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: conservative, left-wing, liberal, Obama, political, racism, racist, right-wing, wordpress-political-blogs
September 13, 2009 at 9:52 am |
I am with you on this one, dad. By emphasizing his middle they are trying to associate him as one of the evil Muslims who our good ol’ boys are trying to hard to demolish. They are trying to make him sound like the “enemy”, since, you know, all Muslims are evil terrorists who want nothing more then to see all good, upstanding, white, Americans to die.
Urrrrgh.
September 13, 2009 at 10:20 am |
But if you’re a true believer (or disbeliever) that facts are self evident and simply need to be stated.
).
This is not rational argument on either side (although mostly on the other sied, of course
September 13, 2009 at 10:28 am |
Using his middle name had some traction during the campaign, but the idea that Obama is a Muslim has no steam left (to mix metaphors). But you’re right, it’s racism. There are a lot of racist jackasses out there who can’t accept the fact that not only do we have a black president, we have a well educated, articulate, extremely intelligent black president.
September 13, 2009 at 10:32 am |
Ben – I would like to hope that it has no steam left – but I still see the “Muslim” claim being thrown around on right-wing blogs and on signs at tea parties…. Maybe it is just one big echo chamber – with the true believers simply reinforcing the attitudes of the true believers – but regardless I am getting sick of it and I am going to stop ignoring it…..
September 13, 2009 at 1:34 pm |
W
September 13, 2009 at 1:58 pm |
I agree that the perception that Obama is an outsiders springs from racism. After all, people made the exact claims about being a communist and an outsider against the first black President, Bill Clinton.
Oh, wait. Bill Clinton wasn’t actually black was he? That sought of undermines your hypothesis doesn’t it?
I would offer another hypothesis. I would say that every President from Washington onward has faced accusations of a wacko fringe that the President was in the thrall of some sinister and usually foreign power. It’s called the paranoiac style of American politics. You can google it.
To the extent that Obama is uniquely identified as an outsider, it has to do with him being a leftist not his race. Lleftist take great effort and pride in defining themselves as being outside and above American society. Obama couldn’t even lower himself to wear a flag pin back in 2004 even though he was sitting U.S. Senator and was drawing a paycheck from the Federal government. He just couldn’t bring himself to identity that closely with his fellow Americans by wearing the one symbol of our collective identity. (Of course, it also doesn’t help that in the last twenty years leftist politician have tried to keep secret information about themselves such as college transcripts and military records.)
But you’re correct that non-leftist should take extra care to slap down any extremist. For example, Pajama’s Media, The Weekly Standard. other non-leftist publication and tens of thousands of non-leftist blogger denouncing the idea is just not enough. No, we have to flag and refute every single solitary instance of wingnuttery or it will be perfectly legitimate to smear us all as racist.
Of course, we should expect the same thing on the left as well. I expect that every single time you see a leftist “extremist” call Bush or another non-leftist a Fascist, you will slap them down so people don’t think that all leftist think that way. I should expect that you will do the same when same when “extremist” claim that Bush et al started a war and killed tens of thousands just to earn their buddies in the oil business some money. I should expect that every time you mention the protest in opposition to democracy in Iraq, that you also explain that you don’t share any of the beliefs and values of the Stalinist who organized them. I should expect that when someone slaps up a picture of Che you instantly log on and explain that most leftist don’t share his ardent desire to destroy America and murder gay people. When a leftist “extremist” blames America for absolutely every solitary thing wrong in the world and back through all of recorded time, that you take a few minutes to explain that you don’t share those views. When leftist extremist repeatedly side with foreign despots of every possible variety and in every possible circumstance, I expect you will point out that in fact most leftist don’t share the idea that America (or any other liberal -democracy) is always wrong.
And of course, I expect you to instantly denounce anyone who claims that anyone holds particular beliefs and values based on nothing but their race, sex, sexual orientation or religious beliefs. I expect that you will not allow the idea that everyone who disagrees with a leftist is either an ignorant rural redneck or closet aristocrats whose family has been super wealthy since the days of the pharaohs.
You to do all this, EVERY SINGLE TIME, otherwise people will get to honestly that you and anyone who shares any of your beliefs in the slightest, thinks just like them.
I know you will do all this because you are all such moral, intelligent flawless people who stand as a shining example to the rest of us. With such peerless examples leading the way, the rest of grubby mortals can’t help but follow along.
September 13, 2009 at 3:42 pm |
Shannon Love: First, let me thank you dropping by and commenting. I am seeking open and honest dialogue, which just does not happen when we are yelling insults at each other. Your views are always welcome here.
(This having been said, I am a bit confused about why I was banned from your site – I wasn’t saying anything particularly antagonizing and frankly I was receiving a lot more insults than I was giving out. I would like to think my opinion would be welcome there, but apparently not?)
Now to address some specific points:
You say: “Oh, wait. Bill Clinton wasn’t actually black was he? That sought of undermines your hypothesis doesn’t it? ”
It would undermine my hypothesis if I believed that the level of hatred thrown at Bill Clinton was anything like the level of hatred I am seeing now. As I discussed in another post here, death threats against Obama are reportedly up 400 percent, to an unprecedented level. I don’t remember people carrying assault rifles at Clinton events either. I certainly don’t remember people saying William JEFFERSON Clinton, with the “Jefferson” emphasized and dripping with sarcasm.
I am not trying to claim that all opposition to Obama is racist – there are certainly many legitimate criticisms of his policies. I am just pointing out that there is a substantial racist element in your crowd. Call me a leftist if you like, but to me acts of racism are particularly heinous.
You say: “To the extent that Obama is uniquely identified as an outsider, it has to do with him being a leftist not his race.”
Perhaps – but even then I would argue that his race is being used as cynical emotional rallying cry by some on your side…. they realize that they can mobilize some of the base with this kind of rhetoric even if they don’t believe it themselves.
You say: “But you’re correct that non-leftist should take extra care to slap down any extremist. For example, Pajama’s Media, The Weekly Standard. other non-leftist publication and tens of thousands of non-leftist blogger denouncing the idea is just not enough.”
I will take your word that such denunciations are out there. I have missed them, but I am most certainly reading these materials less carefully than you. I do read lots of right-wing blogs, and I don’t know that I have found a single example of such denunciation – but again, I may be missing it.
You say: “Of course, we should expect the same thing on the left as well. ”
I can only speak for myself, but I try. For example, when people used to tell me Bush was not their President, I would remind them that this was false unless they were denouncing their citizenship. When they would call Bush a Fascist, I would remind them what a Fascist readily was (the same way I am marking similar reminders to people claiming Obama is a Fascist).
Am I perfect – no, far from it – but I certainly do my best to live by my principles.
You say: “I know you will do all this because you are all such moral, intelligent flawless people who stand as a shining example to the rest of us. With such peerless examples leading the way, the rest of grubby mortals can’t help but follow along.”
If you actually knew me you would understand what a silly comment this is. I want people to think, and I want people to open their minds to alternative propositions. That is the way I approach my teaching and it is also my goal in blogging. In the end, I don’t really care if people agree with me. Instead, I care that they have addressed the issues calmly and rationally and really thought about them.
Thanks again for your comments – they are always welcome here.
– hippieprof
September 14, 2009 at 9:09 pm |
Hippiprof,
It would undermine my hypothesis if I believed that the level of hatred thrown at Bill Clinton was anything like the level of hatred I am seeing now.
No, it was just as bad if not worse. It’s just that most of it occurred pre-internet when non-leftist voices of all kinds where locked out of the public discourse. You had to listen to talk radio or subscribe to rightwing print publications to hear it.
On two occasions, individuals fired upon the Clinton White House. Those individual’s actions, along with the Oklahoma City bombing, were widely blamed by leftist on talk radio spreading hate. Then of course we had the entire impeachment for perjury. I would say that the level of disdain for Clinton was much worse than for Obama. Social conservatives were physically disgusted at his adultery, his disrespect for his family, his contempt for his office and his hypocritical lying under oath. By contrast many social conservatives dislike Obama’s policies but no one finds him personal disgusting as they did Clinton.
There is nothing unique or unusual in the extremist disdain for Obama. You merely see it because your ideology has told you all your life that it should be there.
The merely repeating his real name and reminding people of his heritage and his families political legacy is not intrinsically racist. It doesn’t matter what that heritage is as long as it viewed as making the person an outsider. For example, if Obama had a Russian middle name and Russian heritage they would use that.
Leftists perform the same trick when they take pains to role out a Republican’s full name e.g. George Herbert Walker Bush because in America only people from historically wealthy families commonly have more than three names or numerical suffixes. In repeatedly casting Republicans as part of near aristocratic class, they seek to define them as untrustworthy outsiders every bit as much as those who use Obama’s full name.
In short, what you are seeing is a generic political phenomena common to all political extremist.
You are in fact reasoning backwards. You start with the assumption that Obama opponents are racist and then attribute their disdain to racism. You simply take a common phenomena, seeing the president as an untrustworthy outsider, and attribute that to racism.
But there is a more important problem with your argument. I am an individual. I have my own set of beliefs and ideas. Why must I be responsible for every nut job whose beliefs happen to overlap my own in someway? I don’t like Obama because he is on the far-left of the American political system. I have a long track record of opposing such policies that date back far before Obama became a national figure. Why am I responsible for people who don’t like Obama for entirely different reasons?
How far does this responsibility go and for what issues? I support gay rights do I have to log on every time I see someone refer to heterosexuals as “breeders” and say I don’t hold that opinion and I don’t think it proper or should I just expect that everyone should assume that I don’t?
I know that people oppose free trade for many reasons but I also know for certain that many people do so out racist xenophobia. Does every person who opposes free trade have to log on and correct the racist every single time they see something about free-trade that might be considered racist by someone?
Am I responsible for denouncing the racism that only you see as lying behind peoples comments? Do I have to write you and ask you every time or is there some objective standard?
The real ugly thing about your post is how easily the view you espouse can be abused. If an unethical person did set out to tar everyone opposed to Obama as racist, they would use the exact standard you suggest. That way, the unethical person could stigmatize every critic of the President, no matter how reasonable, for failing to control the racism on critics “side” as defined by the unethical person and only the unethical person.
As a practical matter do you want to start a pissing match about who is responsible for which nutjob? I don’t think you do because there are more than enough nuts to go around?
September 15, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Shannon…
So – it’s time I got around to responding to you. I am curious – are you a fun guy? Hunt here thinks you might be fun to have a beer with…. I am not so sure. You seem a bit intense. Would you have a beer with a crazy old hippie like me – or am I too dangerous? I have lots of conservative friends – half of my band is practically neocon – yet we manage to laugh together and enjoy each others company. Can you laugh at yourself? I don’t take myself particularly seriously – my “hippie professor” moniker is one great example of how I make fun of myself….
(If some of the above remarks seem out of place, here is some context – Shannon and I first met on a thread on his blog, which can be found here:
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/9188.html
In that thread, Shannon made the claim that the number of people marching on Washington Saturday was particularly impressive because they all had jobs – as opposed to liberals who attend rallies, all of whom are apparently unemployed ACORN pimps. I took exception to that claim – and lots of conversation ensued. Near the end of the thread I am told that I am dangerous. It is interesting reading).
So – on to a serious response to your post:
Lets start near the end: You say Am I responsible for denouncing the racism that only you see as lying behind peoples comments? Do I have to write you and ask you every time or is there some objective standard?
I do think you are responsible for denouncing racism when you see it. You don’t have to ask my permission or follow my definition. But yes – I do think it is your responsibility to denounce it when you see it.
You raise some interesting questions – for example, what about homophobia? Should you be denouncing that too? Probably you should – and so should I. For some reason, though, homophobia isn’t as big an issue with me – and I don’t know exactly why. I certainly abhor homophobia – but I don’t feel the need to “call it what it is” the way I do with racism. I will have to reflect on this a bit…. (yes – contrary to popular belief, I reflect on my views often)
(As an aside, I was happy to hear that you support gay rights – it means you are no more of a knee-jerk conservative than I am a knee-jerk liberal.)
Perhaps the reason I so abhor racism is that I grew up with serious racists in my family. One branch of my family is from the deep south. I remember clearly a lecture I received from an uncle when I was 12 – about the difference between “good N#$$ers” and “bad N#$$ers.” The good ones were “those what knows theya place – da bad’un is uppity an’ don’ know theya place.”
So – maybe I have a born-again fervor when it comes to calling out racists. I have seen from up close – as up close as family – just how ugly it can be.
I don’t expect you to have my same fervor – but don’t condemn me for feeling the way I do.
Moving on – you say: I would say that the level of disdain for Clinton was much worse than for Obama. Social conservatives were physically disgusted at his adultery, his disrespect for his family, his contempt for his office and his hypocritical lying under oath.
Would it surprise you to know that I agree? Probably, because again you think I am a knee-jerk liberal. I don’t actually think the disdain was worse for Clinton than for Obama – but I do believe that (unlike Obama) he deserved it. I think Clinton did a lot of good things – but I believe he showed great disdain and disrespect for his office. At the time of his impeachment I commented that Clinton’s legacy will be nothing more than inclusion of his name in a sentence alongside Nixon’s.
You say: You merely see it because your ideology has told you all your life that it should be there. and then you later say: I have a long track record of opposing such policies that date back far before Obama became a national figure.
As I have mentioned both here and elsewhere, my own political views have shifted from right to left over my adult life. As you state above, yours apparently have not shifted much. Yet, you accuse me of having static, unreflective views?
You say: The merely repeating his real name and reminding people of his heritage and his families political legacy is not intrinsically racist. It doesn’t matter what that heritage is as long as it viewed as making the person an outsider. For example, if Obama had a Russian middle name and Russian heritage they would use that.
Why do you need to paint him as an outsider at all? He is an American just like you and I. He holds American values. What is to be gained by pointing out any kind of genotypical character – be it race, gender, ethnicity? How are those factors in any way related to the issues? They are things he was born with and have nothing to do with his character. This isn’t racist to you?
You say: Leftists perform the same trick when they take pains to role out a Republican’s full name e.g. George Herbert Walker Bush because in America only people from historically wealthy families
Funny – I don’t remember much use of Bush senior’s full name until Bush junior came along – and then it was only to distinguish between two people with similar names. We did that with the Roosevelts and the Adamses too. In fact, until Obama came along I don’t remember much mention of presidential middle names at all except in the above cases.
You finish by saying: As a practical matter do you want to start a pissing match about who is responsible for which nutjob? I don’t think you do because there are more than enough nuts to go around?
Absolutely not – there are indeed plenty of nutjobs out there – and in my opinion they do nothing for rational debate. The ones on your side are best handled by you, however – they absolutely won’t listen to me.
In closing – I hope you continue to come around. The whole point of this blog is to encourage discussion of the issues, and I appreciate your willingness to make your views knows. I may disagree, and even get a bit nasty at times – but your opinion is always welcome here.
– hippieprof
September 14, 2009 at 9:27 am |
So when Obama tilts his hat to his base its ok? Becuase that is what these bloggers are doing. (j/k kind of).
It is hateful, poloarizing, and calculated because it preys on fear. The messenger in this case, marginalizes their own message. But using Hussein is the exact equivalent as ‘dubya’ was to imply GB was stupid. It is too easy to classify the blogger as racist becasue the object of ridicule is not white.
Racism is a harsh and polarizing term that has become very broad in definition, and too easily pigeon holes the target without taking them seriously.
The joker poster is a great parallel. Depicting George Bush as a maniacal joek is patriotic. The same of Obama is fear mongering and racist?
As a side note, tag surfing for those four comments and being ‘shocked’ at the right of right comments is akin to googling porn and being surprised naked pics come up.
Balance is important so I hope to see a rant against Rachel Madow, Keith Olberman and or Rhandi Rhodes. =)
September 14, 2009 at 11:23 am |
Nodot – I understand that an accusation of racism is harsh – and I do not make it lightly. However, I have frankly gotten sick of it and I can’t stand back and let it continue to go on without saying something.
I am not remotely claiming that everyone on the right is racist. I do believe that there is a substantial faction of racists to be found out there – many of whom are in the tea party movement.
I don’t think the Joker signs are racist (though I think they are terribly inappropriate).
I do think the following sign at the top of this blog post is racist:
http://wonkette.com/411055/thousands-of-grandmas-still-dont-care-for-coloreds
and this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/3913626512/
How about this one – you will probably claim it isn’t racist – but it looks like they are trying to invoke an image of the dangerous criminal black man….
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/3912839233/
and the sentiment in this one is just plan dangerous….
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/3913625906/
And of course every “birther” sign is racist… would they really care so much if they thought Obama was born in England or Canada?
I can go on and on – there are hundreds of similar photos on the net – but you get the point.
Saying that dubya is stupid (and I personally did not say that too often) may be insulting, but it isn’t in the same ballpark as racism. Maybe it is just the lefty in me, but an act of racism is particularly heinous. This is particularly true after our long history of racial oppression. Make no mistake – there are plenty of people who would be happy to return to the good old days of Jim Crow.
Balance is fine – I think Olberman and Madow can be obnoxious – but frankly I don’t see them doing anything close to what Beck and Limbaugh are doing. Maybe that is my bias. One thing for certain – Olberman and Madow have a far smaller audience.
But I thought Randy Rhodes was a dead shred guitarist?
(Oh – for clarification – I don’t surf looking for the tags “Obama” “Nazi” Communist” – I surf looking for “political” – I have just noticed these tags being used together a lot.)
September 15, 2009 at 11:27 am |
Ok the first picture has racial tones, but basically calls BHO a liar. It also compares him to an animal. I wouldn’t be caught dead with that sign. However if a white person refers to a black man as an African is it racist? If the reverse of the Kanye West incident happened with a Country Music Star ripping the mic out of a young black woman’s hand, would that be racist? (of course) Why is the coverage not equitable? Could this be why people (particularly white\middle class viewers) feel there is a media bias?
The second poster depicts the President as the DEVIL, which is completely different from the ‘scary black man’. Technically he is the scary red man from historic literature images. (again, no way would I use this sign)
The third picture is scary? It is threatening in tone, but since you have the right to bring your own gun…… (sigh)
Basically my point is all of these signs will be viewed from whatever perspective the reader\viewer wants to see them. Of all the signs, the first is actually the best because it at least states a problem. The bearer feels the President is a liar. The biggest problem with these signs is they do NOT point to a specific problem or solution. So why bother paying any attention to them?
Saying these signs are a problem, spending time discusses their intent, or labeling them as racist is a diversion from the solution we desperately need as a nation. Having them raise your blood pressure, (not saying you are) is giving them power they don’t deserve.
Declaring racism, is the (not so) new ‘red scare’/ McCarthyism of politics. It is easy to do, (Van Jones a racist?) hard to argue, and really waters down the potential to identify ACTUAL RACISTS.
I wouldn’t hold any of these signs, but I do voice my opposition to the same old politics regardless of color (and I am referring to red\blue for the record)
nodot
September 14, 2009 at 9:57 pm |
I call him B.O…..does that make me a racist??
September 14, 2009 at 10:06 pm |
Hunt – not sure – what do you mean by B.O.?
….and yes – now that you are over here I feel ok pimping my band. I am indeed an aging rocker – though being in a band keeps me feeling young. Check out:
http://www.crossthedog.com
– hippieprof
September 14, 2009 at 11:11 pm |
Barrack Obama….body odor…..bend over (and take the new taxes)….so few letters, so many uses! Hey, I checked out your band man. I like! I especially like the song list! You guys do kung fu fighting!! That’s extreme dude! I have a 12 year old kid that MAKES me jam with him. He’s some kind of sick prodigy on the drums and he NEEDS a gig so I can rest. This kid is not just good…he’s freaky good. He makes me look like eddie van halen….and I’m not even slim whitman. We do a lot of the songs on your list…..ok, we dont’ do kung foo fighting, but we all can’t be that extreme! Your song list is excellent….your politics…..not so much!
Take it easy!
September 14, 2009 at 11:25 pm |
Hey, Hunt – Rock’n'Roll transcends politics! Hell – Neil Young voted for Reagan….
I bet you are a lot more fun to have a beer with than Shannon down there….
– hp
September 15, 2009 at 12:17 am |
I think Shannon would be a lot of fun to have a beer with! And yes, rock’n'roll has no political affiliation.
About the column you wrote…I will now sound off. I think racism has become the franchise of the democratic party. Liberals need racism… they need to keep everyone in hate filled groups. Here are some of the things I have been called…..Evil racist, capitalist pig, sexist, homophobic, redneck, greedy, corrupt, war monger, bloodthirsty capitalist. My god, I’m a republican and I’m none of those things and I know many others just like me. I listen to conservative talk radio and I never hear racist comments either. The assumed racism from liberals has reached a tipping point, and this is only adding fuel to what is turning into a huge movement. The REAL conservatives believe in less government, and they are tired of watching it grow and doing nothing.
While there have been a few sites where I have good debate with liberals, for the most part they pull the race card every single time I speak with them. The problem for liberals now is, crying racism doesn’t work with people like it used to, because it’s like the boy that cried wolf. The media can write us off, and so can liberals, but believe me this is NOT something to ignore. Conservatives went to sleep because McCain was a wus and Bush pissed them off, but cap and trade, healthcare and an already crazy deficit woke them up in a big way. Obama could be green and it would still be time to march because we aren’t going to let our kids pay for our government’s stupidity! I never blogged before in my life until it reached a point to where I felt I had to say something.
September 15, 2009 at 12:32 am |
Hunt – just a quick comment now – it’s getting late and I don’t have time for a complete response to your post but I will do so in the morning.
You can be assured that you will not be called any names here. That isn’t my style and it is not something I will tolerate on this blog. I have been called lots of names too – leftist commie bong-hitting dirty red-loving unemployed lazy ACORN whore drone socialist moonbat to name a few – and that was just today. I have been accused of being dangerous and accused of hating real Americans.
All I really want is some rational discussion about the issues.
I also want to try to develop some trust across the aisles. I am tired of the rhetoric too. Take a look at this post I made a while back…
http://hippieprofessor.com/2009/09/06/about-trust/
It was probably a bad day for you to drop by for the first time – I don’t often play the “race card.” If you look at my other posts you will note that they are left of center but I don’t hit the “racist” button too often.
Seriously, your opinion is always welcome and respected here.
– hippieprof
September 19, 2009 at 8:10 am |
RE:I have been called lots of names too – leftist commie bong-hitting dirty red-loving unemployed lazy ACORN whore drone socialist moonbat to name a few
You left out “liberal”. I’m just sayin’
RE:All I really want is some rational discussion about the issues.
RE:I also want to try to develop some trust across the aisles. I am tired of the rhetoric too.
Calling Representative Joe Wilson a racist for challenging Obama’s so-called “facts” is indeed baseless name calling and draws attention away from the issue. It is rhetoric.
The low road traveled by the intellectually lazy and/or hyper-sensitive leads them to the racism allegation. That road leads to a cul-de-sac where further discussion stops. It is a device which feeds off emotion.
For the thinking the proper path focuses upon the basis for Wilson’s allegation.
Those who have bothered to investigate have indeed seen there is nothing in the bill which explicitly excludes illegal immigrants.
“While the report found that federal subsidies to obtain health coverage would be restricted to U.S. citizens and legal residents, it also noted that the bill does not specify a citizenship verification system, something that critics say creates a loophole for undocumented immigrants to receive subsidies anyway.”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/27/health.care.immigrants/
September 19, 2009 at 8:14 am |
However, the Republicans in the house (not sure what committee) did try on several occasions to put into the bill the need to verify citizenship, legal status. And I think they tried twice….and each time the Democrats got that provision removed.
So, to say that what Obama said is a lie …is true.
But let me be softer….What Obama said was disingenuous.
September 15, 2009 at 12:50 am |
You called it, yay you!
x
September 15, 2009 at 10:27 am |
That’s right we are all racists! All the crazies are on the right.
Proof right here!
http://sockit2me.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/liberal-media-hypocrisy-test/
September 15, 2009 at 11:22 am |
sockit….
You will note, of course, that I am not accusing everyone on the right of being racists. If you read other posts I have made, you will note that I call out folks on the left as well.
There is a video on the net of a brave (though perhaps slightly stupid) guy walking through the Washington march holding a “Public Option Now” banner. He is hounded, booed, and at one point knocked over. He needed a police escort.
There is also a photo going around showing a woman with an oh-so-clever “lyin’ African” poster. It is linked below. She smiles happily and is not getting harassed.
In my opinion (not that it matters) you guys should be hounding her about her racist message the same way you are hounding the poor guy with the pro-Obama banner.
– hp
September 19, 2009 at 9:09 am |
hp – you are reading too much into the photo of the “lyin’ African”. It’s a play on words based upon fact. Nothing more. The hyper-sensitive are not capable of seeing different and allow the veil of emotion to be pulled over their eyes.
From the photo alone, we cannot determine the atmosphere or events leading to the need for police escort prior to the time the photo was taken. Likewise, we do not know what happened to the woman after the photo was taken. To infer cause and effect from a still picture is supposition and for those who cannot see, they can be powerful propaganda devices.
“These aren’t the droids you are looking for. Move along.”
September 19, 2009 at 12:24 pm |
Ben says…. “you are reading too much into the photo of the “lyin’ African”. It’s a play on words based upon fact. Nothing more. The hyper-sensitive are not capable of seeing different and allow the veil of emotion to be pulled over their eyes.”
Ben – it is easy to call someone hyper-sensitive when you are not on the receiving end. I can’t directly relate to the experience of racism, but I can relate indirectly. I have struggled with weight all of my life, and unless you have been in my shoes you have ABSOLUTELY no idea how cruel people can be. In fact, “fat jokes” are still allowable in society – so the cruelty is perhaps even more overt than with racism. I suspect I have also been discriminated against because of my weight – the workplace certainly values physical beauty over skill.
For years – in fact ever since I was a kid – people have told be I was being too sensitive – usually said with a snide laugh after unleashing a string of exceptionally cruel torment. As a kid, I eventually learned to fight – and found I could use my size to my advantage – and wow – once I was able to defend myself the “hyper-sensitive” comments really started to fly. Apparently if you are fat (or black?) you are not allowed to fight back against cruelty.
Don’t you dare accuse someone of being hypersensitive until you have experienced that cruelty yourself. I guarantee your eyes would be opened.
– hippieprof
September 19, 2009 at 2:13 pm |
Your chiding is misdirected. You should be giving it to Maureen Dowd.
Further I don’t recall the discussion being about you personally and will respectfully continue to call it as I see it. To have people wait until they’ve experienced life a certain way before being allowed to speak on the issue borders on censorship and oppression.
For the record, on more than one occasion, I have experienced racism directed to me personally. Granted it hasn’t been a life-time’s worth but I don’t have to live it constantly to know what it’s like.
September 19, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
HP
I saw your post or reply dealing with weight.
What do you think of Mr. Maher’s bigotry toward people dealing with weight issues? See here. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-you-cant-complai_b_291852.html
When I heard people put down the proposed Surgeon General because she was “overweight” I was pissed and I told people!
I have no idea where she stands on issues that I care about, but you know what…..it is NO ONE’s business what she weighs…or anything else for that matter……that is not related to an issue of policy.
But it did not surprise me that the people who were putting her down were liberals. Because liberals see groups and liberals see one way of life…and the one way is their way…because they know better, they are smarter, they are more worldly, or they have travelled more….and on and on…..up to their favorite….they have more “intellectual curiosity”.
They are elitists and they want to tell other Americans how to live. They look down on others. Look at what they call middle America — Flyover Country!. Do you know how many people outside of the U.S. would see any city or town in flyover country as …Utopia, Brigadoon…fill in the blank !!!
And liberals demonstrate their elitism when they make noise about the weight of a Surgeon General potential appointee.! They talk about the example she gives to the young children, etc! How dare they!
Guess what, in my view, it is her life. She can decide what she wants to do…and that includes how much she wants to eat or not and how much she wants to read or not or exercise or not…and so on! If she has the creds to be Surgeon General, more power to her.
If I want to support her candidacy or not…it will be on the issues, not on her weight.
Sorry for the long post/reply, but I was walking the dog, thinking of your note about weight…..and then I saw the Maher thing…..and my blood started flowing!
Long live the individual!
Hope you are having a good weekend.
September 19, 2009 at 8:55 am |
sockit2me –
The left-controlled media and the bias pumped out daily reminds me of Venezuela and Chevez’s control of her media. Chevez even demands that all TV stations air his daily “reading” which consume hours. There is only one independent TV station left and it was tear-gassed by Chevez supporters the other day.
True journalism in America died a long time ago.
We’ve seen Dan”Blather” present lies designed to sabotage Bush’s presidential campaign. If it were not for alternate outlets such as The Drudge Report who first widely publicized facts rebuking those of CBS’s Rather, it may have worked.
The well documented bias of today’s mainstream media is disturbing. It behaves like the public relations division of the DNC.
September 19, 2009 at 8:58 am |
preaching to the choir Ben !
September 19, 2009 at 9:11 am |
Just acknowledging with my observations.
September 19, 2009 at 9:40 am |
“Seventy-eight percent of Republicans said the press was politically biased, compared with 50 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents, Pew said. In 1985, less than half of Republicans, Democrats and independent believed the press was politically biased.”
What I get from the above is this; In spite of the obvious trends which I began to notice in the mid-to-late ’80s which should be obvious to everyone drawing breath and in spite of the polls and studies on media bias, there are those among us who can’t see it.
http://rightamerican.wordpress.com/media-bias/
I like to equate the media bias and it’s influence in forming opinion suiting their agenda to that of a great Jedi mind trick.
“Blind we are, if creation of this clone army we could not see.”
September 19, 2009 at 10:58 am |
Ben–
Please recall that no one disproved Rather’s assertion about Bush’s military record;
just that he couldn’t substantiate one particular piece of documentation.
September 19, 2009 at 11:22 am |
Paul Brandon = Delusion!
September 19, 2009 at 11:27 am
Sockit – Paul is a behaviorist, so the proper way to say that might be “Paul engages in delusional behavior.”
This having been said, I prefer people respond directly to ideas here rather than attacking the person. What did Paul say that struck you as delusional?
– hippieprof
September 19, 2009 at 11:47 am |
Paul – My point was centered on media bias and resorting to the use of fake documents designed to sway voter opinion.
September 19, 2009 at 1:48 pm |
Ben–
It was not proved (just claimed) that Rather’s document was a fake. What is clear is that Rather relied on a document was provenance he could not substantiate, which was a mistake.
This was poor journalism.
September 19, 2009 at 2:37 pm |
Paul
I get it the documents in the Rathergate scandal were “fake but accurate”. They were accurate because the fit the narrative you wanted – and Rather wanted – to believe.
Sockit
September 15, 2009 at 2:31 pm |
MY racists signs from the March… http://sockit2me.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=85
September 15, 2009 at 3:08 pm |
sockit….. OK – that was cute…..
I don’t know how many offensive signs were really there – I know there were some, and in my book one is too many – we need to be moving past that.
I do remember you said you were attending. I am curious about your impressions?
– hippieprof
September 15, 2009 at 3:51 pm |
my impressions about the march….sort of stream of consciousness
exciting, exhilarating, long day, TONS of people, I mean tons. No way it was less than 500k, likely many more.
one example …there were about 100 porta potties up at the hill, just past the pool….. the lines for each were about 30 long…constantly…. so 3000 people…just waiting to use the loo…….. is tons of people.
mostly non-negative signs. …declarative, independent,
tons of amusing signs! I mean tons, people all over looked at each others signs and commented and laughed
the weird signs, the negative ones…were there sure….many of them were larouche related. there were some crazies.
I saw all types of people : ages, colors, sexes, regions, sexual orientation, etc.
I went on a bus, people for/against abortion, people for/against all sorts of things….people who went with their teenage kids….and the teenage kids were juiced!, excited!
were supposed to meet at freedom plaza at ten and march to the capitol at noon.
I arrived at freedom plaza at 10 30 and the march had already begun…come to find out that the authorities made them start the march early because there were too many people in the plaza.
I marched for blocks and stopped (place where the picture was taken by my buddy) I faced the crowd for twenty minutes. We did some quick math calculations based on just standing there for a half hour….and estimated that 30,000 plus people walked past us in that period of time.
Tons of people took my picture of me and my signs. Most people were laughing and smiling. Keep the faith! etc. USA USA USA,etc.
I spoke with a lot of people who said…”I have never done anything like this” ………a lot of people got engaged at Tea Parties in the spring.
You could hardly hear the speakers and I got up close……maybe 300 yards away from the speakers…(that was close! hard to believe)
One person I spoke to got closer….and left at 1:15 or so from his perch…because he had to be back at the bus at 3:30 and it took him 45 minutes to move about 200 yards. I know exactly what he meant.
It was larger than Woodstock and like Woodstock it was peaceful etc!
There was no identifying leader, that is a key point. There were tons of THROW THEM ALL OUT sorts of sentiment.
By and large, people there want fairness, they want the chance to make their dreams come true and want government to get out of the way because they feel A) government spends way too much, B) is way too corrupt and C) causes many more problems than it solves.
The people know there is no accountability and that their money is being wasted….and you know what…they know it is THEIR MONEY being wasted.
It is a sea change in the landscape of our society. Lock it up!
Thanks for asking HP!
September 15, 2009 at 8:26 pm |
Sockit – interesting what you say about the numbers. I have seen estimates ranging from 70k up to two million, with everyone choosing to believe whatever number best represents their preexisting beliefs. Go figure.
Here is an interesting story about the number estimates. It comes from a liberal blog, so take it with a grain of salt – but it is an interesting peek into the spin chamber.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/size-matters-so-do-lies.html
I am glad that you didn’t see too many overtly racist signs. As I said, I am pretty sensitive to this – so one is too many – but good to hear it didn’t dominate. I still wish there wasn’t so much anger – it just doesn’t foster productive conversation. I am not sure what the answer to that is, though.
– hp
September 15, 2009 at 9:04 pm |
Hey, I think I figured out the reply thingy.
The numbers were huge, but the actual numbers do not matter.
I know what 80,000 people looks like having been to Giants stadium many times for football and concerts. Even when the Boss goes on his political rants…I still go.
And there were close to that number from the steps of the capitol toward whatever that first big pool is. …or at leat to that area and around it….and there were gobs beyond that.
I really screwed up with my More Bars, Less Czars sign.
By that I mean, i was working with an idea for a sign…but I could not make it funny enough…so I did not do it.
The concept was essentially…” I am here with 1000s of other patriots…and the Mainstream Media cannot see me”…..which certainly turned out to be true in the sense of A) the numbers debate, B) the lack of coverage and C) the focus on racism and a few bad apples.
Axlerod….can really blow it out his…….
Also, the organizers were surprised. Happy, I am sure but surprised. It wasnt about Glenn Beck nor about Barack Obama. It was about liberty and freedom……
Too bad most people still do not get it.
Diminish it all they want. I really see those in power now as the last of a breed………those who are smart will see the paradigm shift…and catch the wave (used those phrases for you HP) because I know you can remember the books I am referring to!!!………but sadly…..too few are smart.
I love America….the most wonderful nation in the world!
btw….Go Yankees!
best,
sockit
September 19, 2009 at 9:25 am |
I know I’m asking for speculation. Regardless, how do you suppose the crowd fell across the political spectrum? 80/20 Rep/Dem? 50/50? 20/80? ??/??
September 19, 2009 at 10:05 am |
My gut says more conservatives than liberal, more republicans than democrats. But it is hard to tell and is it likely, that there were probably more Democrats than one might assume….maybe up to a third. Who knows. And to me, it does not matter. I am a true conservative. By that I mean, the label does not matter, the gender does not matter, the sex does not matter, the sexual orientation does not matter, the wealth does not matter, the religion does not matter…….all that matters is the individual!!! And left to his or her own devices, the individual is better off making decisions for him or herself than the government. And that individuals making decisions for themselves….together make a better society and a better market and a better future for all…..than a government ever could!
Back to the march, on my bus, there were plenty of people who felt differently on a ton of issues, school prayer, abortion, and on and on……….both and all sides of a lot of issues…..but they all wanted to retain their own power, their own rights.
They all believed that they should not give over more power to the government, any government.
September 19, 2009 at 1:56 pm |
“Did he mean that he could not substantiate that clearly false documents were not real?”
No — as I said, there was one document that appeared to be a ‘smoking gun’ that was consistent with other documentation.
This is the only document whose provenance was questioned.
September 19, 2009 at 11:43 am |
HP
Fair enough! I take it back
Pau
My apologies!
I was responding to the comment by Paul that Dan Rather could not ” he couldn’t substantiate one particular piece of documentation.”
Did he mean that he could not substantiate that clearly false documents were not real.????
Maybe he was being sarcastic and I missed it!
If he was not, let me alert him to the fact that MAYBE Bush bashing is over. See my post today… http://sockit2me.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/wait-a-minute/
September 25, 2009 at 11:50 am |
Everyone who focuses on Obama’s Arabic name is not being racist. You seem to first make that assumption and then take it from there. Many are simply associating his name with Islam. Barack appears to be a variation of the Arabic “Buraq”, the mythological winged horse-like creature with a human-like head, (which was possibly inspired by Pegasus when Mohammed was making all this stuff up) which the megolamaniacal Mohammed claims he rode through the sky on his midnight ride. The middle name of “Hussein” is also from Arabic and is also closely associated with Mohammed as this is the name of his grandson.
Islam is a religion and therefore one of the binding threads of the Islamic cultural ideology. This cultural ideology is created in and by the Koran and is perpetuated and propagated by it. To be opposed to this does not make one a racist.
The suspicion people have of Obama’s affiliation with Islamic ideology is reinforced by the knowledge that he spent much time during critical formative years of his boyhood attending Islamic school in an Islamic country.
I am not claiming that Mohammed is a closet Muslim. He’s just a megalomaniac (like Mohammed) with visions of personal grandeur who, through his corrupt cronies and ardent and adulant but blind admirers, directly and indirectly flashes the trump card of race each time someone has the audacity to voice dissention or point out his chicanery. In fact they use the race card as a human shield, similar to the way Islamic jihadists use children and noncombatants as human shields. Obama is the token black of the Democratic Party and liberal progresssives. They are the ones who willfully exploit race.
Perhap it’s apparent that I don’t have an affinity for Islam. I hate Islam. It’s a tyrannical and oppressive religion equal to some of the worst stuff found in the Old Testament. Does that make me a racist. No. I’m not a Christian zealot either. In fact I am not a Christian (but that doesn’t make me a sinner or infidel either).
I do despise Pretendent Obama, though. It certainly is not because I am one of those racists described by you who just don’t know that they’re racist. I despise him because he is the biggest fraud ever foisted upon this country. Not Bernie Madoff, though he was in the big league of frauds. As a charlatan, Obama has a achieved a much higher level of deceit and malevolence. He’s the Joker.
September 25, 2009 at 12:25 pm |
John–
I think that you make a point very well
(but not the one that you think you’re making).
September 26, 2009 at 6:01 pm |
Hmmm…well, Paul, perhaps you’d like to elaborate on just what point I succeeded in getting across to you of which I’m not aware. You’re so cryptic. Help me out with this.
September 26, 2009 at 6:03 pm |
you’re a lepton.
September 26, 2009 at 6:33 pm
OK – well – you’re a quark!
(OK – not sure I have ever seen someone insulted by being called a subatomic particle before…… heck – maybe its a compliment for all I know….)
September 26, 2009 at 9:17 pm |
HippieProf has already said it pretty well.
Forming an opinion based on the first few words that someone says sounds to me like pre-judging.
And mesons to you too.
September 27, 2009 at 9:27 am |
Nice comeback on the lepton remark. LOL. At least you didn’t say I’m a racist for calling you a lepton.
September 25, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
John….
Thanks for dropping by and commenting…. but dude – where is all that anger coming from?
You use the words “hate” and “despise” and similarly strong, emotional words….
Maybe it is just a semantic difference – but I really reserve “hatred” for very very extreme cases – Hitler, Bin Laden – not too many others.
“Despise” is less strong of a word – but I don’t know that I even use it very often. I disagreed with much of what Bush did – especially after the Iraq invasion – but I would never have said that I despised him. The closest a politician comes for me is probably Sarah Palin – but I don’t even think I despise her. I think she is uneducated and not very bright – and hides it behind a snarky personality – and I guess I do fear what she could do if she ever were to become President – but I don’t despise her.
I think Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck come the closest to “despise” for me. That is because I believe they willfully spread disinformation all in the name of the huge amount of money they are making.
Maybe you are just more emotional than I am – and maybe we are just using words differently – but what has Obama actually done that would lead you to despise or hate him? You say he is “the Joker” and that he is full of deceit and malevolence – but where is that coming from? What has he actually done to deserve those labels?
Certainly you can disagree with his positions – but to the point that you hate and despise him?
Please take that as an honest question – I mean it sincerely.
September 25, 2009 at 9:18 pm |
I don’t know hippieprof I just can’t stand the guy. The first time I heard him speak on NPR radio a few years ago I knew it just from listening to him the first time. My first thought was , “Now where the hell did this joker come from?” So the joker thing goes back some time. An inner fear of clowns? Maybe.
The rest of that about words like hate and despise not being cool – well that’s just semantics, dude. It’s not polite to use a lot of foul and vulgar expletives for emphasis when in mixed company so I have to find a way to express my disdain and contempt.
September 27, 2009 at 6:55 pm |
Somehow I just knew that I would end up being called a quark – before this was over.
Why would you assume that it was intended as an insult? LOL
February 24, 2010 at 3:25 pm |
The ploy of the word “Racism” is a wedge to defeat the ideal or concept of another one does not agree with. That card is used regularly by the left hinge of our society when they have little to base their argument on. The implication of “Hussein” is not racial it is religious. Their concept or ideal is the name “Hussein” implies a connection to the Muslim faith which is antithetical to the American way of life. Works well in a Theocracy if you are a Muslim. But our America is not a Theocracy, it is a Representative Republic.
It is my personal opinion Barrack “Hussein” Obama is engaging in practices that are against the tenments this great country were founded on. The name “Hussein” has nothing to do with my opinion. But it’s use does bring your attention to my statements. There are numerous avenues of communication to address your feelings about Mr. Obama. Let’s take the avenue of reality.
To assume one can as President mandate to a private corporation’s CEO what he or she is to do and order their removal and replacement is not Constitutionally allowed. That behavior is not unlike that of Khrushchev when he mandated 78% of Russian Farms be converted to grow corn after he came to Iowa and saw the success of corn farmers there. The act was an abysmal failure because Khrushchev didn’t know anything about farming in his own country. Knowing about Khrushchev and his “Narcissistic” penchants it is not unrealistic to assert he saw Iowa and strove to prove the Russian Farmer could do it even better. Had climate and practices been equal for the Russian farmers they may have been able to do it as well and who knows some even better had their incentives been equal to
Iowa’s Farmers. We all know they were not and the braggadocios Khrushchev was to put it plainly, a Fool for thinking it would work.
When Obama and Congress start diminishing incentive to produce by over taxation, Government meddling in areas they have no business messing in because they have become like Khrushchev or any other of bureaucratic socialist it is doomed to fail. Believe congress and the President are behaving properly and their agendas are what is best for America? If so then you are lacking in knowledge and understanding of what is a relatively short span of World History. Every country that has engaged in their type of idealism has either imploded or diminished and used their friendship with us as a safety net against their own demise. Some did this while their leaders publically slandered and browbeat us on the world stage. We remained the standard for freedom and the rewards success based on individual effort.
So with Obama, it isn’t racial for 99.9% of those who use his middle name to make a negative implication. Could be some don’t fully understand what it is they don’t like about him and use the name as a negative identifier to insert those feelings into whatever it is they are stating.
I’ll identify it for them here. We do not like Obama because he is narcissistic and his agenda is Socialism. Socialism has either failed abysmally every time it is tried or left the countries that embraced it bankrupt and weak which is also a failure. Every Socialist country has had leadership by narcissistic personalities.
We at present have leadership that is attempting to jam Socialist programs down our throats because they think they know better than the majority of American Society. Millions have said “NO” to their representatives in Washington. Instead of taking heed the leadership has repeatedly attempted to slip their unwanted and unnecessary legislation past you and into law before you can again say “NO” .. The current opinion is they need to go if they aren’t smart enough to understand “NO”
Find anything Racial in that?
It isn’t wrong or bad to say “NO” when the thing you are saying “NO” to is wrong for America. Under scrutiny you will find the only areas where Health Care is diminished and lacking are those areas where Government has tried to provide financing. Their presence has increased cost wherever they are involved. Their presence has often caused those in need to experience undue delays because hoops must be jumped through to satisfy arbitrary Government requirements.
The nature of the beast is to want more if the Federal Government is buying it. Always has been and always will be. Experience, you know that thing that creates wisdom through a clarity of knowledge. Well; Experience is Government involvement assures the system will never again work as well as it did when free market solutions were paramount.
We just want Washington to stop being stupid with our money. If using the name “Hussein” helps some to express their dissatisfaction with his performance their isn’t a lick of Racist connotation to it. Get over it.
Derald in Dallas
July 18, 2010 at 6:09 pm |
[...] Here is another…. [...]