Thursday Open Thread

Bin Laden message threatens Europe - apparently Bin Laden does not appreciate freedom of speech and is trying to suppress it, albeit several years after the fact.
Agency OKs cheese steak shop's English-only signs - I wouldn't not have been surprised if it went the other way, suppressing our right to suggest that our preferred mode of communication is our Nation's primary language.

Are you guys working on Good Friday? I will work but a half day :)

Comments :

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Stop Whining, Hillary

So says Aeon Skoble .

I can't take much more of this. Hillary is now claiming that it's a matter of civil rights that the Democratic Party non-primaries in FL and MI should count. First of all, I hope it's obvious to everyone that the only reason she says this is that she needs the extra delegates she might get there. But the larger issue is that it's false. No one denied voters there the right to vote in an election. Primaries are party events. While in some states, any registered voter can vote in any primary, in other states, only registered party members can vote in that party's primary. Furthermore, the Democratic Party said something along the lines of "do not move up your state's primary in the calendar in a blatant attempt at getting more pork; if you do that, your delegates will not be regognized." Surely even state legislators are clever enough to understand basic if-then reasoning. They were told not to do it, they were told what the penalty would be if they did it, they did it anyway. Now they complain that it's not fair? Give me a break!

Yep.

…………

Civl rights, Schmivel rights.....

It Hillary wants to respect the fact that all votes should count, then she needs to shut up about the super-delegates, who she expects to persuade to overturn the the votes that have already taken place....... only IF she is behind.

This is ludicrous on it's face and it shows me, that Hillalry thinks that you are stupid and she can twist the rules to suit her agenda.

Her trip to Michigan yesterday backfired, to an extent because she is getting high powered Democratic insiders to cough up the cash to pay for a re-do.

It came across as trying to buy the election. Oops.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

Dim comment of the day

and maybe week.

Courtesy of a poster at Mark Thoma's blog on a specific thread posting about punishment and prosperity. The financial markets are the subject matter of Mark's discussion.

…………

I enjoy the comment

What's wrong with wanting the entire economy to implode so that those of us who don't have anything to begin with can drag the rest of the bourgeoisie down to our level? I get a small thrill out of seeing the DJIA drop a few percent. I happily engage in shadenfreude when people like Joseph Lewis lose over a billion dollars in the market. As I said before, he deserves to be tied to a tree and beaten with a tire iron.

I've got a bit of a Leninist streak myself. Maybe if things get so bad, we can actually rethink the fundamentals of our economy. Perhaps it's time to start from scratch.

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

………… parent

You like the sentiment. that's fine.

I don't like the sentiment.

But factually, it's a discombobulated mess that makes no sense and nothing more than a blurry rant.

I've got a bit of a Leninist streak myself.

No, really?? :)

………… parent

Well...

I once said to my fiancée that I'd take a random assortment of 435 people over the representatives we have now in Washington. I don't think we can do much worse, politically speaking, than we are now.

If I was dictator of all creation, we'd start everything from scratch. New constitution, new laws. The constitution was a good document in the 18th century, but it can't (and shouldn't) keep up with developments in culture and technology. Jefferson himself thought that a revolution every few decades would be necessary to help keep government power in check.

With respect to the quote ... people like to blow off steam from time to time. I might want to line up the world's richest 10 people and shoot them with a single bullet Chinese style, but I'd never act on it. And it certainly isn't something I'd have in mind when I vote; it isn't good government policy.

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

………… parent

Aside from it not being good gov't policy...

With respect to the quote ... people like to blow off steam from time to time. I might want to line up the world's richest 10 people and shoot them with a single bullet Chinese style, but I'd never act on it. And it certainly isn't something I'd have in mind when I vote; it isn't good government policy

I'm curious why you'd like to do this.

http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186

………… parent

I've covered it previously

You must have missed a post of mine.

I know first hand that in my benevolent dictatorship, I'd simply confiscate most of the assets of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et al. I don't believe, in a moral sense that anyone for any reason deserves that much money. I'd be more than happy to simply beat the tar out of them for being too rich; it is immoral to have too much wealth.

There you have it. Although, I later said I'd go a bit easier on Buffet since he's starting to give his money away.

And I should also point out that I take a lot of creative license with my posts. I'm not sure that I have the capacity to kill anyone when push comes to shove (I'm anti-death penalty in all cases, for instance). I'm just trying to explain in a creative way that I really take issue to the massive amounts of wealth that people hoard when that wealth could be used for such better and nobler purposes.

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

………… parent

Hate to go down the beaten path...

But I don't understand why people fault rich folks for having a lot of money. Basically they have more green rectangles than than the Average Man, but I think it can easily trickle down to why everyday folks commit crimes against other citizens. If you're wearing an expensive watch and it gets stolen, it's probably because the person believes you (a) don't deserve it or (b) they deserve it more than you because they may feel they've worked harder than you have, truthiness of such a thought aside.

I think America provides folks with a very (very) basic level of things needed to survive. The other part of it is drive, making smart decisions, and yes--luck. But it's no reason to take it out on others. I guess that's my problem with Socialist policies. It's a strong jealousy/envy streak there and it tries to control human behavior with a heavy hand instead of a light one. "Because Person A has more money than I think they should (or I) have, we need to find a good way to keep them from having it anymore."

http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186

………… parent

Well...

But I don't understand why people fault rich folks for having a lot of money. Basically they have more green rectangles than than the Average Man,

But it isn't just the green pieces of paper. Money is now everything. It is food, shelter, health care. Money is art, music, science, energy, communication, transportation. It is everything now.

Which leads to questions like "Why precisely does Bill Gates deserve more than Joe Smith?" If you are talking about just green pieces of paper the question may be that he does deserve more. But when the question is about food or health care it suddenly becomes much much harder to explain that Bill deserves more than anyone else.

If you're wearing an expensive watch and it gets stolen, it's probably because the person believes you (a) don't deserve it or (b) they deserve it more than you because they may feel they've worked harder than you have, truthiness of such a thought aside.

Maybe its because they feel like they have needs that are more critical than a piece of exspensive jewlery. That feeling may be reasonable or unreasonable of course, but it is different than just the question of who deserves the jewelry.

I think America provides folks with a very (very) basic level of things needed to survive.

It should, considering our wealth, but all too often it doesn't.

The other part of it is drive, making smart decisions, and yes--luck. But it's no reason to take it out on others. I guess that's my problem with Socialist policies. It's a strong jealousy/envy streak there and it tries to control human behavior with a heavy hand instead of a light one. "Because Person A has more money than I think they should (or I) have, we need to find a good way to keep them from having it anymore."

The problem is that it isn't just a matter of jealousy. There is also the aspect that person A having more directly affects you. It means you have less. It means what you have is worth less. It also means that the government regards you as less important, and them as more important. When income inequality gets out of control it is like a black hole distorting the normal state of everything around it. It breaks the system.

Some degree of income inequality is probably healthy as a way to encourage initiative. Extreme income inequality is horrendously bad.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

Yes, the luck of being born into the right family.

I would like to remind everyone that the single greatest source of wealth is inheritance and being born into a certain family, not drive or ambition.

In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,

………… parent

Here's an old joke for you

Cocaine is God's way of saying you make too damn much money.

qui tacet consentire

………… parent

Funny story...

I had a lot of friends who went to South Eugene High School (I didn't however). South had two major populations- the rich kids and the art kids (the school was known for their drama department especially). As with most any high school the cliques tended to self segregate.

The rich kids tended to party with coke, meth, speed. The exspensive white powder stims. The art kids were much more into grass, shrooms, LSD.

So these three jock dickheads decide they are going to see how the other half lives. Not knowing anything about psychedelics they drop the same amount of money they normally would on coke for acid.

That's a lot of acid.

They each ended up taking a sheet, which is 100 hits.

One guy ran north. Just ran north. One guy thought he was an orange and tried to peel himself. The third guy they found slithering up Willamete street.

Now I wasn't there personally, so maybe it's just urban myth. The friend who told me said he *was* there and I haven't known him to be a fibber. Anyway it always cracked me up.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

Happy first day of Spring everyone...(n/t)

…………

Ya know what bothers me about current political discourse?

The machine, that's what.

It happens on both sides. Someone somewhere creates what they think is a great "gotchya" talking point, the big talking heads & blog poobahs(?) pick it up and start repeating it ad nauseam, then the MSM picks it up and acts like it's an honest real topic and hot issue. All the while it's just an manufactured viewpoint who's whole intention is to make someone look bad.

The current one on the right is that Barack threw his grandmother under the bus in his "race speech". On the left it's that McCain is clueless about who we are actually fighting in Iraq and what their relationship is with others over there.

I find it pathetic that the level of discourse of the "professionals" out there is such a low common denominator dumb. Sure, the outlets who'se whole intention is to drum up their guy, Fox News for the right, individual talking heads & bloggers for the left (there isn't really a comparable MSM outlet for the left. Air America maybe, but they don't have the same viewership as demographics show)

Now some may feel that either point listed above has some merit. Fine, point out the merits and stop acting like the statement itself has validity. And that's where the MSM breaks down. They don't disect the statements. They just repeat them trying to make the statements true because they said (repeated) it.

We could have You Tubes of actual parrots saying crap and it would be just as worthy. Bet it would be a hell of a lot cheaper than the million dollar talking heads that we all have to put up with now.

…………

Amen. n/t

http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186

………… parent

This is what you can expect a lot of

from now until November:

qui tacet consentire

………… parent

So do you have a problem with this?

I don't.  It seems like valid criticism to me.

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Would you have a problem

with a video that spliced McCain talking about how great things are in Iraq with pictures of headless bodies in the streets of Baghdad, flag-draped coffins and disfigured soldiers?

qui tacet consentire

………… parent

Apples and oranges.

Valid criticism of Obama and hyperbole against McCain.

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

hyperbole = exaggeration

If the photos are current (that is, not scouring the archive for the worst of years ago), how is that hyperbole?

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

Yes, I see

Smear video of Obama = Valid criticism
Smear video of McCain = Hyperbole

Gotcha

qui tacet consentire

………… parent

Sliced and diced

I especially like the editing where they made it seem like he stuttered.  Yep the way they made him stammer-- " I...I...I...I..." -- that's valid criticism, all right!  They really got him there!

………… parent

Attacking his strength

Funny how they have to use creative editing to make him sound like he is a stuttering fool. Especially considering the complete lack of editing necessary to make our current head of state sound that way.

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

………… parent

hahahahahahhaaahahah check this out

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

…………

read this on Obama

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

…………

What's your point?

what does "how nice" mean?

I mean, Obama is out there, trying to explain his views on race, giving 40 minute speeches and so forth, and all you can do is snip three words out of what he has said over the past few days and say "how nice" as if it's game, set, and match that Obama, what?  Is racist?  Doesn't get it on race?

I have more respect for the person who is willing to talk openly about racial divides (or any controversial issue) and phrases something that doesn't come out quite right, than the coward who sits back and just picks apart other people, bust says nothing themselves. 

So tell me: what is so wrong with Obama calling his grandmother a "typical white person"?  I think that we can assume that in using the word "typical" Obama meant that his grandmother's attitudes and behavior with regard to blacks were not uncommon in whites, which is true in my experience.  Do you disagree?  

………… parent

I think it is pretty damn clear

that Obama had unwittingly stereotyped all whites as racists afraid of the black man. No matter how you spin it, that kind of garbage would destroy a candidacy of anyone who is white.

The more he talks the worse he makes it for himself. Maybe he needs to shut the hell up for once with his "candor". Is this what we have to look forward to as far as unifying the country??

It seems like Americans are not buying it. A new poll shows that - Obama’s speech meets unsympathetic ears with Americans :

First, we screened poll respondents to find those who were aware that Obama’s pastor was in the news. A startling 82% knew about Obama’s speech, and about the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Of those who knew about the controversy and the speech, we asked, “Taking all this into account, are you more or less likely to support Obama for president?”

Less likely (52%)
More likely (19%)
About the same (27%)
No opinion (2%)

The poll was conducted March 26 among 1,051 Americans. After filtering out those not aware of Rev. Wright and Obama’s speech about him, the sample is 807, for a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2%. The data have been weighted for age, race, gender and partisan affiliation.

What's all his candor worth if it's annoying and offensive?

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

………… parent

This coming from the guy that blames

all muslims for the actions of a few in the Middle East.

I have no sympathy for your position. It is wrong headed in the extreme.

Though I agree that the oozing pus that is bubbling to the top from some who would like to use guilt by association is disgusting.

Is George W Bush, guilty of terrorism because his family has been long standing friends of the bin Laden family, kin of the most famous terrorist, Osama bin Laden.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

of course

let's not reply to the content of the comment.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

………… parent

same to you.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

I thought polls were for Democrats....... :)

Why are you sticking your finger in the wind to see which way it blows.

There are those that find the polling full of overblown claims especially since they have been pushed by Mark Penn. Some looked deeper and found the polls claims somewhat suspicious.

Of the nine polls cited in his note, five of them are not airworthy."

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

And what's up with the date of the poll?

March 26th??

[skymutt looks at calendar, puzzled]

………… parent

My guess is that the wright flap

will be long forgotten by November, even if Obama is the nominee. Of course it may effect the current primaries which could heavily influence if Obama is the actual nominee.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

Agreed. n/t

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent

Ender, you are correct.

You say it is pretty damn clear "that Obama had unwittingly stereotyped..." - as in, that was not his intention. So you know that Obama is not a racist, he just said something that didn't quite come out the way he meant it to. You know that, yet you still push this "typical white person" line as if it actually had any significance whatsoever.

How nice... 

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

………… parent

No you don't.

So you know that Obama is not a racist ...

You can't logicially differentiate based on this between "Obama didn't intend to stereotype ..." which would indicate that he is NOT racist, and "Obama is racist and intended to NOT use a stereotype (so as to hide his racism), but he messed up and his racist thoughts came out and hence he unwittingly stereotyped ..."

 

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Sorry, Mr. Spock

But I wasn't using logic, I was using human intuition, and making the assumption that Ender was not a really poor judge of character. Turns out, without using logic, I came up with a correct answer that logic would never have been able to provide. Logic is extremely limited in its application to human interactions.

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

………… parent

Hmmm ... no you didn't.

But I wasn't using logic, I was using human intuition, and making the
assumption that Ender was not a really poor judge of character.

So, based on intuition and assumption you claim "So you know that Obama is not a racist?"  This changes my point how?

No you don't.

Neither your intuition nor your assumptions prove anything about whether Obama is a racist (i.e. we don't KNOW anything based on them).

Turns out, without using logic, I came up with a correct answer ...

And neither does the fact that you guessed Ender's opinion.  Whether Ender thinks Obama is a racist or not says absolutely NOTHING about whether Obama actually IS a racist or not, ergo we don't KNOW he is not racist.

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

You obviously fail to grasp my point

I was not attempting to argue one way or the other about whether Obama is or is not a racist. It seems a pointless argument to me, as it is fairly clear that we are all mostly in agreement on that point. I was arguing that it is disingenuous to push the meme that Obama might be a racist when you yourself do not think that is the case.

If your only point is to say that we don't truly know how Obama's mind really works, then your point has no point, because it is true of every single politician, every single human being. I will grant you your pointless point.

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

………… parent

Are you trying out to be the white Sharpton?

Defending the white race from Barack Obama's offensive racial statements is noble work, Ender.  Yeah, I need that protection for my delicate sensibilities :-p

If Obama's "typical white person" quote offends you, you're easily offended.

that Obama had unwittingly stereotyped all whites as racists afraid of
the black man. No matter how you spin it, that kind of garbage would
destroy a candidacy of anyone who is white.

Well, sometimes it does, and I really think that's a shame. Look at all the minor HRC stuff that has been blown up into major racial firestorms-- do you think that's how things ought to be? I don't. Look at a guy like Biden, who sticks his foot in the mouth with the best of them, like when he called Obama clean and articulate or whatever it was. Sure, it sounded bad, but I'll take Biden who occasionally screws up but also occasionally says something worth hearing any day over someone who gives a canned, safe answer every single time.

The more he talks the worse he makes it for himself.

You speak for yourself here. Others disagree.

My complaint over the campaign is that Obama hasn't been saying much. Well now, he's opening up a little bit and playing it a little less safe.

<snip junk poll>

Well, you agree with the majority of a bunch of people who may or may not have seen his whole speech. Congratulations on that-- did you also pick the winner on American Idol?... I watched the whole speech and thought it was one of the best speeches I'd seen in awhile, but nobody polled me.

………… parent

Biden rocks. n/t

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

………… parent

+4

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

look

I don't think Obama is a racist nor do I think he is all that bad. However I think his association with Wright is a serious liability and he should've separated himself from that man. It's a bad flaw if he will not do it.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

………… parent

Flaw?

It is only a flaw in that it might hurt his chances at being elected. It is not a character flaw, nor is it anything that would hurt his ability to be a good and effective president. In fact, it is an example of the very things that his candidacy has always stood for. Being willing to listen to many different points of view, and being able to find the aspects where agreement and reconciliation might be found.

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

………… parent

Carrying around negative stereotypes about white people ...

won't hurt his ability to be a good and effective president?  That's kind of like saying that being a member of the KKK or the Aryan nations won't hurt someone's ability to be a good and effective president.

If having racist attitudes does matter, why are liberals pushing all the hype about affirmative action? 

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

What do you think of Nixon?

Was he a "good and effective president?"

Because he was a vicious anti-Semite.

qui tacet consentire

………… parent

Apples and oranges II

Carrying around negative stereotypes around white people won't hurt his ability to be a good and effective president? That's
kind of like saying that being a member of the KKK or the Aryan nations
won't hurt someone's ability to be a good and effective president.

It could be inferred from this comparison that you believe that the KKK and the Aryan Nation are merely organizations that engage in "negative stereotypes of [black] people."

Reminds me of Marge Schottt's 'criticism' of Hitler that he "went too far."

Of course, I know that you probably didn't mean to cut the KKK and the Aryan Nation slack, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for your imprecise comparision ;-)

………… parent

Almost, but not quite.

It could be inferred from this comparison that you believe that the KKK
and the Aryan Nation are merely organizations that engage in "negative
stereotypes of [black] people."

There, that fixes your mistake. From my comment you can (correctly) infer that these are groups that carry negative stereotypes of black people, but you cannot (correctly) infer that this is all they do.

The comparison is, none the less, valid with respect to the topic being discussed. The point is that if you hold racist attitudes, whether you care to admit to them or not, you cannot be a good and effective president because those attitudes will cause you to discriminate against those for whom you hold negative views.

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

An incorrect crossout of "merely"

My inference, complete with the "merely", is completely reasonable, given the wording of your initial comparison.  Your mistake was that you compared two things that are not equivalent, and said that they were "like".

………… parent

I thinking that much of the right didn't listen to the speech

Obama gave. They continue to act like he didn't actually address the issue of Wright's speech head on and they continue to deny that Barack said all the correct things.

Put it in perspective from my experience. My paternal Grandparents were born around 1904/05 in the New York area. Both were good righteous protestants and both were racists. Now when I was growing up, my grandparents would occasionally say racially derogatory stuff in front of others and it embarrassed the hell out of me. My parents just said that they were a product of their time and not to make an issue of it.

I love my grandparents dearly, regardless of their racial attitudes. Just because they had faults doesn't mean you take away everything else you love or have in common with someone in your life like that.

That's exactly the relationship and rapport that Obama said he had with Rev. Wright. The right wing seems to be insisting that Obama can't have an ongoing relationship with Rev. Wright is exactly like saying I couldn't love my grandparents and include them in my life (well, they are all dead now but) either. That is an incorrect assertion. The really sad part about that argument is that every one of the folks making that argument has to have the same set of circumstances in their own family or friends.

Barack addressed it with honesty and grace. You want to act like he didn't...you're being intentionally ignorant or deceitful or both, your choice.

………… parent

+4

………… parent

Heh. I see my rating system is catching on! :)

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

So you are saying old people get a pass ...

on being racist.  Strictly speaking I don't believe that non-discrimination laws recognize such a pass but I understand the sentiment of what you are saying.  Let's say, for the sake of this discussion, that we actually accept the fact that old people should get a pass simply because they were raised in a different time.  Fine.

How old is Obama?

My comments above have nothing to do with Rev. Wright which is another topic altogether.  My comments above have to do with his racist attitude regarding white people as exhibited by his comments about his grandmother.  His grandmother was probably raised in a time where whites were racists, and by your argument she should be given a pass because of it.  Fine.  I don't care if he loves his grandmother or not in this discussion.

What I DO care about is his implication that any racist tendencies that she DID exhibit were "typical of white people".  This speaks to Obama's attitude, not that of his grandmother.

So, bottom line by your arguement above, his grandmother should get a pass on being a racist, but Obama should not. Right?

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

So, what DID Obama say about his grandmother?

Since we are on this topic of Obama being a racist, I took the time to dig up some references to his actual statements on this topic:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

[...]

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23690567/

"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. But she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know. . .there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way."

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=6570

There are the simple facts of what he said:

  1. His grandmother is "a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes...", and
  2. His grandmother is "a typical white person."

So as is clearly indicated here, in Obama's mind the "typical white person" is someone who "fears of black men who passed by [them] on the street, and who on more than one occasion [have] uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes."

I'm not spinning this at all. These are his actual statements drawn to their logical conclusions. This is every bit as offensive, or should be, as if a white person said "black people are lazy."

Obviously this "issue" is not one that he intends to "ignore right now." But given his internal view of the "typical white person" it seems fair to assume that he believes that they need to be "fixed" somehow. I mean he is basically saying that the "typical white person" is no different from someone raised in the time of his grandmother.  No different.  I say bah and humbug to THAT.

And you don't think that THAT is a racist perspective? Well, I disagree.

 

Special question for missliberties:

Here is a speech in which Obama raises the issue of "white women being afraid of black men". That's exactly what he said of his white grandmother. Isn't this born of the same theme as the "call me" ad? I mean it harkins back to a puss filled wound of a time where whites feared that the blacks simply wanted to rape their women, right? Isn't this the exact stereotype you complained was being used to bait people in the "call me" ad?

Now, obviously Obama is trying to whip up as many votes as possible within the black community that forms his base, right? So isn't a speech and a radio appearance where he basically comes out and says that the "typical white person" is "afraid of black men" just another form of race baiting only in reverse? Isn't his message actually that the typical white person is a racist and we need to fix this issue now so vote for me?

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

In case you have missed it...

..I have a diary up on the subject. Might I humbly suggest taking further disccusion of this over there?  My diary already addresses this point, perhaps you will find my answer satisfactory :-)

………… parent

So if...

1:Obama thinks the "typical white person" is scared of blacks and the unkown person and says racist things from time to time.

2:O'Reilly thinks most white people would be surprised if all black people go around asking some "m-f-er" for more iced tea

It clearly indicates here that if Obama thinks typical white people are racist, so does O'Reilly

I'm not spinning this at all. These are his actual statements drawn to their logical conclusions, Bill O'Reilly thinks most whites are racist.

Am I insane for thinking Obama was saying that there are whites that are racist, including her grandma. And later that the "typical white person" is afraid of the unkown and foreign.

But what do I know

I'm someone who has been known to say one or two bad things about baseball. And when I see baseball on the TV, I turn the channel.

But I guess I'm a typical white person, when I see a sport on TV that I don't like, I have my concerns about keeping the TV on the same channel.
And since I'm white and I don't like baseball and turn the channel when baseball is on the tv and I'm a typical white person doesn't watch the sports they don't like. Then the the typical white person doesn't like baseball.

The question here is why Obama said "typical white person" and not "typical person." If Obama said "typical white person" for a reason, then this is an issue, until then its 100% speculation and circumstantial evidence that Obama thinks whites are scared of blacks and even further that Obama thinks the "typical white person" says things about blacks that make Obama cringe.

In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,

………… parent

What's your definition of a stereotype?

So tell me: what is so wrong with Obama calling his grandmother a
"typical white person"?

It is a racist comment.  That's wrong, right? 

I think that we can assume that in using the
word "typical" Obama meant that his grandmother's attitudes and
behavior with regard to blacks were not uncommon in whites, which is
true in my experience.  Do you disagree?

Hmmm.  So if I took the behavior of one black person who just happened to be lazy and then I referred to that person as a "typical black person" would you conclude:

(a) I merely meant that the person in question's attitudes and behaviors were not uncommon in blacks, or

(b) I am a racist? 

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Are you saying you are free

of predisposition to broadbrush people or stereotyping.

Cause your constant use of the word liberal...... liberals by (your definition) are (always wrong about everything) is certainly a stereotype that you use freely and often.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

Not at all.

But of course stereotyping liberals isn't racist since the come in all shapes and colors.  :)

Stereotyping based on the color of one's skin, as Obama obviously did with his "typical WHITE person comment, IS racist. 

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Calling that statement "racist" is inaccurate

unless you want to broaden the definition of "racist" to include any comment that draws any distinction between races as "racist", thus rendering the word meaningess.  It would be like calling any person who sits at a piano a "pianist", or all Islamic people "Islamists". Instead, I think the word "racist" should be reserved for people who demonstrate a pattern of discrimination, intolerance, hate, or blatant stereotyping.

 

………… parent

Obviously everyone is a racist then

Just listen to the media....... Will Obama get the White vote? Has Clinton alienated blacks. Has John McCain sealed the deal with whites with beards in Jersey.

We all draw distinctions. We all discriminate daily. In fact it can have a positive connotation. He had discriminating tastes in his wardrobe selection.

But the LARGER point here is stereotyping, using a broad brush to paint a swath of people that you do not know, like assuming all liberals are X.

The gays also come in all shapes and colors, but they can still be discriminated against in a broad swathe IF you stereotype them.

For example, Jerry Falwells claim that the 9/11 attacks were God's punishment on American for harboring 'the gays'. That is stereotyping 'the gays' as evil, and that if America chooses to harbor them then America is embracing evil.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

Apples and oranges, nice try though!

Hmmm. So if I took the behavior of one black person who just happened
to be lazy and then I referred to that person as a "typical black
person" would you conclude:

(a) I merely meant that the person in question's attitudes and behaviors were not uncommon in blacks, or

(b) I am a racist?

Not an apples to apples comparison. The way in which Obama described his grandmother's use of racist language was not the kind of indictment of a person's character the way that a charge of laziness would be. Here's what Obama said about his grandmother in his speech:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I
can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who
helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman
who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman
who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the
street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic
stereotypes that made me cringe.

 

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

So let's make your hypothetical into more an apples to apples comparison:

 

Hmmm. So if I took the behavior of one black person who just happened
to be lazy
loves their children and sacrifices for them, but who harbors certain irrational prejudices regarding white people and uses stereotypes of whites, and then I referred to that person as a "typical black
person" would you conclude:

(a) I merely meant that the person in question's attitudes and behaviors were not uncommon in blacks, or

(b) I am a racist?

I would answer "A", and definitely not "B".

………… parent

The point is that he is generalizing a negative stereotype ...

from one person to all people of a particular group.  See my comment above.

He claims his grandmother has displayed racist tendencies and then in a radio interview refers to her as "a typical white person".  He is generalizing any racist attitudes she displayed and transfering them to "typical white people".

I don't know about you, but I consider a charge of being a racist to be a negative thing.  So when someone generalizes from one racist to "typical white people" using a negative characterization I call that racist because that is exactly what it is.  He holds this negative perception of a whole group of people based on nothing but the color of their skin. That's racist.

I agree that his grandmother gets a pass on being racist because she was raised in a time when that was the norm.  But Obama isn't that old.  He should know better than make such racist generalizations. 

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

What is this hysteria with Obama's grandmother......

Does the hard right have a thing for older white women or what? My head is not wrapping around this meme. It makes no sense.

Or is grandma a code word that I don't understand in rightwing speak.

I just want to know why Republicans distanced themselves from blacks when all the major candidates were missing when they had an opportunity to address black concenrs? Are white men afraid of black men? That doesn't seem very macho.

I want to know why Bush isn't pasted in the media as joined at the hip with "I hate America, because I hate half of its' people = liberals, gays, blacks' Jerry Falwell.

I want to know why Republican operatives go to Bob Jones University or Liberty U.

I do see why Republicans 'disown' their kids and kick them out of the house. Apparently no sin is too small to not be forgiven.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

The right started turning a lot of fire

on Obama when it started to look like he had a real shot to win. Thus a lot of stupid race based attacks.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

It's rancid

and disgustingly putrid. It defiles American values.

How does race baiting build schools. OH that's right, the rich don't want