of his ideas and his policies. My reaction to him has nothing to do with race.”

Assuming that these people are telling the truth, does that mean we can just put this behind us – that we can agree that race is not a primary factor in reactions to Obama?

Sadly, no.

A substantial body of psychological research has shown that people harbor and act on racist attitudes without being aware that they are even doing so. The majority of people in modern American society disavow racism – yet those same people, when tested in subtle ways, display racist attitudes.

Let me describe a series of psychological experiments. These experiments have been replicated numerous times, both under controlled laboratory conditions and under “field testing” in the real world.

Here is a typical experimental design.

Subjects in the experiment are given a set of resumes and asked to rate the employability of each applicant.

For one group of subjects, a resume was from Donald Smith.

For another group of subjects, the IDENTICAL resume was Denzel Smith.

No photo was attached.  The content of the resume was EXACTLY the same – the same education background, the same job experiences – EVERYTHING was the same -  with the exception that in some cases the name was traditionally Caucasian, while in others the name was traditionally African American.

So – what’s in a name?

Subjects gave significantly lower employability ratings to resumes with African American first names (Denzel, Lafonda, Jorell, etc) compared to THE EXACT SAME RESUME containing a traditional Caucasian name (Donald, Larry, John, etc).

When interviewed later, the experimental subjects denied taking race into account. They denied even being aware of the race of the applicant – this despite the clear evidence that indeed they had based their judgment on the perceived race of the applicant.

Were they lying? Were they too embarrassed to admit racism had a part in their ratings? Probably not. They were likely acting subconsciously. Subconscious racial attitudes can indeed have an effect on behavior.

Modern racism is subtle. We have thankfully moved beyond the days in which cross burnings and lynching were common. It is rare that someone will make an overtly racist comment. But racism is still there, simmering beneath the surface, in the form of deeply held attitudes of disdain and mistrust. It is may unconscious – but don’t fool yourself by claiming it isn’t there.

Are opponents to Obama racist, or are they simply acting on the basis of his policies?

Probably some of both. Substantial evidence suggests the existence of a subtle and subconscious racism – a racism which could well taint one’s views of the President without even surfacing to conscious awareness.

How does one fight such racism? How does one act against something so subtle yet potentially so powerful?

Serious and honest self-reflection is perhaps a good first step.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Politics | 80 Comments »

Calling it what it is…..

September 13, 2009 by hippieprof

Each morning for the last few weeks I have been engaging in what is quickly becoming a masochistic exercise.

I tag surf.

For those of you uninitiated in this thrilling sport, “tag surfing” is visiting blogs in which  recent posts have used a particular tag – such as “Political” or “Obama” or “Nazi” or “Communist.”

It will probably not surprise you that blogs using those four tags together tend to be… well…. To the right of the right?

Lately I have noticed that a lot of the right-of-the-right blogs really love Obama’s middle name.  They love it so much that they like repeating it – over and over again.  They love it so much that they like emphasizing it when they repeat it….

Barak Hussein Obama

Barak HUSSEIN Omaba

Barak HUSSEIN Obama

Barak HUSSIEN Obama

Yeah – hey – we get it – Obama has a funny middle name.   Ohmygosh it is a name he shares with a deposed Iraqi dictator as well as with the King of Jordan.

But, come on – lets call it what it is.

Racism. Pure simple evil unadulterated racism.

Seriously – when people emphasize Obama’s middle name, what message are they trying to deliver?  What is their point?

I make it my point to raise this question every time I see a blog emphasizing Obama’s middle name.  I ask – what is your point in doing that?  What are you really trying to say?  So far, none of these comments has survived moderation – so I will raise the question here.

It is obvious to me why my comments do not survive moderation.  These people are racists, they know they are racists, and they don’t like to be called out.

So I will call them out right here.

Emphasizing Obama’s middle name is to emphasize that he is different from “the rest of us” – different from real Americans – different from real white Christian Americans.

Obama is the other….

Obama is the dangerous black man….

Obama is the dangerous black Muslim man….

There is only one thing to call it.  Blatant unadulterated racism.

We need to be calling it out, you and I.

I urge you – whenever you see this or similar invocation of racial hatred and racial fear-mongering on a blog – leave a comment.  Let the author know what you think of this deplorable tactic.  Your comment may well not survive moderation – but make the comment anyway.

What I truly wish is that my moderate conservative friends would join me in calling racists out.  Overt racism on the right does nothing for your cause – in fact it damages your cause.   There are legitimate criticisms of Obama’s policies.  There is a place for rational debate.  Criticizing Obama’s race is obviously not a legitimate criticism and it distracts from discussion of the true issues.

I would like to challenge my moderate conservative friends.  When you attend a tea party, and you see an overtly racist sign, tell the person holding the sign that it is offensive.  Tell them that racism does nothing for your cause.  Tell them that racism detracts from your cause.  Tell them that racist rhetoric is simply not to be tolerated.  Tell them that.  It is your responsibility to do so.

Remember, it is not patriotic to be a racist, even of you are shouting “USA!” as you march.

Will this strategy work?  Will it eliminate racist rhetoric?

Probably not….

…but it is time to be calling it what it is.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Politics | 56 Comments »

Open Minds….. NOT!

September 10, 2009 by hippieprof

I observed something very interesting right after Obama’s health care speech last night.  I logged into the blogsphere almost immediately after the speech ended and started doing some tag surfing.  As expected there were a variety of quick reactions, both positive and negative.  As is my practice, I tossed off a few quick comments – especially to right-wing blogs.  At such times I don’t dare write anything more substantial because my comments so often fail to survive moderation….

Anyway, I saw a lot of the usual quick reaction…

“Zomboma Nazi Sucks!”

“The President hit a Grand Slam!”

“That guy from South Carolina should be shot!”

“Thank goodness that guy from South Carolina had the guts to shout the commie down!”

If you regularly cruise the blogsphere you see this kind of stuff all the time…. Quick, hyperpartisan knockoffs.  It is part of the game.

Then I noticed something really really REALLY interesting.  It had been sitting right in front of me the whole time and I didn’t immediately grasp the significance….

Some of the responses I was reading were not quick knockoff comments – no – these were long, organized postings – typically highly critical of the President’s speech.

Remember – I was logged in minutes after the speech was given.

There is absolutely no way that the writers would have had time to write such a long reaction piece in the short time following the speech.   Clearly, the “reactions” were prepared before the speech was even given!

I even doubt that some of these writers listened to the speech at all!  There were many instances in which the criticisms bore no relation to what Obama actually said.  For example, one writer angrily claimed “Obama still refuses to address tort reform…..” ahhhh…except he did and you would have known that had you been watching.

As soon as I realized what was going on I started calling these writers out by leaving comments on their blogs.  As usual, most of my comments didn’t survive moderation – but one writer (and I admire him for his honesty) did admit that his “reaction” piece was actually written days ago.

Such open minds we have……

I understand that this is traditional partisan politics, and this is how the game is played.  Still, it saddens me when I see it.  Last night, Obama called for open and honest conversation and a move beyond the bickering – and I expect we will indeed have some good conversations in the days to come.  It is still sad that so many are obviously approaching the process without open minds.

Reform needs to happen – and everyone knows that.  Obama stated last night that he hopes to be the last President to deal with this issue.  Lets hope that he in fact is – because it is looking more and more like a “now or never” situation – and never really is not an option.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Health Care Reform, Politics | 22 Comments »

My head is spinning….

September 9, 2009 by hippieprof

I have been searching all morning for some clever way to use the term “spin” in my title.  I will have to go with this – nothing more creative has been coming up….

Unless you just came in from Mars, you are aware that President Barak Obama delivered a speech to schoolchildren yesterday.  Make that Jupiter – I am sure the shouts of protest from the far-right have reached Mars by now (vacuum of space and all…).

The far-right (and I mean FAR-right – moderate Republicans like Laura Bush have been supportive of Obama’s efforts) apparently thought the speech would be transformational.  Take a look here for just what transformational means….

Obama’s Transformational Speech

Seriously – there is a fear in the right wing that Obama is trying to indoctrinate our children – trying to form some sort of “Obama Youth” modeled after the Hitler youth.  If you haven’t heard this before you might think I am exaggerating.  I kid you not.  If you don’t believe me, just google “Obama Nazi” and you will find dozens of sites spewing this paranoia.

You are probably also aware that Obama hit a home run with his speech.  Even the likes of Newt Gingrich praised it.  It is available in many places on the internet – here is one link to the speech:

Video of Obama’s actual speech

The speech was certainly inspirational – like him or not you have to admit that President Obama knows how to talk to an audience.  He spoke to core American values – hard work, staying in school, persevering in the face of difficulty, and giving back to your community.

I suspect it would be hard to find anyone willing to oppose those core American values.  In fact, it would seem that the right-wing might have some egg on its face – might be a little embarrassed about having opposed a speech promoting such values?

Sadly, no…..

Here is where the spinning part comes in – and my head is indeed spinning….

Factions on the right wing are actually taking credit for the content of Obama’s speech.  For example, discussion in the Delphi opinion forum yesterday centered on the way Obama was forced by the right to promote American values….

Huh?

That’s right…. Obama apparently only promoted those American values because he was pressured to do so by the right.

The conspiracy theory goes something like this.  Obama had actually planned to give a radical communistic speech attempting to indoctrinate the children – all in an attempt to recruit them into a socialistic Obama Youth corps with revolution on their minds!  Thank goodness for our saviors and protectors on the right!  They saw through Obama’s cynical ploy and forced him to change the speech at the last minute!    They should be credited with the positive American values in the speech!  In fact – I suspect Glen Beck even wrote the speech!

Thank goodness for the right – they have saved us yet again!

Yes – my head is spinning….

Nausea is one consequence of a spinning head.  I think I feel it coming on – I need to go throw up….

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Politics | 11 Comments »

Labor Day Reflections

September 7, 2009 by hippieprof

Today is Labor Day in the Unites States, so it seems appropriate for me to talk about something relevant to the holiday – but what? Hmmmm….

Hey – have you noticed – there is a lot of debate these days about the proper role of government in administering social service programs? Hmmmm…. does that have a tie in to Labor Day? Let’s explore it….

Many people believe that the government should play at most a minimal role in social programs – that we should let the free market reign. Any additional social needs should be addressed through volunteerism and not through government programs.

It is often stated quite bluntly – like this:  “I have worked hard and I deserve the money I have earned so why should I be forced by my government to give something back to other people?”

Here is a far more reasoned way of saying essentially the same thing: (quoted directly from the blog Hot Days and Neon Nights)

“With the health care debate raging on I keep hearing this term of “social justice.” Every time I’ve heard it used it’s had somewhat of a different definition but I think I can summarize the concept as being “equality.” These people seem to think of government entitlement programs and social welfare programs as a means to “equality.” More then that, there seems to be a deep loathing for the successful people of this country because they are, in some way, the source of this “social injustice.” The concept seems flawed to me.”

OK – there is the tie-in to Labor Day. Why should the hard working laborer (or entrepreneur) be required to give something back to society?

Because your society is partially responsible for your success.

Think about it a second. You have worked hard all of your life – in school, in your job, running your business. Yes – you deserve to be rewarded for that hard work. But none of that hard work would have meant anything if you didn’t live in a society in which hard work could actually pay off.

And how does our society pull this off – what does our society do to help you obtain success?

Is it the free market? Yes – partly – but there is a lot more to it than that.

Your government provides many social programs which support your success – be it as a student or a laborer or as an small entrepreneur or a Fortune 500 CEO.

Does your education contribute to your success? Probably. Did you attend a public school? Did you receive a subsidized student loan? Or a Federal scholarship or grant?

Do you use the Post Office as part of your work? Do your customers use the Post Office to send you payments?

Do you use public transportation to get to work? Do your customers use public transportation to get to your business?

Do you use public roads? Interstate highways? Do your customers use these? Do you ship your products on these roads? Do you receive your raw materials via these roads?

Do you rely on the police to protect you and your business? The fire department?

Is poverty a problem in your community? Does poverty in fact detract from your ability to operate a successful business because of increased risk of crime or because of declining property values? If people currently in poverty had a little more to spend might they spend some of that money at your business? Would social programs designed to ease poverty actually help your business?

Is good health important for your business? Do you lose money when employees are sick? As a laborer, do you lose money when you are sick and unable to work? Would having affordable health insurance and quality health care help you as a business owner or as a laborer?

If you have managed to get this far without answering to “yes” to any of the questions – well – then I have one last question. Are you living in a cave?

“American Prosperity” and “The American Dream” are indeed a product of hard work and entrepreneurial spirit. But never forget that these dreams are only possible because we live in a society that provides a social infrastructure that makes success possible.

Why should you have to give back to society? Because your society gives so much to you.

Didn’t Kennedy say something like that?

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Politics | 62 Comments »

« Older Entries