"I'm used to Greenwald misrepresenting me wholesale, but being savaged for a post I didn't link to is a new one."
Writes Glenn Reynolds, who's irritated at being slammed for linking to some blogger's Happy-Easter post which turned out to be right above that blogger's co-blogger's racist rant. In fact, one of my regular commenters — in this thread — seems to be taking me to task because I've been linked by Reynolds who linked to the guy who blogs with the guy who said something racist. This is the dog that worried the cat that chased the rat that ate the malt....
Good lord, these last couple weeks have hypersensitized people to race. I imagine that Glenn Greenwald thinks he's helping Barack Obama by finding obscure racism on a minor blog and making some leaps to pin it on a high-profile blogger so it might start to matter, but I don't think it helps Barack Obama. Greenwald doesn't seem to mind if he's unfair to Reynolds, but he's swinging wildly without thinking through whether it's even working for the benefit of Obama. I don't think it is. Forefronting race — which Obama's opponents did by making us listen to Jeremiah Wright — undercuts Obama's transcendent, unifying message.
This got me thinking about a smart essay Jonah Goldberg wrote back in 2000, rejecting the idea that Americans need to have an "honest dialogue" about race:
Anyway, to go back to the original topic, I'm not criticizing Reynolds for failing to see that the Happy-Easter thing he thought was nice was next to something that was completely nasty, but I think that if he had seen the racist post, he should not have linked to the nice Easter post. And this should highlight a larger problem with group blogging. I have seen a couple great solo blogs messed up by bringing in another blogger who did not carry on the first blogger's tone. Bloggers: Be careful who you blog with. Or be safe and blog alone.
Good lord, these last couple weeks have hypersensitized people to race. I imagine that Glenn Greenwald thinks he's helping Barack Obama by finding obscure racism on a minor blog and making some leaps to pin it on a high-profile blogger so it might start to matter, but I don't think it helps Barack Obama. Greenwald doesn't seem to mind if he's unfair to Reynolds, but he's swinging wildly without thinking through whether it's even working for the benefit of Obama. I don't think it is. Forefronting race — which Obama's opponents did by making us listen to Jeremiah Wright — undercuts Obama's transcendent, unifying message.
This got me thinking about a smart essay Jonah Goldberg wrote back in 2000, rejecting the idea that Americans need to have an "honest dialogue" about race:
"Honest dialogue will not be easy at first. We will have to get past defensiveness and fear and political correctness and other barriers to honesty," warned president Clinton in 1997 launching his year-long conversation about pigment differences. "Emotions may be rubbed raw, but we must begin" (presumably this is just one of the many things Bill Clinton desires to have rubbed raw).Yeah, great... Bill Clinton. Who knew the form Bill Clinton's eagerness for rubbed-raw racial dialogue would take a decade later?
But guess what? Normal people everywhere tend not to discuss race, and I am not sure exactly why so many concerned liberals want to change that. After all, isn't the mantra to "get past our differences"? Well how are we going to do that if we are constantly harping on them... There are hundreds of black politicians who've made racial "conversations" their modus vivendi. There are many white politicians who've made their careers over their willingness to "discuss race frankly."...Think about it.
Meanwhile, Americans are dealing with racial tensions in an intelligent manner, which is to say ignoring them... [T]he average person realizes that if you want to get along with your fellow white or black man then you might want to discuss sports or the weather rather than longstanding racial grievances....
In America, most people have worked out a similar rule about racial conversations: Avoid them if you can, and keep them light and brief if you can't. Any honest conversation about race would have to include a vast number of things neither side wants to bring up. Of course, the assumption from people like Clinton — despite all his talk about moving past political correctness — is that white people need to hear how racist they are. Actually, that's not quite right. Clinton's assumption is that he is brave for telling race peddlers what they want to hear (and therefore deserves all the raw-rubbing he can get). But the assumption from his amen choir is that whites still need a good talking to. And many whites probably do. But no conversation can be one-way. At some point the view that most of the problems with the African-American community are cultural and cannot be remedied by more legislation will have to be aired. Are African-American leaders willing to listen to a full-venting of that perspective without screaming "racism" and storming out? I sincerely doubt it.
Anyway, to go back to the original topic, I'm not criticizing Reynolds for failing to see that the Happy-Easter thing he thought was nice was next to something that was completely nasty, but I think that if he had seen the racist post, he should not have linked to the nice Easter post. And this should highlight a larger problem with group blogging. I have seen a couple great solo blogs messed up by bringing in another blogger who did not carry on the first blogger's tone. Bloggers: Be careful who you blog with. Or be safe and blog alone.
Labels: Bill Clinton, blogging, Greenwald, Instapundit, Jeremiah Wright, Jonah Goldberg, Obama, racial politics
Stumble It! Facebook DiggIt! Del.icio.us
posted by Ann Althouse at 2:08 PM
219 Comments:
I disagree that the Instapunk post is intended to be racist. I can see how it could be viewed that way by taking points out of context, but the author makes some good points.
I wish you would discuss those points, rather than dismiss them in their entirety because they seem racist.
I know! Bunch of hatin' people for a Sunday.
I think the Political Blogosphere needs a hug or something.
I know who Glen Reynolds is, but who is Glen Greenwald?
I love the favorite mantra of the left regarding anyone religious:
"They want to impose their values on the rest of us".
But it seems to me that it's always those on the left who want to do the one-sided educating and to enshrine their values into law:
1. Gun Control
2. Global Warming
3. Race "Relations"
As someone who lived in the South and Midwest in the 60's - and has been called a "nigger-lover" and "Jew-lover" because I didn't practice or espouse the same racist attitudes so many of my neighbors did - I don't feel that I need to be lectured to by the left about the state of race relations in America.
Jonah's right. Adults have figured it out already.
Thanks a lot for the reminder of our national racial dysfunction, Barack. You really screwed the pooch on this one.
"I know who Glen Reynolds is, but who is Glen Greenwald?"
The more appropriate way to phrase it is "Who are Glenn Greenwald?"
Yes, well, one of the things you forgot to mention--those of us who group blog with our adult children.
I've found that if I don't let them get in a few shots at their old man (or their employer) now and then, resentment and rage builds up and the next thing you know, a perfectly good dinner is ruined by someone storming off.
I have long advocated running racists out of the Republican Party. I have helped turn a few away. The problem is, where does one start? It's fairly pervasive. Plus, the so-called red states tend to vote for white people who will keep minorities in their place. What does one do then?
And that man-child Jonah Goldberg is wrong. The worst thing we could do is start listening to some out of date advice from a young man who clearly has glommed onto Republicanism without ever having actually worked in the private sector and made adequate amounts of money. Once Goldberg can show that he can hold his own working for a reputable firm somewhere, then I'll start to pay attention to him. Plenty of us inherit money--but what you do after that to build that wealth is important. He seems to be spending his on jeans with elastic waist bands.
"I know who Glen Reynolds is, but who is Glen Greenwald?"
Glen Greenwald is a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, broken a story on his blog about wiretapping that led to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country, and Russ Feingold read from his blog during the Censure hearings.
He used to live in Brazil and has many internet friends who will defend him and post on other people's blogs.
Any honest conversation about race would have to include a vast number of things neither side wants to bring up.
Honesty is essential. Forthcoming is overrated.
Norman, I've read some posts of yours on this blog that I thought were pretty loopy, but I have to say the last two paragraphs of your last post were spot-on. Racism is a problem in conservative circles, particularly in Red states (and before someone claims I'm Red state or Southern bashing, I'm a proud Texan, born and raised, so don't give me that nonsense), and while that does not mean that conservatism equals racism, an intellectually honest person has to face that unfortunate set of facts and not just scream out "Robert Byrd, Robert Byrd!" when such facts are pointed out. And if you have helped run out a few of those types from the GOP in your day, Norman, good on you.
Also, Jonah Goldberg is someone who just glommed onto GOP opinion journalism with no other life experience worth talking about, and he hasn't grown since. He might be good for a few Simpsons references, but Bill Buckley he ain't.
Roger said...
I know who Glen Reynolds is, but who is Glen Greenwald?
Typical far leftist who sees anyone to the right of Lenin as a racist and a hater.
“Normal people everywhere tend not to discuss race, and I am not sure exactly why so many concerned liberals want to change that.”
“Meanwhile, Americans are dealing with racial tensions in an intelligent manner, which is to say ignoring them... [T]he average person realizes that if you want to get along with your fellow white or black man then you might want to discuss sports or the weather rather than longstanding racial grievances....”
Exactly. The key words are intelligent and average people. Too many people have been indoctrinated- infected maybe a better word- with identity and personal politics that they cannot see the forest for the trees. Everything has to be a discussion on some “important” issue. We do not discuss race because for most of us normal people it is not important. We do not see black or white, we see people. People like us who want the same things. No more, no less. Just plain, ordinary, people. Americans.
Of course if we stop having all these discussions, the leftist haters will have nothing to blame all of their personal perceived problems on. They must have and need victims; of course the victims cannot be them.
My discussion on race; How about those Cubs?
From the "offending" blog post:
"We can have this conversation now -- should have this conversation now -- because African-Americans are on the verge of the greatest setback they've experienced since the election of Rutherford B. Hayes. You see, you've just given life to the suspicion that black people in America are, and have long been, a fifth column -- unanimously hating the very country that has afforded the highest standard of living ever achieved by black people in human history. We're teetering at the edge of believing that you're a secret society, a massive collection of sleeper cells just waiting for your chance to do serious harm to the rest of us. You've made it possible for us to believe that. Because you're never outraged by what the worst black people do. Because you continue to make excuses for what should be inexcusable to everyone."
I don't think that the post on Instapunk was particularly racist either. HARSH. Oh, it was harsh.
But should we be honest?
I tend to agree with what you quoted from Jonah Goldberg... in fact I made this comment on QandO a few days ago...
"Pretending is how we get there, Scott. The *first* thing we need to do is pretend that everyone is equal. And then, when we’re doing that, we have to *behave* as if what we are pretending is true.
But if we aren’t allowed to pretend equality into being, to simply behave as if everyone is equal and live our daily lives with the expectation that people ought to be treated equally and to *expect* that everyone else is also participating in this consensus fiction. (Love that term... it says so much.) So we’re all on the same page *pretending* that what we want to be true is true.
And what happens then, is that when someone isn’t playing along, it stands out, and several hands reach out to slap that person up side the head and say, "Get with the program!"
What doesn’t work, is when there are a whole bunch of people who want to pretend the other direction. Who are invested in racism and the existence of racism. Who want to see it everywhere and interpret whatever happens in that racialist frame.
The reaction against Wright is proof that enough people, on a very basic level, understand that it doesn’t get BETTER to preach division and hostility. There is no healing in grievance. It just doesn’t work that way."
BUT... if we ARE going to talk about it, the post at Insta-Punk is what we have GOT to talk about.
Because this "black rage" idea, this "oh, we have to excuse the preaching of hostility and hatred because we have to excuse this old guy" the idea that black people CAN NOT be racist because they are not a member of the oppressor group which MUST AND UNAVOIDABLY remove ALL racism from the realm of behavior such that no matter how un-racist a white person is they are STILL a member of the oppressor group and there for ARE ALL RACIST, Ann Althouse, Glen Greenwald, EVERYONE who is white is part of that oppressor group.
If we're going to talk about this, this is what we need to talk about.
There is a limit to the self-flagellation that white people will do in the face of an utterly implacable judgment of racism based only on their color rather than on their beliefs or behavior.
Also, in the interests of intellectual consistency, and before someone points it out, yes, anti-white racism is a problem in some parts of the left in this country. The difference is, the people on the left who are like that are generally marginalized and don't count for much in numbers or political power, unlike their counterparts on some parts of the right. Being a minority in a minority will lead to that end result.
Had a Japanese friend. We drank beers and ran my chainsaw. (But not in that order.)
I never brought up what his father and uncles may or may not have done in in the 1930s and 1940s.
He never mentioned the U.S. Air Force.
We got along great.
Sometime between Martin Luther King and the point at which I became aware of the world, the "conversation" about race left the concept of color-blind humans and moved firmly on to unavoidable separation.
Separate experiences rather than universal human life. You're the wrong color you can never understand what it's like to be a minority. A man could never understand being a woman. If you were a "good" person you accepted this division. If you were a "bad" person you pretended that people were people just like you.
"The difference is, the people on the left who are like that are generally marginalized and don't count for much in numbers or political power,.."
Oh, really.
And this is why we're being told that expecting the marginalization of someone like Wright who supposedly represents the unspoken but prevalent black anger of blacks is not reasonable?
Unless, you know, you're arguing that whites on the left marginalize blacks...
Shorter Ann
Reynolds didn't do anything wrong, Bill Clinton is a racist, Jonah Goldberg wrote an unrelated essay about this in 2000!
There is an old joke that demonstrates the "discussion on race".
JFK sent Justice Goldberg to Viet Nam to give him an honest, objective, situation report on the war. After much protest about the separation of powers and all that, Justice Goldberg went.
There was a stop over in Taiwan. He attended one of those massive all night banquets reserved for visiting dignitaries. After much food and drink he found himself in a conversation with Chiang Kai Shek. During a lull in the conversation, he hauls off and hits Shek on the jaw, decking him. Goldberg looks down and says “that’s for Pearl Harbor”.
Chiang Kai Shek starts to get up, shakes his head, rubs his jaw and says “I’m Chinese. The Japanese attacked pearl Harbor.” Goldberg looks down on him and says “Chinese, Japanese, it’s all the same to me.” He helps Shek up and they have a few more drinks.
During a lull in the conversation, Shek hauls off and hits Goldberg right on the jaw, decking him. “That’s for the Titanic.” Goldberg just laid there for a few minutes. He looks up and says “an ice berg sunk the Titanic. Shek looks down at him. “Ice berg, Goldberg, it’s all the same to me.”
Synova, do you really think a guy like Wright has power comparable to, say, Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms did in their day, which wasn't long ago? And believe me, the political progeny of Thurmond and Helms are still alive and kicking, as well as some even more unsavory characters.
Obama has had to distance himself from Wright's comments (to the best he can without making himself look like a guy who would throw his spiritual mentor under the bus), which shows that Wright-style rhetoric doesn't get you very far on the left, and is the province of an extreme and generally politically impotent section of society. Also, I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say that others are saying (if I'm reading you correctly) that it's unreasonable to marginalize the likes of Wright. Obama himself has had to do that, as best he can. And hey, I'm willing to be honest here, one reason that Wright hasn't gotten even more flak on this is because lots of Democrats don't want to do something that might be seen as undermining Obama, even if they think Wright is a buffoon (like I do, and I'm willing to say that). In case you haven't noticed, this is an election year, and sometimes people do things in such years they wouldn't do in others.
It is good to know when I come to Althouse, the Althouse posts are done by Althouse and not faux posters! ("fauxsters"?) Good for brand integrity and brand loyalty!
100% Pure Althouse. Accept no substitutes.
I wasn't taking you to task, Ann. I was just bringing it up. Quit lying.
Happy Easter, all!
Because this "black rage" idea, this "oh, we have to excuse the preaching of hostility and hatred because we have to excuse this old guy" the idea that black people CAN NOT be racist because they are not a member of the oppressor group which MUST AND UNAVOIDABLY remove ALL racism from the realm of behavior such that no matter how un-racist a white person is they are STILL a member of the oppressor group and there for ARE ALL RACIST, Ann Althouse, Glen Greenwald, EVERYONE who is white is part of that oppressor group.
If we're going to talk about this, this is what we need to talk about.
There is a limit to the self-flagellation that white people will do in the face of an utterly implacable judgment of racism based only on their color rather than on their beliefs or behavior.
Nice post, Synova.
I came to the thread with the notion of writing that it is impossible to discuss "racism" or matters like "sexism", "gay bigotry", etc. because our society has not agreed on what is - objectively - acts or beliefs of racism - as separate from subjective racism - where anything can be construed as racist based on a persons political beliefs, creed..
Worse, we entered a "pomo" period where it is claimed that there is no such thing as truth, only how individuals and "identity groups" perceive the truth onto themselves.
To have a useful debate or dialogue - there has to first be general agreement on the definition - what is, what is not, what is the gray area of conflict that is to be deliberated on to see if agreement can move part or most of the contentious portion into "was is, what is not" under the definition agreed to. In this case racism.
We-are-not-even-close. In fact, we probably had more consensus and agreement 40 years ago than today before academics and identity group power-seekers and opportunistic lawyers, preachers all muddled things up for their advantage.
Same with other matters like rape. Ask 100 people what rape is and is not, in 1963, in a dozen different situations, and you would have societal consensus by 90-95 of the hundred in each of the dozen cases as to what fits and does not fit what rape is. Nowadays, the breakdown (quite deliberate and programmatically induced, BTW) would mean that 30-35% of society would have a consensus, but 60% has lost their clarity and critical thinking on the matter because of new claims and standards that some believe, others don't, others have imposed on them but dissent from.
You can't have a dialogue with people that believe as Synova alluded to. You cannot discuss race openly if your beliefs cause ONE person, let alone 10 out of 100 - to object and claim racial hurt or grievance - and you face harsh negative consequences professionally, socially, career-wise for "Giving Offense". Especially if your punishment is based on just pure "offense" to another person's subjective beliefs on the matter.
And Obama, steeped in beliefs of "Oppressor Race" black liberation theology and who calls his grandmother a racist for fearing a black thug at a bus stop - is unlikely to be the Great Racial Redeemer that will lead us to America once again having a rough consensus of what is racist, what is not. As was the case not too long ago. And certainly, Obama will not be the Messiah in showing us what is best defined as objective evidence of sexism, and what is best left out of that as merely subjective agenda rooted in identity politics, religion, etc.
For now, the safest thing is to avoid debate - while seeking to marginalize the power and ability to punish others who have claimed proprietorship of the race and gender cards to wield against their foes...
This post has been removed by the author.
It seems to me that, at a bare minimum and even before you get to honest, it's necessary to be fair-minded, to at least be willing to fight fair.
I think a lot of what is missing in the whatever-it-is we (in the general sense) are having is fair-mindedness, and a willingness to fight fair.
I think what Glenn Greenwald just did is an example of that. And before someone jumps in to say it: OF COURSE, there are examples on the other side. There is, so to speak, "plenty of lack" to go around. A surfeit even.
Just my two cents, FWIW.
"Synova, do you really think a guy like Wright has power comparable..."
Well, I hope not.
But what we've (not just liberals) been told here this last week is that black America is angry. Black America, as a whole, represented by any number of black churches, is hostile and angry.
I never thought so before. It doesn't (and what does it mean that I've self-censored the words "spade" and "jive" this morning?) *go with* my experience of black people which is that they are open and friendly to me.
But this last week I've been told that they're lying.
This last week I've been told that black people put on a friendly face with whites and then all go to black churches at which racial hostility toward whites is common fare.
"I have seen a couple great solo blogs messed up by bringing in another blogger who did not carry on the first blogger's tone. Bloggers: Be careful who you blog with. Or be safe and blog alone."
I'm guessing this means the wedding is off.
Poor titus's rare little heart has got to be breaking right about now. Or is he the last to know? Shouldn't someone send him an email? A text at least.
And this reft house is that, the which he built,
Lamented Jack! and here his malt he pil'd,
Cautious in vain! these rats, that squeak so wild,
...
we probably had more consensus and agreement 40 years ago than today
You know, I don't think I agree with that, on a day-to-day basis, in everyday life in many ways, at least in terms of the broad-brush way you're stating it, Cedarford. I agree that there are certainly some issues in the large-corporation milieu in particularly, and especially--in many cases--college campuses. But in so many other settings, not so much. Could we be mistaking the volume of those whose experience, or perceived experience, whichever, is otherwise with the universality of the situation?
"If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? ...It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?"
Or be safe and blog alone.
Simile and the world similes with you.
Metaphor and you metaphor alone.
I wasn't taking you to task, Ann. I was just bringing it up. Quit lying.
Doyle, does it ever occur to you that people can have legimate different perceptions, which sort of precludes the "quit lying" statement made?
I am on record, as you surely know, Doyle, of not despising your online persona or your commenting in toto here, as so many other here appear to do (which I can also understand). I think you can be, when you want to be, a positive rather then negative counterweight in discussions (it does seem you want to less often, though).
But when you pull this sort of thing, it only serves to make it that much harder not just to rush right by your comments, even those with good points. Is it so much more important just to make fun of and/or insult Althouse?
Well, I'm sure you don't give a rat's ass about my observation or opinion, but there it is, anyhow.
Now, carry on.
I think more black people (or, more insipidly, "black folks", if you prefer) need to have a conversation with each other about race. I suggest starting with how deeply pathetic the concern about "acting white" is and how much damage the fear of that has led to.
And, adding that one reasonably safe place to debate matters is on the Internet.
Because it is one arena where PC has less power. Though we have the Altermans that want that PC power brought there in the form of "Gatekeepers", such as himself.
For now, with anonymity or at least the plausible denial that you are speaking seprately from your work or professional capacity - it cannot cause a grade-lowering, denial of tenure, have you trundled out of work in disgrace as your co-workers learn you have a week of mandatory "diversity classes" to help you "get it" and avoid "offending anyone".
In fact, if we are to retake America from relativism and achieve valid definitions of what is and is not racism, sexism, anti-semitism, what is "rape", etc., we need to establish other Safe Grounds Outside the Internet.
Where people can get together and work out America's race, sex, and religious problems and dysfunctions free of oppressive silencing of opinion.
What are the gray areas of honest difference that exist outside an extremist fringe that DOES need considerable debate and forging of consensus. Or, at least a working compromise to embrace or reject some or all of the controversial matter into societally accepted working definitions "Yes, in this circumstance it is racist...No, it is unreasonable to define 3 days later regret and self-disgust as construing you were raped..."
"Yes, it is racist to give blacks longer jail terms than Asians for the same crime. No, it is not racist for people to object to placing an all-minority, high-crime housing project in their nice, great schools neighborhood because the concern is rational based on the adverse impact of the housing project on the lives of others. So the real problem is the bad behaviors in the housing project population that need fixing, not fixing the attitude of neighbors to "embrace" the effects of those bad behaviors."
Universities might be a logical place for "Safe Ground", but they are now amongst the least open and receptive places for such debates.
C4 is spot on. We can't have an honest discussion about race because of PCBS.
Could we be mistaking the volume of those whose experience, or perceived experience, whichever, is otherwise with the universality of the situation?
That "with"should be "within"--and it probably would have been helpful had I italicized "universality" and added the words "in everyday" after "situation."
All remarks regarding race are complete nonsense. Similarly, all absolutes are entirely fallacious. <-- 100% of fact.
Wright's claim that Jesus was black, and I'm sure that plays well in his corner of the world, in fact I've seen pictures and little statues that support the idea, reminded me of a woman I worked with who insisted Cleopatra was black. The subject came up because I asked her to pose, she's beautiful and possesses (man, that word has a lot of S's) a remarkable profile, perfect for the art I was doing at the time. I didn't have the heart to dash it all by explaining the Ptolomy line being Greek. It ran counter to my objective. Rather, just skip it and let them have their wrongness. For Wright and for the woman I knew, as a practical matter, whatever works.
The entire race divide could be fixed in a day, by blacks.
Just let blacks take up a nationwide collection for poor whites.
That very day they'd discover the dignity that was felt was being withheld.
Whites weren't the ones withholding it.
Oh, can't, can't, can't, can't, can't. More CANT (no missing apostrophe there), I say.
Now that the discussion is moving along, your uncle Norman will now explain what's what--
You bet I'm right about eliminating racism from the Republican Party.
We are a brand. We give people something to vote FOR not something to vote AGAINST or as a last resort. We MUST eliminate racism from our party.
Why? Demographics.
Only a fool would look at how this country is changing and then alienate the entire minority population that identifies with the Hispanic culture. Mr. Texas mentions his home state--do you know that the Tejano vote is slipping away? Yes, and if you don't know who identifies themselves as a Tejano, you don't know squat about politics.
This bloodletting is long overdue. I can tolerate the God people, I can tolerate the people who are pro life, but I cannot countenance the racists. They drive our brand into the toilet. And if you have a shred of maturity, you'd all figure out that as we fix our brand, the liberals will continue throwing their own in the toilet.
We cannot win by waiting for them to self-destruct. We MUST win every election, every cycle, and we must not allow anyone to drive the brand into disrepute.
MC--
Then there's the one about the American who goes to Asia, meets an Asian guy, and asks, "What kind of -ese are you? Chinese, Japanese, or Javanese?
Asian guy says, "I dunno. What kind of -key are you? Donkey, monkey, or Yankee?"
Greenwald inspired me to make a sock puppet. I sewed the eye buttons on by hand, and the hair is made from yarn. I whip it out at restaurants when little kids are bouncing on the other side of the booth, which can be most annoying. I make the puppet demand a French fry, or a taco, then act like I'm the disciplinarian to the puppet. It has yet to calm down any kids, but it helps diffuse a potential scene. And it's fun. Their parents appreciate the kid-friendly distraction.
"Mr. Texas mentions his home state--do you know that the Tejano vote is slipping away? Yes, and if you don't know who identifies themselves as a Tejano, you don't know squat about politics."
Uh, yeah I know lots of people who identify as Tejano. Starting with my family, which settled here in Texas when it was a Spanish colony and have been here ever since. Though I prefer the term Hispanic or Latino, because Tejano makes a lot of people think of bad music with accordions and guys in overly flamboyant cowboy hats. But your point is correct on the demographic front, especially here in Texas.
One thing, however. You say you "tolerate" the God people and the pro-lifers. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say they tolerate you, given their greater power in the GOP vs. cultural libertarians (which I am assuming you are)?
Chip,
Thats a lot of work to get a free french fry, I just steal 'em off other people's plates (when they're not looking)
I think that Reverend Wright is wrong not to notice that the north under Lincoln sacrificed 350,000 white lives to save the black folks from slavery.
I wonder why Michelle Obama isn't proud of that?
Slavery had been an accepted fact clear back to the Old Testament, and yet -- whites -- mostly abolitionists (Baptists!), finished it off.
It didn't end all the race hatred of course. It intensified it in fact in some ways since now the furniture was free to vote, and even run for president, but basically, I think that the picture isn't totally black and white in any or either direction, and preachers ought to try to give a better story instead of playing to the racism of their communities.
This is what Jesus himself did when he told the story of The Good Samaritan. To recap: the Samaritans were hated because they had simplified some of the Jewish laws. But Jesus found something nice that one of them had done, and he concentrated on that.
We should all be doing THAT on a Sunday. It might not fire up the fires of hellfire and damnation, but there is another side to Sunday which is about seeing the good in others, and singing uplifting songs of hope.
At any rate, that's the song that Cosby is singing, and I really think that's a good number, and truly is a healing thing.
Barack should get Cosby on his team, or even get him for vice president!
I like the InstaPundit blog. I like reading Reynolds' takes, and I also like how helpful the site is in finding other items elsewhere.
But are we really supposed to be so naive as to think that when InstaPundit just happens to link to a specific blog for a "nice Easter item" that he's not doing more than just linking to a nice Easter item? Nice Easter items can be found all over the place; it's Instapunk he wants to promote. InstaPundit is a very political blog with a political agenda behind a majority of its content. It's also a very powerful blog, and one of the purposes of the blog is to bring readership to other blogs that InstaPundit likes (which often means: blogs that serve his agenda).
When I see InstaPundit repeatedly linking to a smaller blog for things such as a nice Easter item, I generally take that as Instapundit wanting to ensure that that specific blog develops more readership in general. He wants you to stop by there and have a look around, maybe place it in your fave links. He's also giving the blog a pat on the back.
"smart essay Jonah Goldberg wrote"
An oxymoronic phrase if ever there was one.
But are we really supposed to be so naive as to think that when InstaPundit just happens to link to a specific blog for a "nice Easter item" that he's not doing more than just linking to a nice Easter item?
Nope. we're supposed to be looking for dark and sinister motives behind every action anyone ever takes....especially wingnuts and Christianists.
/sarcasm
"An oxymoronic phrase if ever there was one."
I notice you provide no examples to back up your statement. To difficult?
I think that Reverend Wright is wrong not to notice that the north under Lincoln sacrificed 350,000 white lives to save the black folks from slavery.
Is that why they fought however? My g-g-grandfather was in the Cavalry, and his diaries and letters suggest that he went to preserve the Union, and because his country asked him to, not to end slavery per se. Still, you can't deny that by fighting (and being crippled for life -- 40 more years of pain), he fought to end slavery.
When I see InstaPundit repeatedly linking to a smaller blog for things such as a nice Easter item, I generally take that as Instapundit wanting to ensure that that specific blog develops more readership in general. He wants you to stop by there and have a look around, maybe place it in your fave links. He's also giving the blog a pat on the back.
Especially when it's done over a course of several months, which is 20 years in blogging time.
Blogger Norman Rogers said "And that man-child Jonah Goldberg is wrong...Once Goldberg can show that he can hold his own working for a reputable firm somewhere, then I'll start to pay attention to him... He seems to be spending his on jeans with elastic waist bands."
When man-child Rogers can show he can make a point without an irrelevant personal remark more suited to junior high school, then I'll consider paying attention to him.
somefeller said...
One thing, however. You say you "tolerate" the God people and the
pro-lifers. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say they tolerate you,
given their greater power in the GOP vs. cultural libertarians (which I
am assuming you are)?
somefeller: "Norman Rogers" is an obvious made-up character, meant to be a stalking horse and ultimately to mock the readership of this this and perhaps other blogs. He is from the same person or persons who brought you "Maxine Weiss" and "Luckyoldson." It may seem worthwhile to engage in dialog with this entity, but, in point of fact, "he" is not anything like a real person, but yet another attempt, over the long course of things, to mock the readership and troll the Althouse blog.
You are wasting perfectly good electrons engaging with this entity. And, believe me, from the quality of your comments, you have some good electrons to share.
Roaring' Norman has been around for awhile at other blogs, though his appearance here is more recent. For example, he's been at Drum's and Drezner's.
You know, there are all sorts of made-up characters, some of whom are worthwhile, and some of whom are toxic.
In the former category you've got "Sir Archy" and "blogging cockroach," obvious comic characters, but at least occasionally amusing and sometimes worthwhile ones.
Then you have "Trooper York," a real person who works at being very funny, and, frankly, often hilarious. He frequently slows down conversations that need to be slowed down, and provides much needed lubrication to the overall discussion.
There are also people like "tituswhateverhisnameistoday," who, while fairly grotesque, and who may ultimately have unclear motives, are at least amusing at the moment, if you have a taste for that sort of thing.
But reserved for one of the circles of Hell are the artificial toxic characters, such as "Norman Rogers," whose ultimate purpose is mockery.
Do not read and do not respond to this entity. It is indeed a troll.
If you want some background on trolls, check this out. Its content is a little dated, oriented as it is toward Usenet days, but you can still find surprising and perhaps valuable insight about dealing with the various strange things you might encounter in the blogosphere.
Chuck wrote: "I suggest starting with how deeply pathetic the concern about "acting white" is and how much damage the fear of that has led to."
Acting white, you mean like using standard English, or making good grades in High School, or getting and staying married, or waiting to have children when you can afford them?
These are choices that the poor eschew regardless of race. It is not acting white, it is acting in a manner that leads to economic and social success. I see your point, but I work with enough poor families to see the same exact attitudes in poor white folks as well.
Trey
I thought that Greenwald's strongest point -- which is brought up in update II -- is this idea that people are called upon to distance themselves from statements made by others in their minority group. I.e. Russert asking Obama and Powell to address statements made by Belafonte, though there isn't anything other than their skin color that links Obama or Powell to Belefonte.
Greenwald asks about the rules regarding such guilt by association. If Obama must address any statement uttered by his pastor, why shouldn't McCain have to address any statement by Hagee in similar fashion?
Inspector appears here infrequently and when he does, he claims so and so is a sock puppet or faker.
I find that very interesting Inspector or should I call you....
Heh.
Instapundit knew that post was there and that was the only reason he even linked. As if he really gave a shit about that lame Easter post. Yeah right. He wanted people to find that post underneath, which Reynolds does not even think is racist (same as others on this thread). Fine. But don't link in a passive aggressive way and then act all SHOCKED SHOCKED that someone called you out on it.
He frequently does the same with the most vile anti-gay posts. And when someone like Sullivan calls him out, Reynolds will claim that a link does not equal an endorsement. But we know where his true feelings lie.
Sure we do, because he doesn't favor gay marriage or have black relatives or anything like that. /sarcasm
So... what do you think of the (not) linked post, DTL?
Do you think we need to have a dialog about race, or should we maintain an overall accepting demeanor on the theory that acting something out will bring about the reality of it?
If you feel we need a dialog, are those having it allowed to actually have a dialog?
downtownlad said...
The same old same old eveyone hates gays except him. Everyone os homophobic. Everyone is a racist homophobe. The whole world hates gays. Yada, yada, yada. Blah, blah, blah.
This guy is a hater. He hates everyone including the guygal he looks at in the mirror every morning.
It is ironic that Obama's claim to magical racial healing powers has led to uncovering a heretofore hidden aspect of black America, a modern John Birch Society of black racists.
What Democrats need is a Bill Buckley to throw these folks out of the party as unacceptable to good people.
I'm with Goldberg. I don't want or need a goddamned 'conversation', which is simply another way of saying that I need a good talkin' to because, even if I never think racist thoughts or say racist things or do anything racist at all ever, I am a racist by virtue of my race.
I am shocked, actually surprised by the hatred these many Chicago churchgoers have for me. And it makes me feel further separated from them; alienated even. I get they idea they want me destroyed, for how else can their resentments be satisfied, except by being rid of me? No other atonement seems sufficient.
Anyway, I have been mulling over these events in the past few days, saddened and disgusted by it all. Yet I had a good Easter brunch with my daughter home from college, and her boyfriend with her, a nice and studious young man. He is black and my daughter thinks nothing of it because, among other things, my brother married a black woman, and she knows us.
So these recent revelations about this secret church-based animus has made me die a little, and I do not know what could undo it. Obama has told us he is drinking poison, and he sees nothing at all wrong with it, except for the pieces that are obviously unacceptable to white America, but those are out of context. Or something. In any event, it's my fault for being offended.
I now think we are in fact far worse off about race than I had thought possible a mere few weeks ago, but not for the reasons Obama suggests. And it makes me want to say to hell with any further efforts.
Linking to an Easter post is just linking to an Easter post. Greenwald and the rest of you leftwingnut nutroots should just get a brain.
Middle Class Guy, have you been channeling Carlos Mancia?
How about... "If Obama must address any statement uttered by his pastor, why shouldn't McCain have to address any statement" by his pastor... who is not Hagee.
Hm?
Still, if it were just this I think more people would actually be willing to give Obama a pass but it's not just this. It's this on top of Michelle not being proud of America, of being unable to find anything to be proud of America for (and her life looks pretty dang privileged to my "how can I ever afford the State U" perspective) and Barak's refusal to put his hand on his heart for the National Anthem.
That offended a lot of people. So now they're saying, well, this explains a lot.
And before The Speech when Obama was still either claiming he hadn't heard Wright's offensive statements or was excusing him because he was old and about to retire... well now he's on record as condemning Wright in strong and clear terms but his NEW pastor is already going on with more of the same while pretending that all us racists are upset about the social outreach of the church. How dare we criticize Wright for trying to help the community?
Is the new, not about to retire, pastor still his pastor?
Can we talk about race? Should we?
Or maybe we should talk about faith, doctrine and the Christian church?
"There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God's love." [A Black Theology of Liberation, p. 70]
dtl, do you not realize that when you link to a post when you scroll down you don't see the next post. You'd have to click to the home page and then scroll down, and people rarely do that. It's not a practical way to point to the other post.
"So these recent revelations about this secret church-based animus has made me die a little, and I do not know what could undo it."
You can't take responsibility for other people. You can only take responsibility for yourself.
That's what I always tell my kids and I'm sure you already know that.
Can anything undo it?
Maybe knowing that your daughter's boyfriend obviously isn't among those, that maybe he's actually in the majority. Maybe we can have faith in people even when there doesn't seem to be a reason.
If Obama must address any statement uttered by his pastor, why shouldn't McCain have to address any statement by Hagee in similar fashion?
Because its not equivalent. Hagee is to McCain as the New Black Panthers are to Obama. Wright is on a different level because, unlike Hagee, he has been Obama's spiritual influence for the last 20 years.
This post has been removed by the author.
Ask Hagee... I'll bet he'll insist that God loves the children of the whore of Babylon every bit as much as God loves the children of the Protestant reformation. I'll bet he'll insist that Jesus gave his blood to save them and would have died to save just one.
Another guy who says racist stuff hardly distinguishable from what Instapunk says:
Chris Rock On Racism
synova: You can't take responsibility for other people. You can only take responsibility for yourself.
What's your reason for quoting Cone in your 11:39 comment, if not to suggest that somehow, Obama has to answer for what Cone wrote?
Sure, I'll agree that Hagee-McCain is not a decent parallel for Wright-Obama, but I'm asking that there be some sort of generally applied principle in these things. Does McCain have to attend a church for 20 years, with the same pastor for those 20 years, for there to be equivalency?
Could you explain why Russert feels the need to ask Obama and Powell about ridiculous statements made by another black man?
While we have a government that continues to make really stupid decisions, like this, I really don't give a damn what Wright said, or what Glen Reynolds links to, or what is under or above something that Glen Reynolds links to.
Why quote Cone?
I don't think Obama should have to refute Cone... I think Wright should.
What strikes me most about the Cone quote, and the other quotes I've read from that book is that the "Christian" doctrine in them sucks.
Frankly, Jesus Christ lived in a time when his people were oppressed and many of them looked to the Messiah as a promise of worldly deliverance. So, you know, Jesus Christ directly addressed what the proper response was. There are scriptures that apply.
Nor is the notion of group identity compatible with New Testament Christian faith... even the Catholics are over that and the Protestant Reformation was fundamentally (ha!) about an affirmation of the sainthood of the believer, affirming an absolute individual spiritual authority and efficacy.
If we don't want to talk about race... maybe we should talk about Christian doctrine.
Peter, I agree. Freaking paper pushers.
I hope and trust that someone *will* intervene for those people.
There are benefits of solo blogging, and I continue to write a solo blog, but I've also found that being part of a team is a wonderful experience when it is clear that the divergence of viewpoints is in fact one of the strengths of the blog.
I've been part of the blogging team at Cold Hearted Truth for about a year now, and right now the main posters are myself and one other liberal, a couple fo hard core conservatives (including one with the label 'proud neo-con' which says it all,) the founder of the blog who is an independent leaning Republican (or maybe he's a Republican leaning independent), and our 'horse-race' specialist, 'Indy voter' who is officially an independent but does a great job handicapping polls and keeping us up to date on that aspect of politics. What I like is that we complement each other very well, and we are well aware of each others' viewpoints. I know that some of the other posters will put up posts I don't happen to agree with (no racist rants though-- the founder of the blog is a little picky about who he invites) but then they put them up under their name so it is clear whose opinion it is.
I've found both ways to be a stimulating way to blog.
Hey, Peter. Thanks for linking to that. I didn't get a chance to look at WaPo today. I also forwarded the link to Callimachus, who, as I think you know, as addressed this topic of Iraqi translators & etc. a number of times before.
Eli: I haven't seen that one (probably because it's not in your blogger profile--on account of, of course, it not being a blogspot blog). I've put it in feed and will check it out for a few days.
"I'm not criticizing Reynolds for failing to see that the Happy-Easter thing he thought was nice was next to something that was completely nasty, but I think that if he had seen the racist post, he should not have linked to the nice Easter post."
The point here doesn't jibe with what follows. If one blogger on a blog has a great post, it's not necessarily endorsing the views of another hate blogger below, HAVING LOOKED AT THE OFFENDING POST OR NOT.
Are your risking your Insty blog privileges here, or does your entry here just serve the goal of plausible deniability.
Interesting post, on any case.