Althouse: Jimmy Carter says "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president"...

September 16, 2009

Jimmy Carter says "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president"...

... and asserts that Joe Wilson's "You lie!" was "based on racism."

Lots of people who voted for Obama believed that his election would reflect the extent to which Americans had moved beyond racism. That was part of why some people voted for him. Little did we realize that it would turn every criticism of the President into an occasion to make an accusation of racism. Racism is revolting, but so is the notion that we aren't allowed to criticize a President!

Jimmy Carter's supremely sleazy accusation requires a solid, sound rebuke. It is an effort to place the President of the United States beyond criticism.

Imagine if, before last year's election, someone had argued: If a black man becomes President, anyone who dares to criticize him will be called a racist.

1. I would have viewed that argument itself as racist. If that is really true, I would have said, then it means that we have to vote against the candidate because he is black, since it is not acceptable to have a President who can't be criticized.

2. I would also have said: It is racist to say that it's racist to criticize a black President, because you are being patronizing and you are saying that a black person needs to be coddled and protected in some special way that doesn't apply to white people.

Jimmy Carter is doing something that, before the election, he would not have revealed that he planned to do. It is a low and despicable political move that he should be ashamed of.

And since demanding apologies is all the rage, let me say that I would like the wizened old husk of a former President to beg our forgiveness.

431 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 431 Newer› Newest»

Grim said...: I actually think this is a good thing. For way to long whites have reacted guiltily to baseless charges of racism. It's not being over used and very soon have no meaning and we can get back to arguing policy without someone yelling heretic!, err, I meant racism every 5 seconds.; 9/16/09, 2:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Pogo:
"Let us not assassinate Wilson further, Mr. Carter. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? Have you no shame?"

I don't think our poster boy Joseph N. Welch will get the parallel or the irony.; 9/16/09, 2:46 PM
Chennaul said...: Besides it's all soooo artsy how you Liberals do that neo-anti-semitism-so coool.

If you think it's new-read-

Beschloss-the Conquerors-

The Dems were hamstringed by anti-semitism.; 9/16/09, 2:47 PM
Alex said...: Grim - the logical consequence is that while people say one thing publicly to avoid ostracism or getting fired, they will quietly and anonymously express their rage in the voting booth, and Obama will wonder what the hell happened when he loses his Dem majority in 2010.; 9/16/09, 2:49 PM
Unknown said...: The Obama Admnistration’s Real Racist Victims?

Former President Jimmy Carter weighs in on Congressman Joe Wilson’s ”You lie!” outburst, and claims that President Obama’s anti-Big Government critics have a racist tone. This, despite the fact that a great percentage of Republican and conservative votes went for Obama than for Democratic Senator Kerry in 2004.

But let’s look at the truly painful reality being ignored: the Obama administration is enforcing racist standards in civil rights law enforcement. And who gets victimized?

On the last election day, November 5th - and recorded on video - New Black Panther Party members wielded clubs and shouted threats at people entering a voting station in Philadelphia in order to coerce votes for Obama from peaceful citizens. This has been called one of the most flagrant violations of the Voter Rights Act in decades.

Still, the perpetrators were let go. Under the nation’s first black Attorney General, Eric Holder, the Department of Justice dismissed a default judgment against them. According to an unnamed attorney cited by pajamasmedia.com’s Jennifer Rubin, the Civil Rights Division staff now “’openly and proudly advocate for a different standard’ depending on the race of the alleged civil rights violator.”*

The people terrorized by Black Panther members that election day were overwhelmingly black, because it occurred in a primarily black neighborhood. Ironically, our black President and our black Attorney General have left our black neighbors undefended by failing to uphold federal law.

When it come to the ugly results of real racism, where is President Carter’s outrage now? Where is yours? Why do we let them act like evil Klansmen?

Orson Olson; 9/16/09, 2:50 PM
former law student said...: But situations as stark as supporting the sexual abuse of children are few and far between.

THe US gives $2 billion a year to a company whose employees prostituted girls between 12 and 15 years of age -- DynCorp International. (The child prostitution occurred in Bosnia, some nine years ago.) But DynCorp fired those employees who were responsible, and that was good enough for the Federal government.

Of course there are exceptions. FLS is a big one. He’s just a blind party hack apparently with no principles.

According to the Chicago Tribune, as of 2005 DynCorp and Halliburton were still resisting a ban on defense contractors' trafficking in humans for forced prostitution as well as forced labor. I'm sure Aaron -- firmly opposed to child sex slavery as well as no party hack -- is fighting daily to pass the ban.; 9/16/09, 2:50 PM
Anonymous said...: I wouldn't make light of this, not when a kid is summarily beaten on a school bus because ultra-liberals like Jimmy Carter declare resistance to ObamaNation to be open season on whites.; 9/16/09, 2:51 PM
LouisAntoine said...: AlmostAli, you must be on a chart somewhere in Limbaugh's marketing department. "This is our ideal patsy! This is our bread and butter!"; 9/16/09, 2:56 PM
Harsh Pencil said...: MM wrote"I should say that what I do do when I get racist forwards is reply all to everyone in the email chain basically telling them they should be ashamed, and that if I heard it in person I'd give 'em a good sock to the nose. I wonder if Joe Wilson does the same..."

I never got racist email forwards in the first place. Who do you hang out with?; 9/16/09, 2:57 PM
Shanna said...: "The Zoo has an African Lion; the White House has a Lyni' African"

Hadn’t heard that one, but question. Is it racist to call Obama African, when his father is from Kenya? And if not, is that statement obviously racist, because it says he’s lying? Or because of the juxtaposition of African Lion (which I guess is racist simply because Lion is an animal-despite the fact that it also a rhyme)?; 9/16/09, 2:57 PM
Synova said...: "LOOOOOOOOOL!! So it appears Joe Wilson hangs out with people who make racist jokes. But it's ok 'cause he doesn't laugh."

Distateful is not necessarily limited to racist... however...

This seems to be my problem.

Every time someone gets in trouble for some new racial reference that everyone knows and everyone knows better than to say (supposedly) I'm left scratching my head and wondering... how do all of these people even *know* this? I don't hang around racist people and I do not listen to racist jokes and I've never heard of half the supposed commonly used insult words.

I always wonder how all the white liberals who are complaining know them.

Do they all hang out with people who tell racist jokes the same way that Obama tells Special Olympic jokes?

I don't hang around with anyone who does that either and the fact that Obama apparently didn't notice he was going over a line shocked me. Who does he hang out with?

Not that I *never* hear a distasteful or racist joke, but I suppose saying I don't laugh means I must really like the company of people who tell them.

Right MM?; 9/16/09, 2:59 PM
A.W. said...: Mark

You might like iowahawk's essay right after the election:

"Election Analysis: America Can Take Pride In This Historic, Inspirational Disaster"

Killer line at the end:

So for now, let's put politics aside and celebrate this historic milestone. In his famous speech at the Lincoln Memorial 45 years ago, Dr. King said "I have a dream that one day my children will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Let us now take pride that Tuesday we Americans proved that neither thing matters anymore.

Heh. (laughing through my tears)

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/11/election-analysis-america-can-take-pride-in-this-historic-inspirational-disaster.html; 9/16/09, 2:59 PM
Steve M. Galbraith said...: The tone, rhetoric, and disrespect FROM SOME QUARTERS do have shades of racism.

Yes, I'll agree 100% with that although the pedantic in me might substitute "racialist" for "racism".

But I hope that no one seriously believes that racism is the driving force behind most of the opposition.

That is, if Obama were white that this opposition would mostly fade away.

That's silly.; 9/16/09, 3:00 PM
Synova said...: "I never got racist email forwards in the first place. Who do you hang out with?"

One does wonder.; 9/16/09, 3:01 PM
A.W. said...: FLS

As usual when you get into hyperbolic mode, i have two words for you:

prove it. prove all of it.

Good luck.; 9/16/09, 3:01 PM
Big Mike said...: ... and that if I heard it in person I'd give 'em a good sock to the nose.

First of all, Monty, I seriously doubt that. Most rational people do as I do when they receive something distasteful, whether disguised as a joke or just a plain rant -- they send a reply to the person who sent the message telling them that it wasn't funny and not appreciated and please don't do it again, and then they click on the delete icon (it's the one shaped like the letter 'X'). Of course, few of your posts suggest that there is much that is rational about you, personally.

Secondly, no one who knows anything about fighting volunteers to punch a stranger in the nose. Take it from a person who spent many, many hours on a dojo mat before his knees gave out -- there's always someone faster or more skilled or lucky.

(I made an exception in the case of montana legend in his own mind, since he took the liberty of referring to my sons as "maggots" for no particular reason. I presume he meant to include the son who fought back from a pediatric hemorrhagic stroke to learn how to walk all over again, who studied extra hard so he could graduate with his high school class, and who graduated with a B- average from a high-rated liberal arts college despite losing a full quarter of his brain to the stroke. I'm sort of proud of him. So if montana and I ever meet up, bad knees or not and sixty year old reflexes or not, I expect to hear his apology or teach him some manners.)

Finally, Monty, I'm pretty certain you don't go threatening people because you're a liberal, judging from your comments and all the snark you randomly toss around, and everybody knows that liberals send union thugs around to do their nose-smashing for them.; 9/16/09, 3:04 PM
Michael said...: I was in an elevator with my wife at the Snowbird resort in Utah when who should step in but former President Carter and Hank Aaron. We introduced ourselves to Mr. Aaron, making it clear that we were awestruck, noted the success of his excellent BMW dealerships in the Atlanta area and bid him adieu as we exited. Nice man in bad company.; 9/16/09, 3:06 PM
Shanna said...: "I never got racist email forwards in the first place. "

I've never gotten any either, but, I did have a boy in 9th grade hand me a KKK poem. I started to hand it to someone else down the row (who was black) and he yanked it back real quickly and never bothered me again. That guy was such an ass.; 9/16/09, 3:06 PM
Anthony said...: Actually, I fully expect Obama to come out and say he doesn't think criticism of him is racist, blah blah blah. It's his MO: Distance himself by appearing to be above such distasteful tactics, but make sure everybody else is doing it for him.; 9/16/09, 3:09 PM
traditionalguy said...: From what i have seen, President Obama agrees with the Professor that the people saying that Obama needs protection because he is a black man are themselves demeaning his accomplishments as the half-African that could get all the white votes he needed under a Post-Racial man banner. It now seems that those who are counting on Obama to enrich them with Cap and Tax scam billions are so desparate to stop Obama's popular support erosion over health care reform lies that they have picked this tone deaf and now irrelevant tactic from the old politics once run by the white liberal establishment, like Ted Kennedy, which offers absolution from white men's guilt giving favoritism to black men .They are offering too little too late, thanks to Obama's election itself which has rendered the once all powerful white man's guilt a moot point.; 9/16/09, 3:12 PM
LouisAntoine said...: Synova-- Who hangs out with people who tell racist jokes? Hmmm, well, Joe Wilson for one, according to his son. Doesn't laugh though, so it's ok...; 9/16/09, 3:12 PM
Joseph said...: Roger: Now are you by any chance assuming the state flag of SC is a replica of the cross of st andrew rather than the palmetto and star? I suspect you are, but arent going to admit that you are an idiot.

Um, no. I didn't say anything about the state flag of SC. Are you by any chance ignorant of the well documented history of the Confederate battle flag in SC? I suspect you are, but aren't going to admit you are an idiot. My comment referred to the installation of the Confederate flag on the SC statehouse in 1962 by the all-white state legislature in response to the civil rights movement. Wilson was one of only 7 state senators who fought to keep the confederate battle flag flying over the state capital in 2000. See also Politico's find. Most Americans understand the offensive historically racist meaning the flag represents.; 9/16/09, 3:12 PM
A.W. said...: Mont

Here’s a hint. Bad people creep into every organization and certainly anything as loose and unstructured as a party. You don’t judge the bunch by the bad apple. You judge the bunch by 1) how many bad apples there are and 2) how they respond to that apple.

Foley would be similar if there were 1) five of him, at the same time 2) discussing his behavior openly, 3) without his colleagues batting an eye.

Its not that there was one bad person at Acorn, but seven and counting. And they discussed all of this in the open, and seemed to rattle off how to deceive the government in creating a brothel as though they knew it by heart. You get the feeling watching this that this was nothing new to them, or even unusual and that no one in the office had a problem with any of it. Martin Luther King described these kinds of people, who could violate any of the ten commandments so long as they obeyed the 11th: thou shalt not get caught.

By comparison Foley was out on his ass almost immediately when the allegations came to light.; 9/16/09, 3:13 PM
A.W. said...: Mont

> Who hangs out with people who tell racist jokes? Hmmm, well, Joe Wilson for one

Not quite. distasteful is not the same as racist. duh.; 9/16/09, 3:14 PM
A.W. said...: Mont,

And, btw, even if they were racist jokes, this is a public figure. those racist jokes could have been from constituents, or heck maybe even the former Klansman in the senate (who is a democrat, btw). Nothing in that story suggests any association with those people at all. But don't let the facts screw up your narrative.; 9/16/09, 3:16 PM
Alex said...: Wait a minute. Obama went to a racist church for 20 years and gets a free pass!; 9/16/09, 3:17 PM
Unknown said...: Okay....why isn't it racism to conclude in the first place that our President is black? Do only 50% of his genes determine his race? This thinking is no better than the thinking in Plessey v. Ferguson where Plessey was 1/8 black (called an "octoroon" way back then) and considered black under Louisiana law. That President Obama has a higher percentage doesn't make him "black" any more than his mother makes him "white".

I'm sorry that there isn't a way to distribute President Obama's genes to give him a "white" ear and a "black" ear. Then when I made a substantive criticism to the "white" ear it could theoretically be acknowledged as substantive and if I made it to the "black" ear it could be characterized as racist. How much easier that would be.

The overwhelming number of criticisms of President Obama are not, and attempts to trivialize (I'd call it "intellectual bullying" but there's nothing intellectual about it) the criticism as racism tends to trivialize the issue of racism itself - not to mention turning off a lot of people like me who won't vote for whiners of any ethnicity.; 9/16/09, 3:18 PM
Big Mike said...: South Carolina's role as the incubator of secession is well-known. But after Sherman and his troops marched north out Savannah and through South Carolina in the late winter/early spring of 1865, I think a reasonable person could mark that debt paid in full. I understand that parts of Columbia still shows the scars.; 9/16/09, 3:18 PM
Peg C. said...: Great post, Ann. The left is setting up a rule by which all whites are racist and all blacks are incapable of being racist. (Where that leaves Latinos, Asians and others, I'm not sure. But I have my suspicions!)

Carter is a horrible old anti-Semite struggling to be relevant. Hate spews from his mouth in his vain attempts.; 9/16/09, 3:18 PM
Big Mike said...: I second what Peg just said!; 9/16/09, 3:20 PM
Original Mike said...: I never got racist email forwards in the first place. Who do you hang out with?

My money says he doesn't either. He's just making shit up.; 9/16/09, 3:20 PM
LouisAntoine said...: Alex-- How is Rev. Wright's church racist? Hint: "Because Rush said" don't count.; 9/16/09, 3:21 PM
BJM said...: What's that sound? The WH backin' the Obama Xpress out of the bus barn?

ACORN has suspended advising new clients as part of its service programs and is setting up an independent review to see what happened.

Independent. Riiight.; 9/16/09, 3:21 PM
X said...: if Obama and the left sincerely believe the opposition is based on racism, why not resign Obama and let Biden take over? it would be worth it for single payer, no?; 9/16/09, 3:28 PM
Synova said...: Thank you for the link, Monty. For some strange reason I thought that the link would quote his son saying he hung out with racist people. It didn't.

So was I just supposed to think you knew what you were talking about, not go to the link, and just back off?

Your original crowing statement was moronic. It was illogical and stupid. Trying to spin the statement that Wilson doesn't so much as laugh at distasteful jokes into a confession that he likes to hang out with racist people is something that Jon Stewart would do for a *laugh* the way he pretended to catch the Fox News "error" of calling an Acorn a "nut".; 9/16/09, 3:31 PM
A.W. said...: Mont

Wright's church posted on its website that it ascribes to a doctinre that says that God should support black people and oppose white people. Seems kind of racist to me.; 9/16/09, 3:33 PM
LouisAntoine said...: Hi Synova. Show me where I said what you said I said.

In the context of defending his father against charges of racism, Wilson's son explains that "he doesn't even laugh at distasteful jokes."

Now, I'm sure he could be talking about poop jokes. But that doesn't really make the case that his father isn't racist. So I take "distasteful" in this context to imply racist. Why else would he say it? "My father doesn't laugh at boob jokes. He's not racist at all!" That's just absurd.

So you can infer that if Joe Wilson doesn't laugh at "distasteful" (i.e., racist) jokes, there has to be someone there to tell them.

You were wondering who hung out with racists. Well, there you go.; 9/16/09, 3:36 PM
LouisAntoine said...: Aaron- you won't convince me with a bald faced lie. Try again.; 9/16/09, 3:36 PM
Anonymous said...: "the wizened old husk of a former President"

Hey Ann, have you looked in the mirror lately?

You're kidding right?

Be assured, if you look closely, you'll find a difference,
As we her subjects have in wonder found,
Between the promise of her unmarried days
And these she masters now: now she weighs her words even to the utmost grain, that you shall read
in your own argument losses, if she cared to address your thoughts.; 9/16/09, 3:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Serious question:

At what point does the word, "racist," become meaningless? And when it does become meaningless among whites (or any other group), will they say, "I'm racist? So?" What then?

Because, really, folks. That's the direction it's headed.

wv: whawless - Baba Wawa as a fugitive.; 9/16/09, 3:38 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Christopher, how can you criticize phosphorious when that incident is seared into his memory? Seared so deeply, that is, that it apparently did some damage, given that phosphorious doesn't even get Ari Fleischer's name right.; 9/16/09, 3:39 PM
Synova said...: "Alex-- How is Rev. Wright's church racist? Hint: "Because Rush said" don't count."

How is it not?

The only possible way that the Rev. Wright, his church, and Black liberation theology (or whatever it is called) is NOT racist is if racism is defined (as it often is) entirely by race to exclude blacks no matter what they say and no matter what they do.

BTW, is anyone else here uncomfortable with saying anything at all about whites? Just typing the word makes me feel uneasy. White. My gut insists that even making the distinction is wrong, that our "color" shouldn't be part of any meaningful equation.

But by the *new* rules, the oppressor and oppressed class rules, the *desire* not to acknowledge my own race is evidence of privilege and proof of racism because it's normative or something... like heteronormative... assumed. What I'd like to do is assume that we're all PEOPLE. But the privilege of doing that is not allowed because one of the proofs of white racism and privilege is that I never have to get up in front and wonder how my presentation will reflect on white people and very often minorities do.

And instead of working toward a place where everyone else gets the same privilege of being oblivious and normative... I'm stuck talking about being white.

This is profoundly wrong.

Rather than remove barriers we're building them up as fast as we can.; 9/16/09, 3:46 PM
A.W. said...: Monty

(i am going to start calling you monty, because you sound about as believable as a game show host)

What exactly are you claiming is a lie?

That Wright is a racist? Well, here is James Taranto on the subject.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120568855824539755.html

and in the audacity of hope sermon wright gave, he denounced "white greed." sounds kind of racist to me. and our president liked it all so much he borrowed it for the title of his book.

Now, i doubt that obama is a racist. i just tend to assume that most men don't hate their own flesh. But he was willing to go in that church and listen to that vile hate week after week, to expose his children to that hate, and so on, most likely because wright was a powerful man. it doesn't speak well of obama's character.; 9/16/09, 3:47 PM
Synova said...: "So you can infer that if Joe Wilson doesn't laugh at "distasteful" (i.e., racist) jokes, there has to be someone there to tell them."

And yet... you're entirely comfortable telling us that YOU also, do not laugh at racist jokes.

Don't defend yourself. It's getting old.; 9/16/09, 3:49 PM
A.W. said...: Monty

And notice you still can't address my point that even if Wilson heard racist jokes, it is not proof that he hangs out with racists and klansmen. I mean besides senator Byrd.; 9/16/09, 3:49 PM
The Scythian said...: Aaron wrote:

"As usual when you get into hyperbolic mode, i have two words for you:

"prove it. prove all of it.

"Good luck."

FLS is simply regurgitating the latest talking point, but that doesn't mean that he's wrong. Everything that he wrote about DynCorp can be verified by a simple visit to Google. You can type in something like "chicago tribune dyncorp human trafficking" and it'll show up.; 9/16/09, 3:54 PM
A.W. said...: Chris

Good, then you should have no trouble proving it.

i ain't jumping through FLS's silly hoops.; 9/16/09, 3:59 PM
Big Mike said...: How is Rev. Wright's church racist?

Because he famously said "God Damn America," which is a racist remark. Because it features "black liberation theology," which is inherently racist; because he is a strong supporter of Louis Farrakhan, who is a racist and anti-semite; because he has falsely claimed that "AIDS is a government biological weapon against the black community." Shall I go on? Or can you accept that you are trying to defend the indefensible because you, sir, are a bona fide racist?; 9/16/09, 4:01 PM
The Scythian said...: "Christopher, how can you criticize phosphorious when that incident is seared into his memory? Seared so deeply, that is, that it apparently did some damage, given that phosphorious doesn't even get Ari Fleischer's name right."

Fleischer, Fleischman... Same difference. All those Jews are basically the same, right? But it does point to Phosphorious's obvious anti-semitic motivation for going after Fleischer.

(PS: I don't actually believe Phosphorious is anti-Semitic, nor should anyone else. It's an ironic object lesson in using accusations of bigotry to short-circuit, y'know, actual discussion.); 9/16/09, 4:04 PM
Unknown said...: I'm still baffled by those who are surprised at the current situation - where any criticism of a black man is deemed racist. Mr. Obama has been immeshed in racially-motivated issues his entire adult life, community organizing in black communities, ACORN work, constitutional professor (or lecturer - take your pick) focusing on race. Add to that those who he sorrounds himself with - start with the wife and preacher - then go to business associates, mentors, etc. Race is a big focus in his life.

During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama told us he would transcends race! Most of us thought that sounded great. Some of us decided to go a step further and see how his words matched his past actions. There was a huge disconnect between the two.

Well, I'm surprised, too. I'm surprised each and every time a criticism of our current president is labeled racist. What? What does my oposing big government have to do with the color of anyone's skin?

Personally, I thing this constant cry of racism is a step backwards in race-relations.; 9/16/09, 4:04 PM
Unknown said...: The only time criticism of a black or hispanic is NOT racist, is if the one being criticised (criticizee?) is a conservative. Otherwise - racist!; 9/16/09, 4:07 PM
Joseph said...: Synova: Rather than remove barriers we're building them up as fast as we can.

I sympathize with your feelings but race is simply a moving target. Its very concrete and powerful and real, while also being completely meaningless and ephemeral. It plays out very differently in different regions, among different generations of Americans, and in different substantive issues. Lots of barriers have come down and we're not sure what to make of our current situation.

The problem I see is this. The idea of a colorblind society where no one sees race has an appeal. But, despite achievements in this direction, that's not the world we live in. Very significant race-based inequality continues to exist. I think adopting a colorblind approach in that environment is a vote for maintaining racial inequality. We need to remain conscious of race and our not-so-distant history to ensure continuing progress. Because race means so many different things to different people in different places at different ages, etc. there will be misunderstandings and oversimplifications and exaggerations that seem to undercut progress but I think that continuing conversation, however dysfunctional, is a healthier approach than pretending race and racism is all history.; 9/16/09, 4:09 PM
The Scythian said...: Aaron,

"Good, then you should have no trouble proving it."

"Proving" the allegations against DynCorp in the Balkans was the Army CID's job, and they did a good job of it.

"Proving" the allegations against KBR's subcontractors was the Chicago Tribune's job, and they did a good job of it.

"Proving" that DynCorp, KBR, and others stalled the Pentagon on regulations that would require those corporations to police their subcontractors was the news media's job, and they did a good job of it.

If you think that doing about five minutes worth of research to check the facts before accusing someone else of lying is "jumping through hoops", that's not my problem and it's not Former Law Student's, either.; 9/16/09, 4:10 PM
A.W. said...: Chris

And you still haven't proven anything. and if you don't know FLS is a serial liar, you haven't been paying attention. i am not wasting even five minutes on his crap, not even when you endorse it.; 9/16/09, 4:17 PM
The Scythian said...: "And you still haven't proven anything."

Right. So you got my point, then?

Everything worth proving has been proved already by people who's job it is to do that stuff.

I'm not going to provide documenation, because it takes too long and it's ultimately a waste of time. But it is out there and it's not that hard to find.; 9/16/09, 4:29 PM
A.W. said...: Chris

all you need are links. no link, its not true as far as i am concerned.

i have heard just about everything about halliburton and i know all the restrictions that companies doing business with foreign companies are shackled with. i would have heard of this by now if it was true.

btw, if we are going to sever ties with everyone who is involved with child sex slavery, shouldn't we start with the UN?; 9/16/09, 4:34 PM
Synova said...: Joseph, I'm not arguing that we ought not keep trying, but the essential element of change is to be able to visualize the goal. It helps even more to begin to behave as though the goal has already been reached.

Then, when the situation doesn't conform to the new pattern it's easily recognizable as wrong. Everyone has already accepted the desired end state. No one needs to be convinced of anything, the situation simply needs to be corrected.

The pattern or template is just as important as the reality in this.

The end of slavery didn't come because people were determined to end it first and put equality into the Constitution later. The template and self-identity were there already and people said this is wrong because it didn't fit. It didn't fit their idea of Christian and it didn't fit their idea of American. The same with the civil rights movement. People had a self-image that they believed was true about themselves. Because of that they were able to see and change something that didn't fit.

Sometimes I use the word mythos to describe a sort of attendant fantasy world that exists in parallel to the real one. It holds all the idealism and identity and pattern that we conforming monkeys use or even *need* to transform the real and vastly flawed version of the world into something better.

Seeing honestly what exists around us and within ourselves is important but it's only half the picture. Without the other half we're stuck where we are.; 9/16/09, 4:58 PM
The Scythian said...: Aaron wrote:

"all you need are links. no link, its not true as far as i am concerned."

Your beliefs are your own problem, not mine.

"i have heard just about everything about halliburton and i know all the restrictions that companies doing business with foreign companies are shackled with. i would have heard of this by now if it was true."

Then you haven't heard as much as you think, and you don't know as much as you think. Again, not my problem.

"btw, if we are going to sever ties with everyone who is involved with child sex slavery, shouldn't we start with the UN?"

I'd be overjoyed if the United States severed ties with the UN tomorrow. And, for the record, I think that it was right and sensible for the government to cut ties with and funding for ACORN.

Your assumption seems to be that, because I pointed out that FLS did have his facts straight, that I must hold political viewpoints similar to the ones that you believe he holds.

As alarming as it may be for you to hear, there's this thing called "truth" and it exists outside the bounds of naked political partisanship.; 9/16/09, 4:59 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: I would do the honor of pointing out just how ridiculous it is for this post (and its "commenters") to cast racism in completely either/or terms, as with pregnancy - either you are or you aren't. 100% or 0%. All or nothing. No shades of gray. But then I realized: This is the Althouse blog.

Nothing to see here. Move along, everybody.; 9/16/09, 5:13 PM
Synova said...: Right, MUL. There's all that racism that doesn't matter because it's not racist *enough* to trigger a violation but it's still racist enough to mention... sort of like how a voice that goes "boy" in your head is enough to write a column about.

Being accused of that sort shouldn't cause anyone to get defensive. And everyone should be expected to know the difference.; 9/16/09, 5:23 PM
Micha Elyi said...: Ok, so now it's established that supporting Obama is a higher form of racism.; 9/16/09, 5:31 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: So, Monty, what was the driving force behind the Democrats hostility toward Condi Rice?; 9/16/09, 5:33 PM
he who scoffs at danger said...: the first thing that struck me was just who is carter accusing here?

I mean, what was Carter’s “Southern Strategy“?

Carter won “the slave states” and kept the south solid after Nixon and before Reagan. Obviously he must have gone to some amazing lengths to stoke racism in the region. His “dog whistles” must have been positively audible.; 9/16/09, 5:36 PM
KCFleming said...: Racism is the new black.

Uh, wait.; 9/16/09, 5:36 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Big Mike should really learn to speak to others the way he expects to be spoken to.

It's not right to expect that some longstanding personal baggage that someone carries around in his own mind and hasn't informed others about, should be considered by those other people when he chooses to insult them. Further, none of that has any bearing on the golden rule - another thing that a certain someone might stand to learn about. And I'm sure that if he bothers to do that, then he might one day find himself in an easier position to receive apologies from the people he's insulted.

He might also stop taking out his anger for his personal problems on others. He might also decide to not bring people that he considers off-limits into impersonal conversations where he insults the people he's addressing, and then complains later about the manner in which these other people - who had nothing to do with the conversation - were referred to.

But this is Big Mike we're talking about. He doesn't strike me as someone who learns very well.

I'm amazed every time I run across someone to the right of the political spectrum who doesn't understand that good will cannot be demanded. We embrace a capitalist society where there is no free lunch, but expect that others treat us better than we would treat them? Where's the logic in that?

Like respect, and like almost everything else in life, these things must be earned. It's ok to to expect good will from others whom you've treated well. But to badmouth someone you don't know while demanding respect and kindness in return is brutish, uncivilized, and too ridiculous an idea to take seriously.

Seriously.; 9/16/09, 5:36 PM
Roger J. said...: this whole thread is ridiculous--I dont give a damn if joe wilson supported flying the stars and bars over the statehouse; I dont give a shit if numbnuts carter thinks that people that critize obama are racists--I dont give a shit if people think I am a racist-none of this important and I honestly dont care what anyone thinks about what I think--this is very simple: go f**k yourselves--I will get on with my life and you get on with

if joe wilson's constiutents want to elect him, thats democracy--get over it--but when you criticize joe wilson's constiutents, please be sure to critize the black politicians like willie herenton and ray nagin who are equally egregious in playing the race thing
otherwise: STFU--thats what liberals dont do; 9/16/09, 5:36 PM
RebeccaH said...: The real travesty in all this "racism" bullpucky is that people who suffer from real racism will find it harder than ever to press their claims, because no one will believe them. But since the Democratic Party apparently needs its victim groups, I suppose they view that as a feature not a bug.; 9/16/09, 5:36 PM
ddh said...: Does Obama have a sense of humor about himself? Of course not, that would be racist.; 9/16/09, 5:36 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: I laugh at racist jokes. Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock can be extremely funny with their racially-based humor. It's unfortunate, though, that white comics don't have the same latitude.; 9/16/09, 5:37 PM
Borf said...: The assertion that "12% of Americans are black thus it is to be expected that 12% of Americans think criticism of Obama is racist" is obnoxious.

Firstly, not all (albeit, a majority) of blacks support Obama. Secondly, even among his supporters, there are surely those who can recognize that disagreeing with his policies is not somehow "racist".; 9/16/09, 5:37 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: sort of like how a voice that goes "boy" in your head is enough to write a column about.

Being accused of that sort shouldn't cause anyone to get defensive. And everyone should be expected to know the difference.

Synova, sometimes you write things that confuse the hell out of me. I mean, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. If someone calls someone else (someone black, one presumes) "Boy", are you saying that they shouldn't get offended? Are you saying that this is an expression of racism that only matters to academics - (and columnists), but that it shouldn't matter to a black person being called "Boy"?

When you address someone, we are moving out of the realm of the subconscious and considering our conscious thoughts and actions in how we treat others. Someone black who gets called "Boy" has every right to believe that he is being addressed in an unfair, demeaning, and racist manner - whether the white fool who likes talking down to him consciously realizes this or not.; 9/16/09, 5:43 PM
KCFleming said...: Mont, Maureen Dowd called Obama "Boy" and blamed it on her sense that Wilson was secretly saying it.; 9/16/09, 5:47 PM
JAL said...: Errr... MUL -- did you miss the Maureen Dowd column discussion a couple days ago?

SHE'S the one who is hearing "boy" voices that she thinks Joe Wilson is hearing.

A piece of work, that woman is.

wv scasittle
scatalogical spittle; 9/16/09, 5:49 PM
he who scoffs at danger said...: I distinctly remember Ari Fleischman, as Bush's press secretary, sternly warning the media to be careful what they say about the president.

no. you remember the incident poorly.

maher's comment was not about the president. it was about the danger of labelling al qaeda "cowards" just because it soothed some post-911 wounds.

it was issued in agreement with one conservative, dinesh d'souza, and was defended by rush limbaugh. quite independent of anyone's prodding, the spineless pr departments of some advertisers pulled their revenue and maher's show got canned.

then, in a senseless non sequitur, the whitehouse press corps asked fleischER to comment on it.

after which, and perhaps by design, it got twisted into the poisonous lump of lefty horseshit you presented it as.; 9/16/09, 5:50 PM
Jon Sandor said...: I distinctly remember Ari Fleischman, as Bush's press secretary, sternly warning the media to be careful what they say about the president.

That's quite a memory you have, since what you "remember" never happened.

Here is what DID happen. The left wing clown Bill Mahr said shortly after 911 that our Armed Forces who use missiles are cowards, while the "armed terrorists who killed 6,000 unarmed are not cowards".

Fleischman was asked what the Presidents reaction was to this claim. Here is the ensuing back and forth in the press room.

-------------------------------

Q: As Commander-In-Chief, what was the President's reaction to television's Bill Maher, in his announcement that members of our Armed Forces who deal with missiles are cowards, while the armed terrorists who killed 6,000 unarmed are not cowards, for which Maher was briefly moved off a Washington television station?

A: I have not discussed it with the President, one. I have—

Q: Surely, as a—

A: I'm getting there.

Q: Surely as Commander, he was enraged at that, wasn't he?

A: I'm getting there, Les.

Q: Okay.

A: I'm aware of the press reports about what he said. I have not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it unfortunate. And that's why—there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party—they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.

------------------------------

So what you are repeating here is just another lefty fable.; 9/16/09, 5:51 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/16/09, 5:52 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: So, per Pogo, if we are not talking about expressions of "Boy", other than what Maureen Dowd imagined Joe Wilson might have thought, then I agree that there is no racism expressed on Wilson's part worth mentioning, or even seeing.

But the fact that he represents an all-white district in the South that is racially gerrymandered from its neighboring all-black district, certainly raises questions in one's mind about what kinds of attitudes and ideas run through the minds of his constituents - and what's important or offensive in their minds regarding racial politics versus what's important or offensive in the minds of less, shall we say, sheltered people regarding racial politics.; 9/16/09, 5:54 PM
Synova said...: "Synova, sometimes you write things that confuse the hell out of me."

Sorry. My bad.

I was being sarcastic. I don't think that racism can be functionally separated into shades of gray.

And MoDo wrote a column all about how she heard the word "boy" appended to "You lie." The "boy" existed only in her head, and yet it was some sort of meaningful evidence of Wilson's true intent. That's what I was referring to.

I think that everyone carries a variety of baggage around with them, of expectations that they might even be aware of but might not as well. I say "expectations" instead of "prejudices" because the word "prejudice" carries so much baggage of its own. Some common challenges to the expectations of others are accent, weight, a name or a manner that reminds of someone a person didn't like, clues about attitudes that might or might not be valid, gender, race, hair style, style of dress, ink, piercings, the music playing... etc. etc.

I don't see how acknowledging this true thing is relevant to MoDo or Jimmy Carter taking the time and effort to tell us that Obama's critics are racially motivated.

If we want to talk about the surface things I find off-putting about Obama the color of his skin would probably not even make the list. I'm intimidated by tall people and he seems to loom. And with apologies to Althouse, I usually find lawyers smarmy. I think it's mostly the suits and hair and I try to be fair about it.; 9/16/09, 6:01 PM
george said...: Little did we realize that it would turn every criticism of the President into an occasion to make an accusation of racism.

Really? There are actually people so gobsmackingly stupid they didn't see this coming a mile away? I mean real people, not academics... there were real people who thought this? After Jeremiah Wright? After ACORN?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!; 9/16/09, 6:01 PM
Jon Sandor said...: the fact that he represents an all-white district in the South that is racially gerrymandered from its neighboring all-black district ...

This sort of dishonesty on the part of the liberals is really, really, grating.

The insinuation is that Joe Wilson represents a white district because it was gerrymandered by white racists. As anyybody with a shred of knowledge of history is aware, the exact opposite is the case.

... certainly raises questions in one's mind about what kinds of attitudes and ideas run through the minds of his constituents

Given that his constitutients had exactly nothing to do with the gerrymandering in question, how does that question get raised, even in the liberal mind? Talk me throught your thought processes here.; 9/16/09, 6:02 PM
Synova said...: "But the fact that he represents an all-white district in the South that is racially gerrymandered from its neighboring all-black district,..."

Gerrymandering is generally presented as a thing that is necessary for racial equality, so that blacks get elected. That it might serve to strengthen divisions is a very interesting point.; 9/16/09, 6:03 PM
Anonymous said...: I think Montaigne and Jimmah have hit on a very commercially viable movie idea--"Racist Busters".

Ok, these two latte sippers have invented a machine that can sniff out hints, code words, subtle intonations, and Maureen Dowdesque like hear words unspoken that emit even the slightest whiff of "RACISM!!!"

Who you gonna trust? Racist busters.

It's got hit written all over it.; 9/16/09, 6:05 PM
Jon Sandor said...: then I realized: This is the Althouse blog.

Nothing to see here. Move along, everybody.

Why do you bother to post here again, rather than moving along?; 9/16/09, 6:06 PM
Synova said...: Certainly desegregation is better than separation even in a good cause.; 9/16/09, 6:06 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Who knows what's in Wilson's mind? He's a politician. But knowing that, I think it's reasonable to suppose that he will tap into whatever sentiments propel his career, whether healthy or not, racist or not. He will do what he feels will reflect well on him in front of his constituents and other stakeholders:

"In 2003, Wilson called it ''unseemly'' and a ''smear'' for the mixed-race daughter of Sen. Strom Thurmond, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, to identify the longtime South Carolina senator as her father after his death.

After a public outcry, he reversed course and said he had the utmost respect for Washington-Williams."

I think this illustrates that we can't count on the guy to have a conscience regarding what is proper and appropriate in how African Americans are addressed and treated. What's known is that the outburst was considered disrespectful, and it was shocking as well. That's because it's something that's just not done. The rest of you want to assume that the show of disrespect had nothing to due with the president's race. That's fine. And others can just as easily assume that the unprecedented nature of this sort of disrespect shown to the president, who set a precedent in becoming the first black head of state of this country, demonstrates just the opposite of what you assume.; 9/16/09, 6:07 PM
Jon Sandor said...: But the fact that he represents an all-white district in the South that is racially gerrymandered from its neighboring all-black district, certainly raises questions in one's mind about what kinds of attitudes and ideas run through the minds of his constituents

Then it would seem to raise questions about what runs through the minds of the people in the all black distict also, but I notice you're not much interested in exploring that question.; 9/16/09, 6:09 PM
he who scoffs at danger said...: AprilApple 9/16/09 2:00 PM
"Bury Obama with Kennedy"...Ed Schultz is pushing the same line.

ahh, when i heard maxine waters recite the correct phrase ("bury obamaCARE with kennedy") as the centerpiece for her suggestion that the press create a systematic regime of racial mccarthyism, i couldn't figure out what she thought was so strong about it.; 9/16/09, 6:10 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/16/09, 6:12 PM
Jon Sandor said...: What's known is that the outburst was considered disrespectful, and it was shocking as well.

Has it come to this, that somebody speaking the truth in the House of Congress is now considered "shocking"? Obama was lying after all. That detail seems to get lost in your endless faux-psychological examinations of Wilson.; 9/16/09, 6:13 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: This sort of dishonesty on the part of the liberals is really, really, grating.

The insinuation is that Joe Wilson represents a white district because it was gerrymandered by white racists. As anyybody with a shred of knowledge of history is aware, the exact opposite is the case...

Given that his constitutients had exactly nothing to do with the gerrymandering in question, how does that question get raised, even in the liberal mind? Talk me throught your thought processes here.

Dude, I don't know what the history is of all-white/all-black districts in the South. Your post seems to imply that it was done to give blacks more "power". If you don't want to be as vague, then maybe you could talk me through your thought process on what's going on behind that.

But the history behind the configuring of the districts aside, you can't tell me that whites in the South and blacks in the South might have differing attitudes, differing expectations on what they expect on behalf of their representatives. In fact, your reply, at least as I understand that, implies that.

If black constituents have different perceived needs than do white constituents, you can't tell me that racism (i.e. real racism, anti-black racism) might not make a better play on behalf of the latter than the former.; 9/16/09, 6:16 PM
Synova said...: MUL, that incident depends entirely on whether or not Wilson knew that the woman *was* Thurmond's daughter, and what you've quoted doesn't give a clue if he did or not.

Coming out after someone dies and saying bad things about him to ruin his reputation is pretty nasty (and do you agree that sleeping with your maid and having a child out of wedlock *is* a bad thing?); 9/16/09, 6:19 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Has it come to this, that somebody speaking the truth in the House of Congress is now considered "shocking"? Obama was lying after all. That detail seems to get lost in your endless faux-psychological examinations of Wilson.

Now who's delusional and lost touch with reality? The fact that he behaved inappropriately is completely whitewashed in your mind, ignored. His motivations don't matter in determining his actions to be unacceptable.

"Nothing to see here. Move along, everybody."

Why do you bother to post here again, rather than moving along?

Ummmm.... I'd ask you to walk me through your thought process on this, but it's obvious you just don't grasp sarcasm. Your level of humor appears stuck in the stage of puns. Which would appeal to a kid, I guess.; 9/16/09, 6:20 PM
Synova said...: "Dude, I don't know what the history is of all-white/all-black districts in the South."

Some of us are older than you.

Republicans have been fighting gerrymandering for as long as I've been alive. They are called racist for doing so. (See a trend?) Gerrymandered districts are presented as a way to make sure that black voters get representation.

It might even work to do that, but as you pointed out... at a price.; 9/16/09, 6:23 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Synova, in an age of DNA testing, what motivation would the daughter have to lie? And given that, what motivation would the representative have had in assuming her claim to be a lie? And further, why would Wilson have reacted the way he did ("smear", and "lie" are pretty strong reactions) until such time as the facts could be revealed, unless there was a crowd for finding the relationship to be contemptible for reasons that go far beyond the alleged sanctity of Strom Thurmond's marriage?; 9/16/09, 6:25 PM
Jon Sandor said...: Your post seems to imply that it was done to give blacks more "power". If you don't want to be as vague, then maybe you could talk me through your thought process on what's going on behind that.

If you are really unaware of the history of court-ordered racially gerrymandered districts in the south (and elsewhere), then I suggest you study the topic before shooting your mouth off on it as you have been doing here.

I'm not "suggesting" that it was done to give blacks more power. I'm telling you.

If black constituents have different perceived needs than do white constituents, you can't tell me that racism (i.e. real racism, anti-black racism) might make a better play on behalf of the latter than the former.

Again with the chronic dishonesty. The word racism does not mean "anti-black racism", whatever your ethnic studies prof may have told you.

But putting aside your problem with the facts for the moment, the logic of your argument (whites and blacks have different needs and ths can only lead to racism) calls for the creation of South African style "homelands" for American blacks. Is that really what you want or have you just gotten so caught up in trying to say bad things about white people that you stopped paying attention to where your train of thought was headed?; 9/16/09, 6:25 PM
Synova said...: Gee, I donno, MUL. Maybe someone he was close to just DIED?; 9/16/09, 6:28 PM
Jon Sandor said...: it's obvious you just don't grasp sarcasm.

God, the irony! Since you seem too dense to understand it, "sarcasm" was what my comment was.; 9/16/09, 6:29 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: Just thought I would do my part to get this thread to 300 posts.; 9/16/09, 6:31 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "Some of us are older than you.

Republicans have been fighting gerrymandering for as long as I've been alive. They are called racist for doing so. (See a trend?) Gerrymandered districts are presented as a way to make sure that black voters get representation.

It might even work to do that, but as you pointed out... at a price."

I might not be that old, but I seem to suffer under the illusion that opposition to redistricting under a politicized formula is quite popular and bipartisan.

The party in power is the one that benefits most from keeping the redistricting process political, and for the last 15 years, that's been the GOP.

This might come as a shock to you, but I find it at least as problematic to create districts along party lines as to create districts along ethnic lines. And the GOP has had no problem carving up parcels of land protruding less than a few miles out from along the most obscure interstate, simply to ensure another Republican district.

After all, the races for the House should be competitive among parties, not among races. I could give a damn if blacks tend to vote more for Dems, or if whites tend to vote more for the GOP, as long as the motherfuckers actually have to run a competitive race every now and then.; 9/16/09, 6:32 PM
Unknown said...: Ann, the reason those of us who said "any dissent will be called racism" before Election 2008 could say so without being racists is because in this particular case, the candidate had a background of associating with people who threw around the charge of "racism" with frankly reckless abandon (if you want specific names, let's start with Jeremiah "US of KKK A" Wright and go from there).

Had Obama been a truly moderate Democrat (which is what he tried to portray himself as, and was successful at it so long as we ignored his past associations) or a conservative African American, then your argument would be correct. But when the man himself demanded that we judge him by the company he's kept - and then demanded we forget the likes of Ayers, Wright, Blago, Rezko, et al... then yes, we can honestly say without racial prejudice, "we told you so."

wv - Parma: As in the cheese? It's even colored green...; 9/16/09, 6:32 PM
Jon Sandor said...: In 2003, Wilson called it ''unseemly'' and a ''smear'' for the mixed-race daughter of Sen. Strom Thurmond, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, to identify the longtime South Carolina senator as her father after his death.

And in 2009 MUL and friends called it "unseemly" and a "smear" when Joe Wilson (correctly) called Barack Obama a liar.

I know which is more important in the big scheme of things.; 9/16/09, 6:34 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/16/09, 6:37 PM
chickelit said...: Wow. As far as Althouse thread length goes, race is the new Palin.; 9/16/09, 6:38 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "I'm not "suggesting" that it was done to give blacks more power. I'm telling you."

Wow. John Sandor can't simply accept someone entertaining what he has to say. He has to drive home his sense of self-righteous certainty too.

I thought conservatives weren't arrogant?

"But putting aside your problem with the facts for the moment, the logic of your argument (whites and blacks have different needs and ths can only lead to racism) calls for the creation of South African style "homelands" for American blacks. Is that really what you want or have you just gotten so caught up in trying to say bad things about white people that you stopped paying attention to where your train of thought was headed?"

John, since you are perfectly capable of debating with yourself, why don't you go do that? You don't need me to help you prop up your straw men, or cater to your confusion of America with South Africa.

I could suggest other things you could do with yourself, as well - just because you seem to be that into yourself and your own ideas and arguments. Perhaps that tendency extends to other realms.; 9/16/09, 6:38 PM
Jon Sandor said...: I seem to suffer under the illusion that opposition to redistricting under a politicized formula is quite popular and bipartisan.

That is indeed a delusion. As for why you suffer from it, perhaps you can tell us.

I find it at least as problematic to create districts along party lines as to create districts along ethnic lines.

Districts created on "party lines" are created by drawing disticts on ethnic lines. How do you imagine it is done?

the GOP has had no problem carving up parcels of land protruding less than a few miles out from along the most obscure interstate, simply to ensure another Republican district.

We can add this to the list of things you think you know which just ain't so.; 9/16/09, 6:39 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: John, I'm through discussing anything with you. Why don't you go join the oppressed white peoples' club? All you're saying amounts to a tirade against the claim you imagine, in your paranoia, that minorities have on your precious sense of history and identity, and I can't help you with that. Nor do I care to.

Like I said, if you prefer to do things with yourself, there are many other activities (especially on the web) that would be right up your alley.; 9/16/09, 6:42 PM
amba said...: I'm not even going to read the comments, I don't have time. I'm just going to copy here an e-mail I sent to a friend today.

* * *

I am literally beside myself about this. To me the Democrats' behavior is an admission that this -- the race card -- is all they've got. It betrays their utter lack of belief in their own so-called health care plan. They know it can't stand on its own merits, so they're resorting to this poisonous distraction. They deserve to get their asses kicked all the way to 2012 and beyond. Back to the wilderness, boys. Another 40 years. Do over.

Racism is there, sure. Duh. It should be acknowledged with a curt nod and a withering look, and then IGNORED. Most people are either beyond it or ready to be. The Democrats could have taken them there, if they weren't actually lagging so far behind for their own disgraceful convenience. I blame them more, because 1) they had the choice not to pick up on it, and 2) they used to be my people, so in some vestigial way, based on no evidence, I must still expect better of them.

Of course, the grandstanding kind of Republicans are as eager to whip racism up as Democrats are to see it where it isn't. The two are in total collusion, it seems to me. They are locked in an absolute status orgasmus of mutual hatred and convenience. It gives both an excuse to feel self-righteous while doing nothing. It is literally much ado about nothing.

Oh, I shouldn't get started. This makes me sicker than anything I've seen in my life.; 9/16/09, 6:43 PM
Fred4Pres said...: Run Away!; 9/16/09, 6:43 PM
Jon Sandor said...: John Sandor can't simply accept someone entertaining what he has to say. He has to drive home his sense of certainty too.

I don't expect you to "entertain what I have to say". I expect you you accept reality.

I told you to go do your own research if you are unclear about what that reality is. Do you think you can handle that?

since you are perfectly capable of debating with yourself, why don't you go do that?

It's hardly my fault that you are unable to understand not only other peoples arguments, but also not even your own.

If blacks peoples "needs" are as divergent from white peoples "needs" as you say they are, and if white people are as racist as you say they are, then what follows?; 9/16/09, 6:48 PM
A Jacksonian said...: First you believed a Chicago politician. Bad move.

Second you expected a Chicago politician to actually carry out campaign promises. Very bad move.

Third you expect that honest criticism will be accepted as just that and that a Chicago politician will not use every dirty trick, every innuendo, every snide remark, and every friend he can lay his hands on to repeat them in the quest to silence honest criticism?

Time to wake up!

You voted for a CHICAGO POLITICIAN and BELIEVED HIM. And now you don't like the way that Chicago politicians, of both parties, use every dirty trick, every willing fellow traveler, and every means they can to go after critics personally? Didn't your mom ever teach you not to vote for a Chicago politician?

If we survive this, as a Nation, will you remember to pass that lesson on? Otherwise you wake up and see a lollipop looking back at you in the mirror.; 9/16/09, 6:51 PM
richard mcenroe said...: Glenn Reynolds is racist because he isn't black and writes about stuff blacks don't care about. If you read him you're a racist.

If you clicked on a link he posted and wound up here, you're a DOUBLE SECRET RACIST and are going on the White House Special List right behind Sarah Palin and returning war veterans.; 9/16/09, 6:52 PM
Jon Sandor said...: The party in power is the one that benefits most from keeping the redistricting process political, and for the last 15 years, that's been the GOP.

For about the eight time on this thread, you show your near total ignorance of the redistricting process. In the majority of cases it is done at the state level. It is never done by the electd branches of the Federal goverment.

You also show once again your near total inability to think logically. Even if your facts were correct, and they are not, your conclusion does not logically follow from them. It is simply not the case that "the party in power" must always "benefit most" from the redisticting process.; 9/16/09, 6:55 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "I don't expect you to "entertain what I have to say". I expect you you accept reality."

Yes. And what I don't expect you to be capable of is accepting that perspectives vary based on the fact that different people have different experiences in life.

"I told you to go do your own research if you are unclear about what that reality is. Do you think you can handle that?"

I told you that there is no discussion for me to have with an intellectual masturbator. Go ejaculate your "absolute truth" onto the ignorant masses, whom you believe should follow you a la Jim Jones to a land where truth is absolute according to your very own interpretation of each fact that you've determined to be relevant. You clearly aren't receiving the adulation you feel you are entitled to from me. You want someone who already knows only what you know and who will only agree with you.

Which makes you a dumbass, only you don't realize it.; 9/16/09, 6:56 PM
Paddy O said...: "race is the new Palin"

If Carter ever calls Palin a racist the thread might be so long it breaks all the blogspots.; 9/16/09, 6:56 PM
Jon Sandor said...: All you're saying amounts to a tirade

All I'm saying is that your arguments are deficient in both facts and logic. I've even helpfully pointed out some deficiencies of each. But you prefer to remain blssfully smug and ignorant.; 9/16/09, 6:59 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "For about the eight time on this thread, you show your near total ignorance of the redistricting process. In the majority of cases it is done at the state level. It is never done by the electd branches of the Federal goverment."

For about the hundredth time here, and what must be an infinite number of times in your life, you project your contempt for others onto your erroneous interpretation of what they have to say. Until you show that the GOP hasn't been in control of the majority of state governments over the time period mentioned, then you should accept that your aggression is making you look stupid - because you just lost an argument by holding it hostage to your hatred for me and your inability to read anything other than what you hallucinated and wished you read.; 9/16/09, 7:00 PM
Frodo Potter said...: First, to set things in context, I actually voted for Obama, have been very critical of Palin, and think SOME of Obama’s critics are indeed racist.

Having said that, I think Jimmy Carter is one of the most evil and revolting human beings in the world—perhaps in history. This priggish, prissy, moralistic Sunday School teacher seems to have trouble understanding from his Bible reading that Jesus was a Jew and that people who hate Jews, hence hate Jesus. What a thunderous hypocrite.

As I said, I have been very critical of Palin, but I would gladly hold my nose and vote for her in a two person race against Jimmy Carter. If Carter ran against Giuliani, Romney, or Hillary Clinton, I would crawl over broken glass to vote against him.

John Stodder, you are correct in how much Clinton loathed Carter for all of Carter’s self-righteous interference . Obama needs to realize that Carter is dong him no favors by speaking out.

veni vidi vici, I too thought Harold Ford, Jr. would be the first black president. Then he royally blew it by endorsing the Kelo decision. He has been struggling ever since.; 9/16/09, 7:01 PM
UWS guy said...: You go Monty!

Half of althouse posters are put in the sticky position of defending seccesionist potlucks and confederate flag loving back-bench republicans from SC who likes to yell things at the president of the united states during a speech.

In fact, I'd have been happier if Monaigne hadn't posted, and then this comment thread could be one pure unadulterated echo-chamber of Althousian rabble-rousing.

Rush Limbaugh, "niggers are beating up white kids 'cause the president is black."

Carter: "Some people in america are probably racists."

Ann Althouse: HOW DARE CARTER SAY THAT!

Comment thread: RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE CONFEDERATE FLAG AIN'T SO BAD!; 9/16/09, 7:04 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "All I'm saying is that your arguments are deficient in both facts and logic."

All I'm saying is that your rants are deficient in perspective and context.

"I've even helpfully pointed out some deficiencies of each."

No, you've been brutishly moronic and myopically focused on things that weren't even the point.

"But you prefer to remain blssfully smug and ignorant."

Your level of projection and compulsive responses are only interesting in a clinical sense.; 9/16/09, 7:05 PM
Jon Sandor said...: You want someone who already knows only what you know and who will only agree with you.

I want somebody who clearly thinks himself to be some sort of intellectual to have at least a minimal knowledge of the facts relating to the subject he is mouthing off about.

And as you have demonstrated over and over on this thread, you don't have the first clue about how redistricting is done in these United States. There must be high-schoolers out there whose grasp of civics is superior to yours.

And that's not the worst of it. The real problem is not that you don't know, but that you stubbornly refuse to learn. It's that unique blend of ignorance and arrogance that makes you a lefty.; 9/16/09, 7:07 PM
Shanna said...: Ok, MUL, I have a lot of things to say about Gerrymandering.
"Dude, I don't know what the history is of all-white/all-black districts in the South."

As this is clearly true, maybe you shouldn’t have used the simple fact of it to tar a bunch of folks in South Carolina as racists.

Republicans have been fighting gerrymandering for as long as I've been alive.

The funny thing is that the way redistricting works, republicans and blacks who want a bunch of mostly black districts are simpatico on this point, as far as pure political preservation works, because the goal of redistricting as a party is to have as many “safe” districts as possible. So, if you pack as many of the surrounding dems, or black dem’s, into a district, that leaves the other districts more republican a lot of times. I may not be explaining this right, but that’s how it works. The interesting thing is when the party goal (getting a “safe” district, but not overwhelming so, say 60% dem v. 80% dem) contradicts the individual congressmans goal, which is to be as safe as possible. This can cause fights at the party level.

The party in power is the one that benefits most from keeping the redistricting process political, and for the last 15 years, that's been the GOP.

This is done at the state level, so it depends on how the state house and governor’s mansion are at the moment when redistricting happens (after the census).
There are a couple states that draw lines by computer in a very non biased way, and that is what I wish we could get to everywhere.; 9/16/09, 7:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Racist Rag or the NYT Blues

Where’s that Racist? Where’s that Racist?
Where’s that Racist? Where’s that Racist? Where’s that Racist?
Hold that Racist! Hold that Racist! Hold that Racist!
Choke him, poke him, kick him, and soak him!
Where’s that Racist? Where’s that Racist?
Where, oh where can he be?
Low or high brow, just ask Mo Dow
Please play that Racist Rag for me!

Stolen entirely from the Tiger Rag, with sincere apologies to the Dixie Land Jazz Band.; 9/16/09, 7:08 PM
Jon Sandor said...: you've been brutishly moronic and myopically focused on things that weren't even the point

Like the point that, contrary to what you believe, redistricting is not a function of Congress or the President?

Like the point that, contrary to what you believe, those racist krackers in Wilsons district did not design their own district?

By all means, explain what you think the point is.; 9/16/09, 7:11 PM
Jon Sandor said...: you've been brutishly moronic and myopically focused on things that weren't even the point

Like the point that, contrary to what you believe, redistricting is not a function of Congress or the President?

Like the point that, contrary to what you believe, those racist krackers in Wilsons district did not design their own district?

By all means, explain what you think the point is.; 9/16/09, 7:11 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "There must be high-schoolers out there whose grasp of civics is superior to yours."

I'm clearly being chased around by one of them.

Who controlled the majority of state governments, you nitwit? Now I'm calling you out. Shana has decided not to take that one on. But you can't stand to address it, despite your claim to "a minimal knowledge of the facts relating to the subject (you are) mouthing off about", because it would make you look like an asshole. I didn't make a distinction between state and federal, but you inserted that in there, as you needed to, in order to feel smart. And you've ignored the clarification since, because you're a liar.

Now what did you want to enlighten me about regarding the "unique blend of ignorance and arrogance that makes you" whatever the hell you call yourself?; 9/16/09, 7:17 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: John Sandor reveals, at 7:11 PM, CST, September 16th 2009, that he is incapable of reading things posted at 7:00 PM CST on that same day.

He has so far posted about three or four comments that reveal his aversion to the fact of a comment that would clear up his confusion.

How many more does one think he will post?

We could start making bets.; 9/16/09, 7:19 PM
Shanna said...: Shana has decided not to take that one on.

Party control of state governments shifts around a bit and what matters most is who is there when the census data hits. I used to know it cold, but it's been a while since I worked in politics.; 9/16/09, 7:21 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "Party control of state governments shifts around a bit and what matters most is who is there when the census data hits. I used to know it cold, but it's been a while since I worked in politics."

It's good to know that, unlike the bizarre voice from Xanadu, Jon Sandor, you at least care to keep the discussion cogent and informative, Shanna.; 9/16/09, 7:24 PM
jr565 said...: garage mahal wrote:
"But like you always say - If this meme is patently absurd, why can't it be killed with simple facts and reason? And if it's true, [and I don't whether it is or not], can you prove it?"
Well how can you prove it with facts and reason either? Sounds like people are simply making assertions meant to demagogue opponents. Which is what the race card alwasy is. I would argue that those making the claim are not applying "facts and reason" so what are you are in effect arguing is to prove a negative.For example Prove that you're not a secret child molestor (because based on what you've written in the past it sounds awfully child molestory).; 9/16/09, 7:28 PM
Mark said...: What I find amusing is that every time somebody claims the "You lie!" outburst was racist, they're opening up the whole "well, is he lying?" train of thought.

By all means, let's keep that on the table.; 9/16/09, 7:30 PM
Laura(southernxyl) said...: montana urban legend said...

... But the fact that he represents an all-white district in the South that is racially gerrymandered from its neighboring all-black district, certainly raises questions in one's mind about what kinds of attitudes and ideas run through the minds of his constituents - and what's important or offensive in their minds regarding racial politics versus what's important or offensive in the minds of less, shall we say, sheltered people regarding racial politics.

9/16/09 5:54 PM

montana urban legend said...

... Dude, I don't know what the history is of all-white/all-black districts in the South....

9/16/09 6:16 PM

So you just throw out random crap, and have no problem admitting that you don't know what the hell you're talking about? For pete's sake.; 9/16/09, 7:32 PM
section9 said...: Alex wrote:

The tone, rhetoric, and disrespect FROM SOME QUARTERS do have shades of racism.

Don't paint me with your broad brush then. Unless that's your point of course, to paint every last conservatives/libertarian with the broad brush.

-------------

That is not his point, nor it is the point of other liberals to actually make an argument. People like Montaigne or FLS don't really believe that someone like Joe Wilson is a member of the Fabulous Knights of the Ku Klux Klan or a dyed in the wool Night Rider. That's just argumentative Fool's Gold for the rubes who wander into their Briar Patch.

Shouting "racism" is just a means to an end. They use the tactic of shouting "Klansman" to suppress free speech and dissent. They want you to shut up because they know that conservatism is a growing force in the country and opposition to the Administration is gaining in both intensity and numbers.

They also never expected the Right to pick up Alinsky and pay attention to his teachings, but that's another story altogether.

That's all this is about.; 9/16/09, 7:35 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: First of all, what the hell does the first comment you quoted have to do with the second? And second of all, where the hell have you been during the ensuing discussion? Care to pull a John Sandor?

And third, you're missing the point.; 9/16/09, 7:36 PM
Jon Sandor said...: Care to pull a John Sandor?

Note that "pulling a John{sic} Sandor" consists of pointing out that MUL does not have the slightest factual knowledge of the topic he is opining on.; 9/16/09, 7:40 PM
mw said...: I don't know how anyone can deny that opposition to Obama is based in racism. It's all in the definition.

Here are the facts. Racism has been rising steadily over the last few months. In recent polls, President Obama's job approval number has dropped from 70% to 50%. This means the percentage of racists in this country has risen from 30% to 50% - a 67% increase in only eight months! Even more alarming, close to one out of two Americans are now racist. We have reached a tipping point. If this trend continues, the racists will soon be in a majority. Now, more than ever, we need the pundits, ex-presidents, and sages of the mainstream media to speak out.; 9/16/09, 7:42 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: And fourth of all, is there an assumption here that the wishes of the constituents of Joe Wilson's 2nd Congressional district are identical to the wishes of the constituents of the 5th or 6th? Who here wishes to make that claim? Because it would be a pretty stupid claim, and the opposite of it is the only point I was making.

Hell, if everyone in every district saw everything the same way, we might as well not even have districts, right? Just have one at-large congressional representative for all of America. I'm sure some of you would like it that way.

Again, your myopia is showing.; 9/16/09, 7:42 PM
Meade said...: A variation on a timeless old joke:

Once there were two brothers - one, the older brother, an optimist. And the other, the younger brother, a pessimist.

One Xmas morning the two brothers arose from their sleep to run downstairs hoping to discover a present.

There, sitting on a gigantic peanut, sat the wizened old husk of a former president, , Jimmy Carter, scowling moralistically at the two boys and calling them ugly names.

"Oh, crap!" said the younger brother, shaking his pessimistic little head and sounding forlorn. "We waited the entire year for Xmas to come, thinking we'd get a BB gun or a bicycle, and all we got is this mean old racist peanut farmer who hates us."

"Caaahlm down," said the older hope-filled brother, smiling and excitedly looking around every door and behind every piece of furniture for something... something... But what?

"Why?" said the younger boy, dropping his hopeless head. "Why should we even bother? Santa Claus hates us."

"Because," said the elder brother, "try to remember that chapter in your American History textbook."

"Right after we get old Jimmy Carter out of here...

RONALD REAGAN!!!"; 9/16/09, 7:43 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: O.K., let me see if I've got this right:

"It is racist to say that it's racist to criticize a black President, because you are being patronizing and you are saying that a black person needs to be coddled and protected in some special way that doesn't apply to white people."

But anytime someone says the word nigger you're all going to act like it's the end of the world?

Please, people, try to get your story straight.

The Macho Response; 9/16/09, 7:43 PM
Jon Sandor said...: It's good to know that, unlike the bizarre voice from Xanadu, Jon Sandor, you at least care to keep the discussion cogent and informative, Shanna.

Translaton" "You tell me I'm a fool too, but you do it nicer than that mean Sandor guy".; 9/16/09, 7:44 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Note that Jon Sandor cannot read, makes up arguments where they don't exist (otherwise known as a straw man), doesn't correct himself or have the decency to apologize when shown to be wrong or making an unwarranted stretch, and is as sloppy a debater as he accuses others of being.

Jon Sandor is not worth paying any attention to.; 9/16/09, 7:44 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: John Sandor says:

(I think I'll misspell his name again, given his much more egregious errors in many other areas of literacy, including, but certainly not limited to, spelling)

Translaton (sic) "You tell me I'm a fool too, but you do it nicer than that mean Sandor guy".

Actually, that's not what was said. But admitting as much would make you feel like a fool, and we know that's what's important to you: What you get to avoid feeling like. Despite how much you blunder.; 9/16/09, 7:47 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Actually, translaton seems like it would be a cool word, if only it existed.; 9/16/09, 7:51 PM
Laura(southernxyl) said...: First of all, what the hell does the first comment you quoted have to do with the second?

Are you seriously asking me what this: "But the fact that he represents an all-white district in the South that is racially gerrymandered from its neighboring all-black district" has to do with this: "Dude, I don't know what the history is of all-white/all-black districts in the South" ??? For PETE'S sake. If you don't know how the district came to be all-white then what the HELL conclusion can you reach about the fact that he represents it? Huh? Do all-white districts automatically have to forfeit having representation at all - is that it? Are people who represent all-white districts automatically suspect - is that it?

And second of all, where the hell have you been during the ensuing discussion?

At work?

Care to pull a John Sandor?

No, I care to pull a Laura(southernxyl) if that's all right with you.

And third, you're missing the point.

I'm not missing my point, which is that you are shotgunning random attacks that you don't even care to back up.

And fourth of all, is there an assumption here that the wishes of the constituents of Joe Wilson's 2nd Congressional district are identical to the wishes of the constituents of the 5th or 6th?

Have you seen anybody make that assumption?; 9/16/09, 7:53 PM
he who scoffs at danger said...: why are you guys feeding the troll with the orly avatar? it's not amenable to reason. it's not trying to be reasonable. and this is not because it's progressive, but because it's a troll.

this is the internet, people! know the turf!; 9/16/09, 7:56 PM
Jon Sandor said...: For about the hundredth time here, and what must be an infinite number of times in your life, you project your contempt for others onto your erroneous interpretation of what they have to say. Until you show that the GOP hasn't been in control of the majority of state governments over the time period mentioned

One factual problem here is that this is not the hundredth time you have said this, but the first.

Another factual problem is that not all states can set their own redistricting. Those for some states, South Carolina for instance, can only be changed with the approval of the natonal courts. That is, about ten "Republican" states have their districts gerrymandered from DC.

Yet another factual problem is that House seats are approportioned on the basis of population. Merely counting the number of states allowed to set their own districts and then counting how many of each are controlled by Democrats or Republicans tells you nothing. California is not equal to Wyoming.

But you are asking questions and thus showing an open mind, and I'll give you credit for that much.; 9/16/09, 7:57 PM
Jon Sandor said...: Actually, that's not what was said

Actually that's exactly what was said.

Jon Sandor is not worth paying any attention to.

For the second time on this thread I have to say:

God, the irony!

Don't you have a nice Noam Chomsky book you should be reading right now about the evils of Amrikkka?; 9/16/09, 8:01 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Wheew boy... a lot to clear up here. But at least John Sandor's down for the count:

If you don't know how the district came to be all-white then what the HELL conclusion can you reach about the fact that he represents it? Huh? Do all-white districts automatically have to forfeit having representation at all - is that it? Are people who represent all-white districts automatically suspect - is that it?

I have no idea how you come to the conclusion behind your second question. Your third question, again, I see some strange fear that I can't relate to or understand regarding white districts. The only thing I suspect is that whites (and people from majority white districts) might be less inclined to find a remark like "Boy!" racist. They might also be less inclined than their friends in the neighboring district to see racial motivations behind their representative treating the first black president in a more disrespectful way during his address to a joint session of Congress than any other president of recent memory has had to endure.

But that's just for starters. They might see things differently in a whole host of ways. How this makes them "suspect", well, I'd have to ask what you mean by "suspect". It sounds much more diabolical than anything I meant or said.

And second of all, where the hell have you been during the ensuing discussion?

At work?

That's fine. But it's still available to be read.

Care to pull a John Sandor?

No, I care to pull a Laura(southernxyl) if that's all right with you.

That's fine by me. Actually, it's much preferable.

And third, you're missing the point.

I'm not missing my point, which is that you are shotgunning random attacks that you don't even care to back up.

I think I've backed up anything that wasn't clear over the course of the thread (that you may or may not have entirely read by now), and hopefully, here.

And fourth of all, is there an assumption here that the wishes of the constituents of Joe Wilson's 2nd Congressional district are identical to the wishes of the constituents of the 5th or 6th?

Have you seen anybody make that assumption?

It seems implied in the assumption here that everyone will/should have the same definition of what racism is, to what extent it exists, to what extent it is or should be an issue in our politics, etc., etc., etc.; 9/16/09, 8:04 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Don't you have a nice Noam Chomsky book you should be reading right now about the evils of Amrikkka?

Among other things which JoHn Sandor appears not to have read, would include my Blogger profile. And a good thing, too. From there, he might go on to read my post on pathological narcissists.; 9/16/09, 8:06 PM
Jon Sandor said...: They might also be less inclined than their friends in the neighboring district to see racial motivations behind their representative treating the first black president in a more disrespectful way during his address to a joint session of Congress than any other president of recent memory has had to endure.

Yet AGAIN, you display your staggerng ignorance of basic historical fact.

Unless you think that "recent memory" goes back to the start of 2009. You seem young enough for that to be the case.

You also, once again, skip merrily past the fact that Obama actually was lying.

But we sure do appreciate you giving us your insights into what you imagine to be going through the minds of black people in the district bordering Wilsons.

Have you ever considerd "Carnac the Magnificent" as a screen name? It really captures your essence.; 9/16/09, 8:12 PM
Jon Sandor said...: It seems implied in the assumption here that everyone will/should have the same definition of what racism is

That is your assumption, Carnac. Real racism is anti-black racism. Remember?; 9/16/09, 8:16 PM
Jon Sandor said...: Among other things which JoHn Sandor appears not to have read, would include my Blogger profile. And a good thing, too. From there, he might go on to read my post on pathological narcissists.

If you are whining that I have not read your Blogger profle, you would seem to have the pathological narcissist thing down pat.; 9/16/09, 8:19 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: John, stop commenting. For your sake:

Yet AGAIN, you display your staggerng ignorance of basic historical fact.

Unless you think that "recent memory" goes back to the start of 2009. You seem young enough for that to be the case.

Yes. Not everyone is as many years past their thirties as you. So I get to use "recent memory" in a subjective sense. If that bothers you, then get in touch. (And stop touching yourself first).

But that's not the point. The point is that if you have an example... CITE IT!

You also, once again, skip merrily past the fact that Obama actually was lying.

And you also, once again, skip merrily past the fact that whether or not you or anyone else interprets what he said to be a lie, IT'S NOT FUCKING RELEVANT TO THE FACT THAT JOE WILSON MADE AN OUTBURST THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND DISRESPECTFUL OF THE DECORUM ACCORDED TO PRESIDENTS IN SUCH A SETTING! THERE IS A STANDARD OF ACCEPTED BEHAVIOR THEY CONSIDERED, AND WILSON VIOLATED IT. Much the same way you seem to violate the standards of rational discourse by putting in these outbursts which have nothing to do with what I'm saying. You are, like Wilson, trying to satisfy your own ego. Only Wilson, unlike you, could at least accept when he was out of line, made a mistake, and substituted his own feelings for any consideration of what was appropriate, acceptable tolerable behavior when the president addresses a joint session of congress.

Get over yourself, dude. Please? Will you accept rewards in the form of M & Ms or something?; 9/16/09, 8:21 PM
MossyMo said...: To bad Ann, you choose your side when you voted.
You bought this line to reasoning (that disagreement with Obama was racism). It was pointed out well in advance during the primaries. You walked into your support of Obama eyes wide open.

And, as far as I am concerned you are politically estopped from distancing yourself from it now.

This is what you asked for.
This is what you wanted.
And, this is what you got.; 9/16/09, 8:21 PM
DADvocate said...: MM - the only place I've heard the lion thing is from you. Why are you spreading racist jokes? Are you a sock puppet? In you bigoted mind what qualifies someone as a member of your "old white people" group? I'm 58 yr old, white male and never heard the joke but you have. What kind of people do you hang around with that you're getting emails like this on a regular basis?; 9/16/09, 8:22 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/16/09, 8:25 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/16/09, 8:27 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: "If you are whining that I have not read your Blogger profle, you would seem to have the pathological narcissist thing down pat."

One thing I've learned regarding my recent study of pathological narcissism, is that the narcissist is completely incapable not only of understanding where others are coming from, but from caring about that.

Unless it suits his own need for immediate gratification to do so.

He fails to see how it benefits him to understand the other people with whom he interacts, unless the above stipulation is met.; 9/16/09, 8:28 PM
Laura(southernxyl) said...: MUL, you seem awfully secure in assuming racism on the part of people you've never even met.; 9/16/09, 8:28 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: What I'm not secure about is assuming that we all have a common definition of "racism" - at least not in 2009.

This should make me seem less secure in assuming it in others.

Do I assume that others with certain experiences in life would be less sensitive about what could be seen as racist than others?

Absolutely.

Do I assume that any defensiveness they might display regarding that difference is a display of racism?

Absolutely not.

But defensiveness can sometimes be a funny thing. We are talking about politics. And politics is about power. To deny that blacks lacked the sort of power whites had, legally, until 1965, would be foolish. I (and many others) argue, further, that to deny that blacks lacked the sort of power, socially, that whites had for decades afterward would also be at least shortsighted, if not foolish. There is, in my mind, a sense of prestige and privilege that is transmitted and reinforced in unspoken ways. Your side sees it in the media. Others see a different form of it in country clubs and boardrooms. Why is one perspective of it more legitimate than the other, is all I ask?; 9/16/09, 8:35 PM
jr565 said...: Montaigne wrote:
"I don't laugh though, so like Joe Wilson I am not a racist."
One can laugh at a racist joke because its' funny. It doesn't prove you are a racist. In fact, perhaps by laughing at certain jokes it proves you aren't a racist beucase you know the joke is a joke and not actual truth. You however, are not laughing at the joke. Which could mean that you don't find the joke funny. Or more likely because you you think its a true statement and not a joke at all. In other words, you are a racist!; 9/16/09, 8:40 PM
Anonymous said...: I called blacklash months ago and, God dammit, I demand credit.; 9/16/09, 8:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Are we telling racist jokes now?

Did you guys hear about the Polish starlet?; 9/16/09, 8:42 PM
garage mahal said...: Having said that, I think Jimmy Carter is one of the most evil and revolting human beings in the world—perhaps in history. This priggish, prissy, moralistic Sunday School teacher seems to have trouble understanding from his Bible reading that Jesus was a Jew and that people who hate Jews, hence hate Jesus. What a thunderous hypocrite..

Perhaps you could point us to some examples of Carter expressing hatred of Jews then?; 9/16/09, 8:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Garage -- Where in what you copied and pasted is there any evidence of a claim that Carter hates Jews?; 9/16/09, 8:50 PM
Laura(southernxyl) said...: MUL, so your ONLY point is that white people who don't interact with black people much might not be able to identify every single thing that might offend a black person?

I suppose that's true, in the same way that a person who hasn't lived in a state that has federal court-ordered gerrymandering, busing, etc. to protect the helpless black folk from the evil white racists in their midst might not realize how irritating a person who has lived in such a state might find your original comment.; 9/16/09, 8:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Little did we realize that it would turn every criticism of the President into an occasion to make an accusation of racism.

Speak for yourself. Anyone who was paying attention saw this coming a mile away. The others that got caught up in the flowery speeches about hope and change, well, some of them are now posting blogs about how disappointed they are over the President's foot soldiers playing the race card.; 9/16/09, 8:57 PM
jvermeer51 said...: You wrote, "Little did we realize that it would turn every criticism of the President into an occasion to make an accusation of racism."
Really Anne, how could you possibly have thought that? Charges of racism were rampant during the campaign. Jackson and Sharpton were still honored members of the party. What microscopic shred of evidence was there that Obama or the party would not use racial intimidation every day of their administration. This is a real question, not just bombastic blogging. What is there in your mind and in the minds of your intellectual class brethren that allowed you to be so blind to reality?; 9/16/09, 9:01 PM
Anonymous said...: When people look back at this election neutrally, they will start to realize that McCain-Palin was quite possibly the lamest ticket in American history. And, given Mondale-Ferraro and Dukakis-Anybody, that's truly saying something.

Word verification: rematch. Uh oh.; 9/16/09, 9:04 PM
Ken said...: The far left in this country and their chosen vehicle, the Democratic Party, have no ideas so they cry racism at every opportunity. And since the Democrats need an overwhelming majority of African American vote, they will do anything to prevent racial progress. Having Democrats in power, of any race, assures that there will be race baiting without end and counter productive programs to keep racial tension at a maximum.

Democrats will always feed the flames of racial hatred because they need the votes.; 9/16/09, 9:08 PM
jr565 said...: When the last govt run health plan was proposed, why did all the republicans oppose it then, mostly with the same language? Because of racism there too? (After all, Clinton was the first black president?); 9/16/09, 9:16 PM
jr565 said...: What is pretty remarkable about all the people crying racisim over the most inoccuous language that is decidedly not racist on its surface ata ny rate, is the degree to which they can read peoples minds and determine their exact intent. It's pretty remarkable, the degree to which the intent of someone saying two words "You Lie" can be instantly construed. Not even Sherlock Holmes had such amazing powers of deduction or induction as it were.
They are so gifted as to determine that You Lie is not a straightforward declaration about someone's belief that what someone is saying is untruthful, but ALSO/INSTEAD a racial code word for "N*gger".
Was it the inflection in how Wilson used the word "LIE". Did his eyeballs tilt up and to the right (you know, how racists always tilt their eyeballs up and to the right everytime they go to the racist part of their brains). Even more keen considering you were able to distinguish this racism with some words uttered from a crowd of people. But such are the powers of the race card throwers.; 9/16/09, 9:26 PM
Big Mike said...: I'm back. Wife is sick with something (I hope just a very bad cold and not H1N1) so I had kitchen detail tonight.

Hmmm. They say that evil spirits can be summoned by pronouncing their name. Looks like I have to apologize to the sentient commentators on this thread for my parenthetical remark.

Ah, montana, my friend, if your post at 5:36 was meant to be an apology, you may want to start over. If it was meant to be exculpatory, then you really need to step back and take at look at what you write. You join the thread with a pedantic "I would do the honor of pointing out just how ridiculous it is for this post ..." and then sling some snark at people, but, when cornered you try to hide behind phrases like "standards of rational discourse."

Your complaint about me boils down to "Big Mike dared to hit me back." You might get sympathy on that point from Monty, and garage, and maybe FLS. I don't think many others feel sorry for you. I don't think anybody feels as sorry for you as you feel for yourself.

On the other hand, you do raise a very valid point. In object-oriented programming there is a concept called "overloading," and the word "racism" in the 21st century is a term that is overloaded. To me, a person who demonstrated for civil rights back in my collegiate years, a person is racist unless they treat everyone -- male, female, black, white, Jew, goy, Hispanic, Asian-American, you name it -- exactly the same, with the same expectations of behavior and effort at their job. To a liberal in the 21st century, it seems to be the case that one is racist unless one discriminates on the basis of race, gender, etc.

I don't think the second view is sustainable, not least because I'm of the opinion that the vast majority of the people in this country operate from the old version of what racism is. But it's not sustainable for a second reason -- there is no consensus as to who gets how much of a pass on their actions. Ultimately the only way society can deal with diversity is to treat one and all the same. Any attempt to do otherwise can never be sustained over a long term.; 9/16/09, 9:30 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: MUL, so your ONLY point is that white people who don't interact with black people much might not be able to identify every single thing that might offend a black person?

I suppose that's true, in the same way that a person who hasn't lived in a state that has federal court-ordered gerrymandering, busing, etc. to protect the helpless black folk from the evil white racists in their midst might not realize how irritating a person who has lived in such a state might find your original comment.

May your worst irritation in life, Laura, be the fact that the backlash against the pre-1965 regime (busing) was nothing like the backlash in favor of maintaining and reinstating it (lynching, bombings, MLK's assassination).

But what do I know? I must be that insensitive to the needs of the white man.

I hope you weren't trying to draw an equivalence there. Because if so, my response is that you must be joking.; 9/16/09, 9:37 PM
Methadras said...: garage mahal said...

But like you always say - If this meme is patently absurd, why can't it be killed with simple facts and reason? And if it's true, [and I don't whether it is or not], can you prove it?

Oh please. Sometimes the things you say are so mind numbingly dumb that I'm continually stunned that your autonomic functions still work. This meme is forwarded by proxies like Carter because he is given the venue to distribute it. Enough people spouting a lie is tantamount to having it adopted into the cultural fabric. Do I need to illustrate to you the myriads of fabrications over the years that are interwoven into our culture that are simply not true? The meme-smear that your ilk spew as a function of their ideological bilge over the air waves should require a bio-hazard warning because not only does it smell, frankly your tacit acceptance of it is toxic. Your kind loves nothing better then to wallow in the muck that is racial and gender politics because you guys think that's where the rubber meets the road, but in this case are you goons willing to burn the house down to save it?; 9/16/09, 9:48 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: One would do well not to project one's understanding of computers onto human beings.

Ultimately the only way society can deal with diversity is to treat one and all the same. Any attempt to do otherwise can never be sustained over a long term.

How hypocritical that someone who thinks his previously unspoken tragedies in life entitle him to insult (and threaten, don't forget that, BM) others, when he allows nothing of the sort to be said to him in return, would hold to such a view.

This goes beyond who gets how much of a pass on what. I think it starts with - as I said - the golden rule.; 9/16/09, 9:51 PM
Methadras said...: Personally, I hope someone starts a class action law suit against this vile, narcissistic, and hateful man known as Jimmy Carter for literally, on television slandering and libeling millions of Americans as racists. He thinks he can piggy back a retort on what Joe Wilson said by taking a cue from Maureen Dowd and now all of a sudden coming up with this fantasy conclusion that anyone opposed to Obama and his policies is a racist? Joe Wilson told the President, "You lie!" Jimmy Carter says that's racist and anyone that says or thinks it is a racist too. O rly? Class action now against this repugnant piece of filth that has saddled us with nearly 34 years of his incompetence and abject failure and sue him into oblivion. How dare he call me a racist. How dare he call millions of people who never have racism in the realms of their thoughts or their hearts as racists.

Can a total and utter fool like him not see or understand the distinction that his policies and his ideology are what is being criticized and not the color of his skin? Jimmy Carter and you disgusting leftists like him are incapable of making that distinction because you are fools. All of you.; 9/16/09, 9:55 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: One question, Methadras.

If you were able to get a cab in New York in 1994, when most blacks could not, how would that make you feel? How do you think the black guy felt? Would you have cared about that?

Or does the class action sort of thing only warm the cockles of your heart when you, personally, are not speaking from a position of privilege?

Just curious.; 9/16/09, 10:04 PM
Big Mike said...: You still don't get it, do you, montana legend-in-your-own-mind?

Sling as many turds in my direction as you feel like.

Be ready to deal with sarcasm and real data in response (mixed with a few of your own turds sent back).

But you must not have children of your own. Or if you do, you must not appreciate them very much. Otherwise I don't think you would have ever thought to sling mud at somebody else's kids. You would have known better.

All you have to do is say that you're sorry for your remark about my sons and that you won't do it again. Would that be so hard?; 9/16/09, 10:05 PM
buddy larsen said...: Racists go back a long ways. In ancient Egypt they were called "Ra Cysts" and they disliked people without melanomas; 9/16/09, 10:10 PM
Eric said...: If this “political party” ever wants to win anymore elections, it should note that stoking white grievance will only bring them votes from aggrieved white people. The “backlash” of which so many here speak will lash all the way to solid perma-minority representation across the southeast of the U.S. Good luck.

Wishful thinking. All indications are the Dems are gonna get creamed in 2010. The Republicans don't even have to do anything, really. They just have to let Obama be Obama.; 9/16/09, 10:14 PM
Eric said...: If you were able to get a cab in New York in 1994, when most blacks could not...

1994? Bullshit. Now you're just making things up.; 9/16/09, 10:15 PM
Laura(southernxyl) said...: May your worst irritation in life, Laura, be the fact that the backlash against the pre-1965 regime (busing) was nothing like the backlash in favor of maintaining and reinstating it (lynching, bombings, MLK's assassination).

But what do I know? I must be that insensitive to the needs of the white man.

I hope you weren't trying to draw an equivalence there. Because if so, my response is that you must be joking.

What in the hell are you talking about.

You appeared to say that white people in Wilson's district might not realize every little nuance of racism b/c they're sheltered.

I countered that you might not realize the irritation of your casual throwaway comment about gerrymandering because you're sheltered.

Now you're bringing in police dogs and fire hoses? So you really weren't talking about mere oblivious sheltered accidental insensitivity after all.

You can't resist hurling the charge of racism, can you? Cannot resist it.; 9/16/09, 10:18 PM
BJM said...: Montana wins dick of the thread.; 9/16/09, 10:41 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: All you have to do is say that you're sorry for your remark about my sons and that you won't do it again. Would that be so hard?

I don't even know who your sons are. Heck. I don't even know who you are. Why do you keep bringing these kids up?

But you must not have children of your own. Or if you do, you must not appreciate them very much. Otherwise I don't think you would have ever thought to sling mud at somebody else's kids. You would have known better.

If you cared so much about them, maybe you wouldn't bring them into the picture - into a debate/commenting forum where you tell people you hate their guts and then act all family man-like. But I get the impression that, like a Palestinian terrorist who flings metaphorical mud at others and then runs away and hides behind his own kids, using them as human shields, that's all you've got.

Grow up, Mike. I am not responsible for your kids' troubles any more than I am responsible for you coming over, telling me you hate me, bringing your kids up, threatening violence - which is STILL (in case you forgot) ILLEGAL - and then suing for an apology. You did that all on your own. Grow up, stop relying on others for you to take pride in your kids, stop hectoring people for recognition, and act like the human being you want to be treated as.

Is that so hard?; 9/16/09, 11:03 PM
JAL said...: Heading to 400 .........; 9/16/09, 11:06 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: You are making no sense at all, Laura. Saying that not understanding what blacks might be sensitive about is necessarily different and more egregious than not being sufficiently apologetic about what Southern whites might be sensitive about is NOT tantamount to a charge of racism. But you can pretend that it is if that makes you feel sufficiently victimized to feel justified in whatever point you're trying to make - which sounds something like "whites are horrendously, brutally, and perniciously victimized by inflated charges of racism at every turn."

That is what you're trying to say, isn't it? Please clarify.; 9/16/09, 11:09 PM
miller said...: The cool thing is, MUL and his ilk are so amusing. They think they are having a witty argument, but really they just trudge from talking point to talking point.

Does anyone take them seriously in the meat world? Because no one in the noosphere seems to.

WV: czbqhme. I have no idea. Maybe saying "excuse me" while sneezing?; 9/16/09, 11:10 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Montana wins dick of the thread.

Yeay!!!

Is your avatar a set-up for that sort of comment?; 9/16/09, 11:12 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: but really they just trudge from talking point to talking point.

So says the latest trooper in Glenn Beck's Army of Avarice for Obama/The Stalinist/Communist/Marxist/Messiah/Antichrist/America Destroyer.; 9/16/09, 11:14 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/16/09, 11:23 PM
miller said...: You sound like a sad lonely little boy.

In the meantime, we're having fun, mostly at your expense--and you don't realize it.; 9/16/09, 11:23 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: In the meantime, we're having fun, mostly at your expense--and you don't realize it.

Hey, whatever it takes. God knows you'll never acknowledge or come to terms with any of your own shortcomings.; 9/16/09, 11:25 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Mike, I am honestly troubled by your obsession. If you want an apology - and I don't even understand why, given the history I've detailed so far - then fine, you can have it. Just don't bring your kids up to people you're coming over to spew hatred and invective against and then complain that they were hurt in the process and that you need an apology. Just don't. That's stupid. And I'm sorry I got you to feel bad by realizing that and for any pain you imagine your kids feel because of this little episode and tussle you created. I'm just plain sorry about that.

And I'm also sorry that I have to set a better example for them than you care to set.

But most of all, I'm just plain sorry.; 9/16/09, 11:33 PM
Methadras said...: montana urban legend said...

One question, Methadras.

If you were able to get a cab in New York in 1994, when most blacks could not, how would that make you feel? How do you think the black guy felt? Would you have cared about that?

What sort of supposition is this? First of all I lived in New York for a time at the end of Dinkins and the beginning of Guiliani's terms respectively and I never, not once, saw what you just described. Furthermore, if it happened and I was a witness to it, I'd fight it right then and there. A persons race isn't what makes a person and if someone is using race as an excuse to treat them poorly, that's not something I stand for at all. Furthermore, your feelings based approach is wrong. It's not how I feel that makes the difference, it's what I think and I just told you what I think.

Even still, if this is your line of reasoning, then it only serves to prove even more solidly that your ideology is rooted in envy, jealousy and the more base emotional bents. If you are going to illustrate cases of racism based on whether or not blacks could get cab rides or not, then I have to say came back and talk to me when they are got/get shunned from the subways, okay? Otherwise, this petty attempt at moral equivocation is a big failure.

Or does the class action sort of thing only warm the cockles of your heart when you, personally, are not speaking from a position of privilege?

Just curious.

That's two questions, by the way. Also, once again, your "position of privilege" statement simply reinforces the root of your ideology as being an envy/jealousy/feelings based system of thought. This is where the well-spring of your mind is at. I don't run around, meander and ponder other peoples feelings with respect to whether or not something is racially based or not. It's about behavior and what is right and what is wrong. If I see wrong, I confront wrong. Your thinking and the thinking of your ilk is defined in this pedantic socio-racial-economic classist ethos that makes zero sense to most people.

Secondly, I've worked very long and hard to get to where I am. I came from nothing. My parents immigrated to this country with nothing and made something from that. I am a product of that experience and I'll be damned if a little worthless troll like you will try and deface it, so you can take your 'privilege' snark and shove it up your tight classist asshole and show it off to the rest of your kind.

Besides, the cockles of my heart will only cockle when Jimmy Carter is shown the door to hell for what he has done to this country. He's a fucking phony and anyone who even thinks that he is anything worthier than the film on the bottom of my shoe is a moron.; 9/17/09, 12:11 AM
Methadras said...: Eric said...

Wishful thinking. All indications are the Dems are gonna get creamed in 2010. The Republicans don't even have to do anything, really. They just have to let Obama be Obama.

The concern however is that if Republicans can stage a comeback the fear is that they will fuck it up, again.; 9/17/09, 12:14 AM
Methadras said...: So MUL, what's the next thing for you to get to on your talking points list? I'm sure you have a near inexhaustible supply of all the leftist quips and rhetorical memes you just want to get out there on the blogosphere. [rolleyes]; 9/17/09, 12:19 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Nothing Methadras. I wouldn't dare question the fact that people in America never, ever treated you better because you were white, or that such treatment could have ever impacted your success. That would get in the way of your feelings - uh, I mean, your iron-clad, emotion-free sense of morality and right and wrong.

(Rolls eyes); 9/17/09, 12:44 AM
Anonymous said...: I bet the fact that you are white hasn't impacted your success, Montana. This is because I doubt you've had any.

Unhappy, insulting whiners usually don't.

Enjoy 2010. I will.; 9/17/09, 12:49 AM
Methadras said...: montana urban legend said...

Nothing Methadras. I wouldn't dare question the fact that people in America never, ever treated you better because you were white,

First of all moron, I'm not white. Second of all, I get treated by people by how I expect to get treated. If I get treated badly, I suppose then that I don't deal with those people. I don't have that kind of time. People in America are who they are for better or worse. If you want to be a racist, go ahead. I'm not going to stop you, until that racism interferes with me. If you want to be a bigot or a homophobe, fine, be my guest. I don't have to like it, but then again and I'll confront it if I have to, but it's no skin off my nose. I mean, shit, your a snarky douche-bag, but what do I care. I already know that your entire ideology is based on a fiction that your continually represent as reality.

I'll tell you what I told another Althouse stooge a while back. If you want to live in a fiction go ahead. I could care less if you believe the nonsense that you spew. What I do care about is that comparatively speaking Conservatism destroys your ideological beliefs with impunity. Your ideology wallows in failure, in misery, in chaos and upheaval. I want everyone to succeed. To find their own way in life that will make them the best that they are humanly capable of becoming. Some people can only go so high, some go further, but at least in this country, it doesn't matter what the color of your skin is because you have the right and the ability to overcome all of that. Your ideology would spit on the success of those people. Your ideology sneers at success because deal in the currency of human misery. Without it your ideology would wither, die, and be forgotten.

You want people to fail. You couldn't possibly want them to succeed with or without government intervention. Otherwise, what will you have to bitch about, hmmm? No. Your ideology revels in peoples pain and suffering. It requires that only through failure can another overreaching entity help you. Your ideology says, "Hey [insert race here] guy, look at whitey oppressing you. He has more than you do, let's see how we can take it from him and give to you."

Your ideology is a shackle that kills the human spirit to thrive. Otherwise what are you fighting for now. You are defending an ex-president being able to call everyone who doesn't agree with this current president, as racists. That's what you are defending. And then you further try to justify this defense by throwing smoke screens up by insinuating that anyone is covert racist. Your nonsense knows no bounds and you just don't care. And that's the shame of it. You will never learn.

or that such treatment could have ever impacted your success. That would get in the way of your feelings - uh, I mean, your iron-clad, emotion-free sense of morality and right and wrong.

(Rolls eyes)

You know what's funny. I used to say the same stupid shit that you do now. I used to be on your idiotic side of the ideological fence. What a mistake that was. I duped myself into seeing nothing but injustice, like you do now. Everything was just an outrage on this political issue or that political issue and over a period of time, I realized how utterly hollow that ideology was. The difference between me and you is that I learned from my mistake. You are still making it with no end in sight.

I'm not an emotionless man as you suggest, but I've learned from being on the other side what a dangerous attraction of what envy/jealousy/feelings are with respect to political policies and political ideology are. I thought I knew what right and wrong was, but I was wrong. Iron-clad, emotion free sense of right and wrong? Hardly. It's just that dealing with prigs like you, it's best to minimize the emotion in favor of trying to at least be reasonable. But your sense of reason is rooted in the principals I highlighted above and I seriously doubt there is hope for you. Good luck at life, so far you are failing it.; 9/17/09, 2:07 AM
Methadras said...: 400...; 9/17/09, 2:25 AM