February 24, 2010
"Black Folks We'd Like To Remove From Black History."
From The Root, which designates its targets as "embarrassing." Some are bad role models from pop culture, some are outright criminals, and some are just conservatives. Now, what's "embarrassing"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
136 comments:
... and some are just conservatives. Now, what's "embarrassing"?
I found it depressing.
How can a culture which rejects succesful people survive? And why all this loyalty to the Democrats who voted AGAINST the civil rights legislation and have fought a 50 year battle against poverty without making any progress?
An answer pops into my head, but I do not want to write it down.
And I have never been embarassed of a white man or woman because of their race. What a weird thing, to wish that someone of your race was not. And again, the unwritten answer pops into my head.
Trey
White people that annoy me:
1) Robin Williams
2) Hitler
19 to go.
The most disgusting liberal/progressive paradigm is that black conservatives aren't really black, are Uncle Toms, and don't count as individuals.
Stay on the thought-plantation, or else. Big daddy government,
the welfare state and the shake down artist will take care of your thinking.
Clarence Thomas is no different than OJ Simpson? Behold: the liberal brain.
Idi Amin, Clarence Thomas, Robert Mugabe, Michael Steele.
You just have to love the moral equivalency because to these morons, being a bloodthirsty dicatator is just as bad as a conservative Supreme Court Justice.
It's Looney Tunes Redux. This idiot's fall for it type of racial war cry was supposed to go away when Obama was sworn in. Why recycle material from the past? Is there a fear arising that having the highest paid jobs awarded for no known qualification or work standards except being black skinned may be coming to an end?
Being a watch nut I happen to like Flavor Flav's use of an outsize watch as a fashion statement.
Trujillo was black? That's a stretch.
White people that annoy me:
1) Robin Williams
2) Hitler
19 to go.
Derek Jeter. Or is he black?
I adhere to Morgan Freeman's view of Black History.
It's a artifical construct.
I like their reason for including Clarence Thomas on this list with Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe:
"...because he looks to the Constitution as "colorblind," says he's a man who just happens to be black and opposes government programs intended to help minorities."
That just sort of speaks for itself right there. The asshole would have men judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Clearly he's right up there with murdering despots.
The idea that Trujillo was 'self-loathing' is interesting. I truly doubt that he took common cause with all blacks (as Americans of African descent are want to do). Rather, I believe he viewed himself as a Dominican Republican first (or Spanish, whatever), and the Haitians were the 'other'.
Maguro, I think that we should be able to include Jeter on both lists.
Henry, here are a couple more: Joseph Stalin, and Carrot Top.
I'd say that Idi Amin was slightly worse than Clarence Thomas...but not worse than Michael Steele*...ha ha ha.
*Translation: it takes a lot to be worse than a RINO.
Ann, your reading 'Just Conservative' is clearly not the whole story. The short commentaries have more of a bone to pick than just their poltics. And If it were just about being conservative, then folks like Condi Rice and Colin Powell and JC Watts would also be on this list.
And for those of you that see some moral dimension to embarrassment, you're reading more into this tongue in cheek piece than is there. Its fine to say that you're embarrassed by someone's views and also to say you're embarrassed by another's actions ... it doesnt mean you're equating the badness of the views and the actions.
and TMink, how about you dont judge an entire culture by this single piece ... or better yet, dont pretend to be using this piece as a basis for your judgments of a particular culture.
This list is bizarre, in that there's pretense of seriousness (listing the Duvalier's, Mugabe, Trujillo), but then they list Clarence Thomas and Michael Steele. What, they have comitted crimes equal to murderous dictators?
Couldn't they have limited this list to African-Americans, or historical African-Americans? At least you avoid murderous foreign dictators, which are in a class unto themselves.
Imagine you're Japanese-American, with progressive politics bona fides, making a list of embarassing Asian people:
(1) Judge Lance Ito
(2) John Yoo
(2) Pol Pot
(3) Mao
Shouldn't the standard be embarassing figures, which is why you include O.J. Simpson and Marion Berry? I can then understand why you include Michael Steele and
The idea that anyone should be "embarassed" by the behavior or beliefs of someone with whom they share only skin color is inane.
Ann, your reading 'Just Conservative' is clearly not the whole story. The short commentaries have more of a bone to pick than just their poltics.
Really? You must be reading a different version than I am.
skinfolk?
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, as they used to say in the Rough Riders.
I'm sorry, but, if some black people are still victims of discrimination, they might get ahead a little faster if Leftist so-called intellectuals (black or white) started emphasizing the usage of real English by black people instead of a patois that makes them sound like the last echelon of Wheat's Louisiana Zouaves.
Oh well, they did include Marion Barry and Bongo Bob Mugabe in the list. You hafta take 'em where you can get 'em, I guess.
This sort of black-on-black violence - this digital lynching if you will - is unbecoming of Harvard University and Professor Henry Gates.
Why is he popping caps into the asses of black men and women who led the fight against institutional racism alongside him?
It's disgusting to see this sort of racism so prevalent in the Democrat Party.
It reminds me that the Democrat Party is the proud home of former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd ... scion of the Senate.
Disgusting.
Now, what's "embarrassing"?
The Root. Ask me a hard one next time.
This list is bizarre, in that there's pretense of seriousness (listing the Duvalier's, Mugabe, Trujillo), but then they list Clarence Thomas and Michael Steele. What, they have comitted crimes equal to murderous dictators?
They should have either gone all serious or all not serious. The mix is bizarre and leads you right to the "being conservative is as bad/embarassing to us as being a murderer".
the last echelon of Wheat's Louisiana Zouaves.
Thanks. I just sprayed coffee all over my monitor.
I recall a story by a fellow ACW re-enactor who encountered a few chaps doing a Tiger impression and casually remarked about the blue striped trousers as "Nice pajamas".
Some are bad role models from pop culture, some are outright criminals, and some are just conservatives
But you repeat yourself.
they didnt look too hard--they left off Kwame Kilpatrick, Willie Herenton, and most of the Ford Family from memphis--
And does anyone really give a damn about black history month? a racist construct pure and simple.
And does anyone really give a damn about black history month? a racist construct pure and simple.
Of course it is. They got the shortest month of the year!
Oh Jeter doesn't bother me. The people that keep awarding him gold gloves do -- but that's a committee.
Danielle wrote: "and TMink, how about you dont judge an entire culture by this single piece"
At 50 years old, I have seen more than this piece. As someone who minored in African American studies, I am not inclined to racism.
But the data is staggering and it is much more eloquent than I as to the problems with too many of the African American cultures.
70% of the kids grow up without a dad. Growing up without a dad is the best predictor of growing up poor and being incarcerated for boys and having a child while too young and not married for the girls.
I did not make up these facts. I am coming from a place of concern, not one of racism. See, I know black people, they bring their kids over for play dates, they come for supper, they teach Sunday School, etc. But none of my darker friends and coworkers buy into the kind of cultural genocide espoused in the article.
And you are dreaming if you think the piece was facetious.
Trey
"This list is bizarre, in that there's pretense of seriousness (listing the Duvalier's, Mugabe, Trujillo), but then they list Clarence Thomas and Michael Steele."
That's the whole point of it, dude ... to conflate actual murderers and cannibals like OJ and Idi Amin to accomplished black men such as Clarance Thomas and Michael Steele.
They hate Clarance Thomas more than Robert E. Lee. Because Clarence Thomas proves that you can be a black man in this country and succeed and be rewarded with a seat on the Supreme Court.
If you apply yourself, that is.
Clarence Thomas is the proof that whitey isn't holding you down.
In other words Clarance Thomas proves there's no racism left in America. He reminds black people that any black person can make it on their own hard work if they just apply themselves.
Just like white people.
Barack Obama will suffer this fate also as soon as they're done using him to get what they want.
The Henry Gates' and the Jesse Jacksons' remind me of Clinton and the Palestinians: In July 2000, Clinton had the Israelis willing to give the Palestinians whatever they wanted ... land, part of Jeruselem, a country of their own ... just name it. Whatever they wanted. The Israeli's were willing to surrender.
Of course Arafat couldn't take the deal. Winning would be the worst possible outcome.
Oh and white people who annoy me. David Dukes cause he is such a racist fool talking about "white rights" and the white race. He is busy playing the race card with the other idiots.
Trey
Why didn't our first black president make this list for having sex with a white intern?
Althouse- FYI -Princeton has hired Van Jones and you may be surprised at the comments on the Daily Princetonian.
wv = molita = yes let's do that again Lita!
In other words Clarance Thomas proves there's no racism left in America. He reminds black people that any black person can make it on their own hard work if they just apply themselves.
There is still plenty of racism from black and latino people though. And all liberals. And if you're black AND liberal, anything you achieve in life, say becoming president, or if you're a latino becoming a supreme court justice, you only got there by affirmative action*
*These rules of course do not apply to any conservatives, or anyone that has harsh things to say about blacks/latinos/liberals.
Garage...Ther is still a racial reaction among whites that blacks and hispanics must go through until they show by social interaction that they are under the same rules as the rest of us. The cause of that is not slavery days or illegal immigrant workers. The cause is that the blacks and hispanics often claim priviledges as reparations for what a few great-great grand parents did to their ancestors. So get over it and let the same rules apply all the time. The military does it. So can we once we stop falling for the con men's inherited guilt mantra.
So what do republicans actually think of Michael Steele? I remember liberals were initially a little wary of the choice because, back before he opened his mouth, he was thought to be bright and charismatic. Liberals were really hoping you'd choose the 'Barack the Magic Negro' CD pushing guy. Its seems MS has been just as good a spokesman for you all though !
And if you're black AND liberal, anything you achieve in life, say becoming president, or if you're a latino becoming a supreme court justice, you only got there by affirmative action*
I wouldn't say this holds true for everyone, but for Obama and Sotomayor, it's apparent. As Geraldine Ferraro said, if Obama had been white, he would never had won the nomination -- he remains less qualified than John Edwards, who at least had a successful law practice. He was slimey, but he was accomplished.
Sotomayor the Latina was appointed for both her "race" (ha) and gender, as well as her politics. No one points to her judicial temperament, and for good reason.
Voting for (or appointing) people because of their skin color (or gender, or religion, or sexual orientation) is just as bad as voting against them for the same reasons.
So what do republicans actually think of Michael Steele?
To get an answer, I think you need to go find some Republicans.
Well, I am a conservative and not a Republican, but I like most of the things I hear Mr. Steele say.
He is too new to me to know if he will do as he says, but I like many of the things he says.
Trey
Danielle ...Michael Steele is fine. He does what is needed, and he does it with style. Why would Michael be considered a problem? The big problem for us conservatives is spelled Ron Paul, the libertarian with the spell binding free thinker act.
I wouldn't say this holds true for everyone, but for Obama and Sotomayor, it's apparent.
And you wonder why blacks and hispanics have all but abandoned the GOP.
OK, I read up on Steele's positions. He is pro life like me, he is for affirmative action while I am not, he is not for a small enough government like I am, he is a man of accomplishment as the first black man elected to statewide office in Maryland, and he dealt with the oreo incidents in a way that I approve.
I would say he is OK, not conservative enough, but not a complete RINO.
So Danielle, how do you feel about Howard Dean?
Trey
And you wonder why blacks and hispanics have all but abandoned the GOP.
Because the GOP doesn't promise a free pony every election year?
Personally I would not be enamored with a political party that essentially tells me that I won't be able to get ahead in life unless they're holding my hand. But that's me.
I have donated money to only 4 candidates in my life. Steele was the first.
I like him in general but I think the media has gone out of its way to bait him into making Bidenesque gaffs. And Steele has taken the bait too often.
Garage: "And you wonder why blacks and hispanics have all but abandoned the GOP."
Hoosier Daddy: "Because the GOP doesn't promise a free pony every election year?"
Hoosier, you left out "fill my car with gas, pay my mortgage, and make all my problems go away", which IIRC was caught on tape and widely available on Youtube when Obama won.
Because the GOP doesn't promise a free pony every election year?
All blacks and hispanics are just looking for free ponies? That's seems to be the answer they get from conservatives.
I find the entire exercise to be shameful. The fundamental logical mistake is that it assumes that somehow black people are responsible for the behavior of all other black people. They are indeed so color obsessed that while it is introduced by saying “As happy as we are for the nation to get its yearly reminder that black people do exist in the context of American history...” it then lists as one of the people they want removed from the history books, Idi Amin. That would be the dictator of Uganda, who is supposedly propped up by Britain (I am always dubious of those claims that a bad guy is propped up by others, especially typical scapegoats like America, Britain, or Israel). A very bad man indeed, but what does he have to do with black American history? There are several foreigners on the list.
But back to my point, look news flash. I can be mugged by a black dude without holding it against all other black people. So can you stop feeling responsible, somehow, when a black dude acts like an idiot on TV or murders a few million of his countrymen? Rational people are beyond that kind of thinking and as for the rest... f’em.
It can’t be a coincidence that they then denounce Clarence Thomas in these terms: “That's because he looks to the Constitution as ‘colorblind,’ says he's a man who just happens to be black and opposes government programs intended to help minorities.” Given the evident racist attitudes absorbed by the author of this piece, gee, maybe Thomas has a point. Maybe we need to stop obsessing on race.
And on one hand they knock Omarosa for “perpetuat[ing] the bitchy-black-female stereotype so many of our paler brethren are accustomed to seeing on their TV screens” and then they turn around and say “I'm not sure if the late Thurgood Marshall would want to pop Clarence [Thomas] 'side his head with his gavel, but there are plenty of blacks who would volunteer to do it for him.” Well, who exactly is perpetuating a stereotype?
TMink -- i didnt follow politics when Howard Dean had a national presence, and I barely follow politics now ... but to me Howard Dean is just that LOUD guy, sounds somewhat like a pundit, like he talks to get attention, with no political savy. Clearly he's a very accomplished man though ... doctor, former governor ..etc.
so do you people really respect Steele ? I've never known Althousians to be held back by PC-ness ...
very interesting ! but I guess that's consistent with you completely missing the point of the root article.
Alert, Alert...China is starting to dump US Bonds. The price of everything including free ponies is about to double. How is the outlook for doubling your income look these days? Garage, please pass the word to your friend Obama that you want him to stop pulling China's beard about every little thing he can pragmatically find to start aavenosc fight with the Chinese.
Danielle:
Do you people really respect Howard Dean?
Fascinating that the people who believe that the color of a person's skin should dictate the content of that person's thoughts are the ones who think that other people are racists.
All blacks and hispanics are just looking for free ponies?
You tell me. Conservatives believe in individual hard work to get a head whereas liberals say it takes a village.
Like I said, I can't abide by a political party that thinks I need them to pave the way for me. I didn't need my mom and dad holding my hand after I turned 18 so I don't think I need Barry to do it either.
You tell me. Conservatives believe in individual hard work to get a head whereas liberals say it takes a village
What does that have to do with your assertion that minorities only vote for free ponies. When they hear that they don't work hard, or if they succeeded in life it was only because of affirmative action and not their brains, they rightfully believe at the very least, that you guys are assholes.
I'll take it a step further garage. If one takes an objective look at liberal policies towards minorities, from welfare, affirmative action and public housing going back to its inception and where they are today, unless you are completely devoid of reality (and I'm not saying you aren't), a rational thinking person (and I'm not saying you are) would have to conclude, but for a few exceptions, it has been a failure on a galactic level.
Yet for some bizzare reason they keep voting for the party that only promises more of the above.
White folks I'd like to remove from White History:
1) Ted Kennedy
2) Hitler
3) Ted Bundy
4) Ruth Ginsburg
5) Donny Deutsch
6) Joe Stalin
7) Howard Dean
Wow, these lists are fun once you get the MO down.
Funny I don't recall anyone saying Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas or Colin Powell only succeeded because of affirmative action. Heard a lot of folks on your side calling them house ni**ers though so I'm sure they rightfully think you guys are assholes too.
garage, everybody wants a free pony. But you can't hand them out to everybody because you'd run out of ponies. So the pony handerouters pick a few groups and promise them ponies.
Of course, that just makes more people want ponies, and the people who do get ponies just want more ponies. Plus, there aren't enough ponies in the first place.
But hey, that's the government for you. They don't have to deal in reality. They just deal in gathering votes for pony promises.
Funny I don't recall anyone saying Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas or Colin Powell only succeeded because of affirmative action
That's because they're part of your tribe, and thus exempt.
To your 1:42 comment, I don't know how to break this to you, but the overwhelmingly vast majority of people on welfare programs, food stamps, medical assistance, are WHITE.
I hope they put Huggy Bear on the list.
He was always lying to Starsky.
I want a pony!
When they hear that they don't work hard, or if they succeeded in life it was only because of affirmative action and not their brains, they rightfully believe at the very least, that you guys are assholes.
Well garage, unfortunately, I've also seen the reverse. Young blacks are "socially promoted" into college, can't hack it, or graduate with an unmarketable degree. Dreams are shattered, and when they fail to get a job because of lack of skills, they explain it away as "the system is set up for white people." They don't blame the assholes that just passed them along rather than deal with the pressure of lowering standards.
We'll be treated as liberators!
If the goal was to generate hits and associated revenue, then Mission Accomplished.
wv: exacula; Count Dracula's cousin who measured twice, bit once.
Then there's Social Security where the government said it would take ponies from everyone, breed the ponies, and then give everyone his ponies plus some extra ponies at retirement.
But bureaucrats being bureaucrats, they couldn't stand to see all those ponies sitting idle in the government stables when they could be trading them for votes. So they traded all the ponies.
When people got angry that all their ponies were gone, the bureaucrats just said, "Don't worry. We'll just take even MORE ponies from your children, and we'll give the ponies to you!"
That's government.
"That's because they're part of your tribe, and thus exempt"
That's not true. We are Hutu. They are Tutsie. Or Tootie. Whatever.
wv:blackula: an affirmative action vampire.
To your 1:42 comment, I don't know how to break this to you, but the overwhelmingly vast majority of people on welfare programs, food stamps, medical assistance, are WHITE.
Oh don't worry garage, I knew that all along. I also recall, quite vividly, the black leadership personified in His Holiness the Reverend Jackson, loudly denouncing welfare reform when it was signed as if somehow only african americans were going to suffer.
But you can take off your self righteous cloak because as I pointed out, your side engaged in a helluva lot more racially tinged comments about any black who dared toe a conservative line. You have your share of assholes to. Maybe you should man up enough to admit it.
But, pony first. Then vote.
But really, that wasn't enough ponies either for the bureaucrats' pony trading appetites.
The Chinese had plenty of ponies, and they didn't have any votes to trade them for. So the American bureaucrats borrowed a few trillion ponies from the Chinese bureaucrats and handed all the Chinese ponies out to their American friends. The Americans promised that American babies would grow up and work very hard to collect lots and lots of ponies which would then be given to the Chinese bureaucrats.
You wouldn't think that you could sign contracts with the names of people not yet living. But it's government, so you can!
Enslave the babies and the babies of the babies and the babies of the babies of the babies! Chinese ponies for everybody!
/thus ends my online time limited by Lent
@Freeman:
Then there's the bailouts, where the domestic pony breeders lost market share to the foreign breeders, and the domestic breeders had huge costs in labor, retiree benefits, and health costs, so much so that the major dometic pony farms were going out of business.
The Government stepped in and bailed these breeders out, touting it's wisdom of forcing one company to come out with hybrid ponies, and the other company sold to a french breeding farm.
Meanwhile, a Japanese breeder was recalling its ponies because they would suddenly start galloping.
/thus ends my online time limited by Lent
You spent it well, Freeman.
/thus ends my online time limited by Lent
Speaking of Lent, did you catch Biden last week on Ash Wednesday? My parish priest would dab a little smudge of ash on your forehead. Biden look like he was baptized in it.
Hi Haters, Where's Crack when we need him?
Freeman:
Your pony tale is really excellent. If you could polish it up, put it in a nice pamphlet form, maybe some conservative think tank would fund its distribution in willing elementary schools.
That would help to counteract all the liberal brainwashing that kids get in school.
Hoosier:
I saw a BBC news clip where the news readers were seriously wondering if Biden had hit his head or something.
Elementary schools? Hell, distribute it to every idiot who says the words "trust fund".
Yeah, I was wondering what was wrong with Biden. It wasn't until, hours later, some one mentioned "Ash Wednesday" that I did the forehead slap.
Garage: Justice Thomas is quite clear in his autobiography (he has only written one so far) that he was a beneficiary of affirmative action. You might read that book and compare and contrast with either of the President's autobiographies.
The Root is part of the Washington Post blog??!! I just learned that. Pretty unbelievable.
Let the ethnicity without sin throw the first stone.
Pastafarian --
"Henry, here are a couple more: Joseph Stalin, and Carrot Top."
Are you sure Carrot Top is actually human?
wv: unitylay - Not sure of def, but it sounds damned fine.
What a crock of a piece. Steele and Thomas get put on the list with Amin and Mugabe, but somehow Cynthia McKinney escapes mention. The 9/11 truther's favorite candidate, and the woman best known for abusing a DC security guard for not paying her proper deference by allowing her into a federal office building without her credentials. My first impression of The Root is starting out at rock bottom, and I don't see it improving anytime soon.
You have your share of assholes to. [sic]
You're from Indiana, right?
garage never heard of proportions when he cited his welfare statistic.
We'll be treated as liberators!
Another pointless non-sequitor spewed by garage mahal. When in doubt, just cycle through the rabig left-wing talking points.
danielle - fuck off you racist sack of shit.
They left out Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Michael Jackson, Ice Pick Slim, Huey Newton, Fred Hampton, Nicky Barnes, David Dinkens, Freeway Ricky Ross, Charles Rangel, Knucky Johnson, the Jones Brothers, or Louis Farakhan? To name a few?
Alex, does it make you feel good about yourself to attack people personally ?
Ponies? F^#k that shit!
Unicorns! Unicorns that shit rainbows!
danielle,
"Alex" is not a real person, he's a moby.
Well, I used to be a liberal, back in the '90s. The whole Clinton/Lewinsky scandal caused me slowly to turn away from "liberalism" as it exists now, in its hopelessly hypocritical and self-righteous form.
So, what I want to know is, at what point in that transformation did I become a racist? Because a hell of a lot of liberals automatically assume that you are, if you don't vote (D).
I'd be curious to know, because my views of black people haven't changed since then. Does that mean I was *always* racist, and just didn't know it??
@knox, I think that liberal Democrats enter some sort of space/time warp every day, and perpetually find themselves in 1950's Mississippi.
The rest of us, the people who work for a living, have had African-American managers and subordinates and co-workers for at least a quarter century (well, those of us who are older than a quarter century, anyway) and got used to the meaninglessness of skin color long ago.
"Alex" is not a real person, he's a moby....
Alex is Titus, bored by loaf-pinching.
There must be ponies. The air could not smell so much of horseshit unless there were ponies....The Rev. Jackson invited his mistress to accompany him to the White House to counsel Bill Clinton on the evils of adultery. Among the all-stars, there is always a hall of famer. The Rev. Jackson has set a mark for hypocrisy that will never be equaled. And he didn't even make the list.
I dislike how racism is often asserted to be southern. Everyone totally ignores northern racism.
I'm wishing The Root wasn't part of my race.
Why?
They're "embarrassing".
You're from Indiana, right?
What was your first clue Sherlock?
I'm sure you can do better than critique a typo.
Your pony tale is really excellent.
"Pony tale" tee hee
Jesus you guys can't stop to chuckle even when we poke fun at ourselves.
"DISGUSTING LIST! ZOMG conservatives were on it! We are victims of the mendacious left."
Wait, but the best ones are the "I, a white person, know who should embarass you blackies more than the silly negros on your ridiculous list."
Thanks for the spirit of fun with which you posted the link Ann.
Big Fucking Mike:
Liberals work very hard for a living. Because someone does not share your beliefs, you think they don't work for a living, have a mortgage, a business, kids in school, etc? Really? You think a WHOLE half of the United States citizenry is a bunch of shiftless welfare recipients because they are more liberal than you?!
LMAO!!!!!
How can we possibly take this list seriously (or even light-heartedly) if it doesn't include Steve Urkel? I mean, c'mon.
My honest opinion is that this piece is probably worth just about as much as the paper it's printed on. What a waste.
It could have been funnier, for sure K-com. The murderous dictators definitely fucked it up. You are pushing the envelope even with OJ, since double murder is not exactly a rolling-in-the-aisles topic. But the genocidal despots? Mmmmm no. They should have stuck with Marion Barry and Flav types. Michael Steele and Alan Keyes are a win because they really are clowns. But Clarence Thomas.....hmmm. Ashamed of him? No. He is nothing if not a brilliant jurist. There is nothing embarrassing about him. He just pisses me off with his right wing assholery, being that I am liberal.
It was kind of funniesh. But nothing to get worked up over.
Wait, but the best ones are the "I, a white person, know who should embarass you blackies more than the silly negros on your ridiculous list."
I'm assuming that black people are normal human beings. Normal human beings are offended by the notion that they're so repugnant that they should be stricken from history.
But I could be wrong. Maybe black people aren't normal human beings, and Martin Luther King lied to me. :)
When they hear that they don't work hard, or if they succeeded in life it was only because of affirmative action and not their brains, they rightfully believe at the very least, that you guys are assholes.
The downside to being rewarded for race instead of merit is that people assume your position is due to race instead of merit.
Funny how that works.
It is cute when you blame bias on a policy. "It is logical to think black people are inferior because of policy x."
The downside to being rewarded for race instead of merit is that people assume your position is due to race instead of merit.
Funny how that works.
Explain, smug guy, why it is so popular and pithy for many conservatives to say that Barack Obama's election was an "affirmative action" vote? You see, smug person, whether AA went away tomorrow - hell, whether it never existed - there are those people who would posit that anything a non-white male person achieved was because a liberal white person "gave it to us". There is no way that it was gained by merit. Of course not. Voters/stockholders/the coach/team owner just felt sorry, or felt it would be novel to "give it to us" due to their socialist agenda.
Funny how that works.
Weezie: If you haven't you should read Clarence Thomas' autobiography. Whether you are a leftie or a rightie it is a story of an incredible struggle and quite moving.
Explain, smug guy, why it is so popular and pithy for many conservatives to say that Barack Obama's election was an "affirmative action" vote?
Because it's true?
Me, upthread: As Geraldine Ferraro said, if Obama had been white, he would never had won the nomination -- he remains less qualified than John Edwards, who at least had a successful law practice. He was slimey, but he was accomplished.
Each passing day reveals the depths of Obama's inexperience and incompetence. He can't appoint, he can't delegate, he can't decide. He can talk, and he does it a lot, but it rarely amounts to much of anything.
Weezie
> Explain, smug guy, why it is so popular and pithy for many conservatives to say that Barack Obama's election was an "affirmative action" vote?
While I don’t use rhetoric that harsh, still it is obvious that his race helped him win his office. The fact is that Obama is the least qualified president in over 140 years. The only president I can name with less experience on day one was Lincoln, who lost his senate bid.
Now, you might go, “well, there you go, Lincoln was our best president, so I guess qualifications don’t matter.” Bluntly I think that would be confusing luck with intelligence. We were lucky that Lincoln was such an amazing president; it didn’t mean that he was the smart choice in 1860, at least in terms of his qualifications and indeed, one can suspect that the average voter in 1860 focused more on Lincoln’s political positions, than his experience and qualifications.
Are you really going to pretend that there isn’t something special about having a black president, finally? Think of how many prominent African Americans told us that his election literally changed how they looked at our country. And I will confess plainly that when I had to choose, I felt that all things being equal I would have picked the black candidate.
But all things were not equal. McCain has serious flaws, not the least of which was McCain-Fiengold, but it was no contest between him and Obama. The fact that Obama personally insulted me with that “clinging to guns and God” routine certainly didn’t help matters. Now do you think it is possible that some people so wanted our country to cross that milestone that they saw what they wanted to see rather than what was there? They wanted to see a black man ready to be president; instead what was there was Obama, the worst president in my memory.
Of course Obama got a bump in the polls because of his race. Anyone who denies that just looks like a fool.
A.W.
You are right that Obama's senate win as well as his presidential win were lucky as hell. I don't deny that he also rocked the Morgan Freeman Factor (wise black guy as president - or even god, lol). And hell yes, he was there at the right time as the opposition candidate flamed out for one reason or the other. However, that kind of luck is not uncommon. It does not just happen to non-white males. Clinton rode that happy luck all the way to the White House in 1992. Scott Brown just rode that luck to a kickass victory. What is galling is that because Obama is black it is "affirmative action" rather than the usual garden variety luck that sometimes happens to a candidate who otherwise would have likely been an also-ran. I think we agree. I do NOT deny that the novelty of who he was as well as luck were factors. I just don't think that all of the liberal white people woke up one day and said, "Hey, lets make it a priority to find some poor negro to put into the Oval Office. They will NEVER get there unless we assign it to the poor things."
Michael, I actually was gifted Clarence Thomas's autobio and it is on my list of must-reads. I think it will be fantastic. I attended a function where he was the speaker and he was electrifying.
Weezie
You completely missed my point. My point is that race was definitely a factor, which you seem to concede with the morgan freeman remark. Affirmative action is often defined as race being a factor. So it is perfectly fair to call him an affirmative action president, even if I don’t do it, because its not really affirmative action as I think of it.
But your comments do raise an interesting point. If Senator Ryan didn’t blow it with his megahottie of a wife Jerri Ryan (just search for “7 of 9” in google images and try to keep from drooling), Obama wouldn’t have been president. Which officially makes Ryan idiot of the decade.
A.W.
Which means that any white candidate that ever triumphed over a black candidate must be an "affirmative action" candidate because it would be naive to think that there were no white (or black) people out there who did not take a candidate's whiteness into consideration when pulling the lever.
Using your premise, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were affirmative action candidates. Because surely race was a factor in them beating both Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes in their respective primaries.
You see where I am coming from? Saying that race played a factor is one thing. Saying it is Affirmative Action is a nasty pejorative that implies that they did nothing to earn their votes. That the vote was somehow stolen from the more deserving white candidate.
A.W.:
If I were a conservative, I would fly to Chicago to beat Ryan's butt every time Obama signed a bill into law. That was such a colossal fumble.
Weezie
> Which means that any white candidate that ever triumphed over a black candidate must be an "affirmative action" candidate because it would be naive to think that there were no white (or black) people out there who did not take a candidate's whiteness into consideration when pulling the lever.
Um, no if you discriminate in favor of a white guy for being white, its not affirmative action.
But if you mean it is race-based, let me say this bluntly. I think there are more people who voted for Obama because of his race than against him because of his race. Did a few KKK idiots vote against him? of course. But they were outnumbered by black panther idiots, and the keith olbermanns of the world. I bluntly think that the preference for black candidates is outweighed by any preference against them. that’s a matter of opinion, of course, but there you go.
And margins matter and underlying qualification matters too. now I am sure you won’t say Bush was better qualified than Keyes, but actually he was, circa 2000. Keyes was what? ambassador to some country back then? That’s nothing. Bush on the other hand was the governor of Texas, one of the few states that aren’t in crisis right now. Governor beats ambassador any day of the week. There is nothing out of place about a governor being nominated and an ambassador losing. Indeed, I can’t think of a single president who was merely an ambassador before becoming president.
Now maybe if Keyes was a governor, too, and he ran a tough nomination fight against Bush and Bush only edged him out a little bit, then maybe you could be in the range to argue that Bush won because he was white. I would disagree, but it would be a credible position.
But when a mere ex-ambassador gets blown out by a governor? Even if race was a factor, it is unlikely to have been decisive. Bush’s margin of victory over Keyes was much later than any reasonable estimate of the margin of bigotry.
Besides, Keyes’ lack of success can probably be better explained by the debilitating discrimination aimed at people who sound like Muppets. :-)
> Saying it is Affirmative Action is a nasty pejorative that implies that they did nothing to earn their votes.
I dispute that this is ordinarily what it means. Have you read the affirmative action cases? They are generally not about people who have done nothing to earn their position, but people who are marginally less qualified getting a boost. Like a law school might decide to pick the african american who got a 170 on his LSAT over some white guy who got a 172. Its not like as if the black dude is a drooling idiot in that situation, but obviously his race played a factor. Whatever you think of that, that is what affirmative action typically is.
Hell, I probably am a beneficiary of affirmative action. it’s a long story, but when I was in high school I faced such severe discrimination based on disability that I ended up dropping out. Later I got my GED and went to a mid-level state school. I got a perfect GPA and a 172 on the LSAT. At the law school I wanted to go to, the average GPA was lower (as you would assume), and the average LSAT score was 170. If you are in law, you would be able to guess which school I am talking about, but I won’t drop names. So on the surface it sounds like my admission there would be pretty normal, but there was one thing. The undergraduate school I went to was much lower ranked than the schools that normally contribute to that law school. Did they decide to give me a chance that if I was not disabled I wouldn’t have gotten? Beats me. But I can’t deny that affirmative action might have played a factor.
(and incidentally, I had no choice about revealing that disability even during the application process. I didn’t want to reveal it out of fear of discrimination, but I recognize that my fear might have been unfounded.)
(cont)
> That the vote was somehow stolen from the more deserving white candidate.
Well, if Obama had not been black, do you think he would have been president?
I don’t think so. I mean, my God, Barrack Obama himself said in 2004 he was not up to the job. Why is it unfair to agree with him?
> If I were a conservative, I would fly to Chicago to beat Ryan's butt
Hell, forget as a conservative, AS A MAN I would like to kick his behind for doing Jeri wrong.
Explain, smug guy, why it is so popular and pithy for many conservatives to say that Barack Obama's election was an "affirmative action" vote?
Because if Barack Obama was white, Hillary Clinton would be President.
A.W.: I think it was a combo of Bush Fatigue, a "throw the bums out" mentality, a fervent desire for a liberal FDR-like savior, and the novelty of his blackness. You could argue that as similar as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's policy ideas were, it was his new face - his black new face that tipped the balance. I don't think she was more "deserving" though. I would have voted for her, but I don't know that she would have been any more effective. The GOP took her ass down before over healthcare and I am sure they would have enjoyed doing it again.
Also, we have a history of voting in people that we like the look of and who talk pretty. Sarah Palin, Scott Brown, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a host of other idiots occupy the Hall of What the Hell Are You Doing In Office.
Revenant: And you think women don't benefit the MOST FROM affirmative action? Really? You don't think the same folks would be smacking her with the Affirmative Action Trollhammer? Please.
"If she weren't a woman, [insert appropriate white man here] would be president! Damn wimmin voters voting with their vajayjays!!"
Geraldine Ferraro said, absolutely, that she benefited from being Geraldine and not Geraldo... that Geraldo Ferraro would have never been the VP spot on the Dem ticket.
This was after she got smeared as a racist for suggesting that Obama was benefited by his race.
Simple truth of it is, had his mother run off with a foreign PhD student from Sweden, he would not have represented the opportunity for people to envision, with reason, what it meant to elect a black man (or a woman of any color).
People can fuss over just how much of a difference it made and just how much people were willfully blind to his lack of experience or ignoring his political views and how much his presentation of his experience and views accounted for that but at the end of the day, and it's a fact that can't be refuted, only denied... Obama's race got him elected.
It wasn't harder for a black man to get elected president in this country, it was easier.
I'd always thought it would be the Republicans who breached that wall first... that the Dems would keep up the talk without the substance... but given the opportunity a whole heck of a lot of people were inspired by his race.
And maybe it even did some good... speaking of kids needing heroes. I'm sure that the fact he's black did many of the good things people were hoping for.
It's just too bad we're stuck with the rest of it for the next bunch of years.
whether AA went away tomorrow - hell, whether it never existed - there are those people who would posit that anything a non-white male person achieved was because a liberal white person "gave it to us". There is no way that it was gained by merit.
Of course some people would still say it. The critical difference is that it wouldn't be true.
Take, say, a business looking to hire employees. It hires people from Race X or from Race Y, based on merit. Sure, there are some racists Xers convinced that the Ys get a free ride, and some racist Yers convinced the same is true of group X. But because people are picked on merit, it isn't actually TRUE of either group.
Then some genius gets it in his head that Race X is underrepresented. He implements an affirmative action program for Race X, lowering the criteria necessary for hiring. The problem there, of course, is that the only members of Race X hired under this program who wouldn't have been hired under the old meritocracy are those who aren't actually competent to make the cut -- in other words, people who are less competent than any of the members of Race Y who work for that company, all of whom had to pass the old standard of competence.
So not only is the company going out and hiring people that the Yers rightly know from day one are inferior to them -- they are lowering the average competence of the Race X group by mixing unqualified people in with the existing, qualified members of X.
So whereas, before this brilliant plan was enacted, only a racist would have said "on average, the Xs are worse employees than the Ys" -- now, thanks to the miracle of affirmative action, anyone who says that is actually stating an objective fact. Thanks to affirmative action, what was once racist myth is now a truth the members of Race Y confront every workday. Brilliant!
So not only is affirmative action revoltingly racist in its own right -- it also teaches people people who actually earned their position in life to look down on members of the races that "benefit" from it. If the government had set out specifically to make sure that racism endured as long as humanly possible, they couldn't have chosen a better program than this.
Revenant: And you think women don't benefit the MOST FROM affirmative action?
Definitely not. Being female is not a significant advantage in either political party, because women don't feel much solidarity with female candidates and both genders have a slight bias towards men as leaders.
In contrast, being black is an enormous benefit to a Democratic politician, because black voters comprise around a third of the base and are overwhelmingly likely to favor black candidates over white ones.
Really? You don't think the same folks would be smacking her with the Affirmative Action Trollhammer? Please.
Metaphorically speaking, Obama is the affirmative action candidate and Clinton is the legacy candidate. :)
Weezie
> I think it was a combo of Bush Fatigue, a "throw the bums out" mentality, a fervent desire for a liberal FDR-like savior, and the novelty of his blackness. You could argue that as similar as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's policy ideas were, it was his new face - his black new face that tipped the balance.
Which concedes my whole point.
> I don't think she was more "deserving" though. I would have voted for her, but I don't know that she would have been any more effective. The GOP took her ass down before over healthcare and I am sure they would have enjoyed doing it again.
I suspect Hillary would have been smart enough to bury the health care proposal.
Anyway, as far as deserving, hey, I voted in the dem primary against her and for obama, mostly because I wanted to see an end to the clintons in politics.
Obama wasn’t more deserving than hillary, but he was no less deserving than edwards, at least until the scandal broke. And he definitely was not more deserving than mccain.
> Sarah Palin, Scott Brown, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a host of other idiots occupy the Hall of What the Hell Are You Doing In Office.
I will respectfully state that only Ahnold deserves that kind of derision. I mean forgetting that Palin isn’t holding any kind of office, why do you think she had 80% approval on the day she was nominated. And to be blunt, the attacks on her have been irrational.
For instance take “troopergate.” Sarah Palin, her sister and her son all state that her sister’s ex-husband, the trooper in the “gate,” threated to kill Palin’s father. Then it is alleged that she used “undue influence” to get that trooper fired. Um, try this. Try threatening to murder your boss’s father. see how long you keep your job. But because she allegedly tried to get him fired, this was some kind of scandal. Personally, I would have less respect for her if she didn’t.
As for Brown, um, seriously, what is the objection? He seems reasonably smart, well spoken, and reasonably thoughtful. Being a senator isn’t that hard. You just have to vote, and talk. Its precisely the lack of difficulty in being a senator that makes me believe that being a senator is a poor preparation for being president.
Synova
> Simple truth of it is
I have long joked "what would you get if you made Obama white? John Edwards." I had to revise that when the scandal started leaking out, but you get my point. They have virtually the same qualities. Pretty, well-spoken lawyers with no real substance to them.
A.W.
You might be right. If Obama passes his priorities and the economy turns around, we will be having a different conversation in a few years. If not, I will be (bitterly) congratulating you in 2012.
I doubt Clinton would have fared better on healthcare. And she would not have backed down just because the Republicans were doubling down on her either. The GOP may think that because they have healthcare, everything is fine, but the people who supported both Clinton and Obama want some kind of substantive health care reform. Tax cuts and health savings accounts are not what we want either. Regardless of whether it was Clinton or Obama, we would be here. There is a strong possibility though that universal care would be passed under Clinton. The reason the GOP hated her hubby so much was that he was able to look them dead in the eye while inserting the knife between their ribs. Clinton was immune to GOP bullying. Perhaps his wife would have been similarly badassed. We will see because she will likely run again and win next time.
Alas, Obama does not have Clinton's balls of steel. Maybe he will grow a set, maybe not. If he is brave enough to crush the opposition under his heel like a bug and push reconciliation through, I will retract my statement about his lack of balls. If he continues to let the minority run the show, then he deserves to lose.
As far as substance is concerned: Brown, Palin, and McCain for that matter have about as much substance as Obama. I don't blame any of our politicians for being full of shit. They are elected by a mostly stupid, slobbering, and angry constituency that is powered by resentment toward the "other side" but not a whole lot of information. I like to think that I am well-informed, well-read, and reasonable. Thus, I can snootily look down on the people who screech about keeping government out of their Medicare. Or the folks who declare that they have a commitment to the interests of Israel but wonder who Prime Minster 'Benjamin Yahoo' is.
Also, we are conflicted. We want our public services. We love them. Yet, we hate paying for them. We want freebies. We want our wars, but we don't want a war tax to pay for them. We want absolute security, but don't want to pay for the massive security infrastructure we have created. We want expensive walls to keep out the brown folk down south, but apparently we think that the Immigration Fairy will pay for that.
We are an under-informed, intellectually lazy, and childishly delusional nation of voters. I am not sure why we seem to expect that our elected representatives would reflect anything other than the folks who voted them in.
Sorry for the long and mostly negative post. But I am of the opinion that no matter which way the political pendulum swings, if we continue to fetishize being ill-informed as if being an ignorant jackass is a Great American Value, we can only go in one direction. See: Sinclair Lewis, 1935.
Weezie
> You might be right. If Obama passes his priorities and the economy turns around, we will be having a different conversation in a few years
The best chance our economy has is if he doesn’t pass his priorities.
> If not, I will be (bitterly) congratulating you in 2012.
Dude, I don’t want Obama to fail. I just know he will. If by 2012, the economy is doing wonderful, I won’t bitterly congratulate anyone, I will simply congratulate obama, and with no bitterness.
> And she would not have backed down just because the Republicans were doubling down on her either.
I think you overestimate Clinton’s sincerity, but that is a matter of opinion, obviously.
> the people who supported both Clinton and Obama want some kind of substantive health care reform.
Well, the people really don’t. they feel 1) we can’t afford it and 2) the government is likely to make it worse, not better.
> Clinton was immune to GOP bullying.
And wedding vows...
The reason why the GOP hated clinton is because he was out and out corrupt.
> If he is brave enough to crush the opposition under his heel like a bug and push reconciliation through, I will retract my statement about his lack of balls.
Except its not really up to him. first you have to find 51 senators. Now there are 58 democrats and whatever joe lieberman is, but are you sure that you won’t lose some of them just on the principle that the filibuster needs to be preserved?
And even then it only passed the house the first time with a margin of 5 votes, and they are all facing election next year. only 3 people have to change their mind. Last night on o’reilly, kucinich said he wouldn’t vote for it, so that’s 1. Two to go.
> As far as substance is concerned: Brown, Palin, and McCain for that matter have about as much substance as Obama.
Bull. Palin was the governor of a state and mayor of a town. Besides president, what administrative job has Obama ever done?
And McCain had decades in the senate, and led fighter planes in Vietnam.
As for Brown, yeah, Brown has about as much substance as Obama, but then Brown only wants to do the job of a senator. I never said obama wasn’t qualified to be a senator, only that he wasn’t qualified to be president. It would have been interesting, though, if he had a real fight in ryan.
Obama has exceeded the peter principle more than any human in history.
> They are elected by a mostly stupid, slobbering, and angry constituency that is powered by resentment toward the "other side" but not a whole lot of information.
Wow, that is elitist as hell, and, well... wrong.
> Thus, I can snootily look down on the people who screech about keeping government out of their Medicare.
One sign holder. By the way, how ignorant is it for women to claim that in regards to abortion “keep your laws off of my body” but then advocate for the federal government to take over healthcare. And how ignorant is it that a majority of democrats don’t realize that the precedent set by Roe v. Wade might cause them problems in their takeover of the health care system?
> Or the folks who declare that they have a commitment to the interests of Israel but wonder who Prime Minster 'Benjamin Yahoo' is.
I never heard that statement before, but bluntly you don’t need to know much about isreali politics to know who the goods guys are in that struggle. all you have to do is look at who is suicide bombing civilians and support the other side.
> We want our public services. We love them. Yet, we hate paying for them.
Speak for yourself. I want our government cut way back.
(cont)
> We want absolute security, but don't want to pay for the massive security infrastructure we have created.
Well, ironically if we pay for wars and prosecute them sanely, we won’t need so much security. Offense beats defense any day of the week. Its better for civil liberties and cheaper, too.
> We want expensive walls to keep out the brown folk down south[.]
Yeah, god forbid we ask that the law be enforced.
But big picture, as much as you say you are informed, you seem to love every single proposal that is driving our debt into a deep dark hole. And like many liberals you seem to think that government action produces no reaction.
For instance, you note the illegal immigration issue, but you don’t know what drives it. What the illegal immigrants in this country should really be called is the black market of labor. Why do they do the jobs Americans won’t do? Because once a person is classified as an employee, tons of federal regulations kick in, including minimum wage laws that don’t actually work economically, to name only one. The illegal immigration trends are driven by a need to hire people free of federal regulation.
And you talk about paying for our services, as though increasing the taxes has no effect on revenue. The rich are the most mobile people on earth. Do you really think they can’t fly to some tax haven country if you tax them enough?
I remember a few years ago reading about how the combination of extreme regulation and ridiculous malpractice risks had driven every obstetrician out of the District of Columbia. All of this was done to protect the patients, but do you think those pregnant women in Washington, D.C. were better, or worse off, for all that regulation?
The fact is big spending liberalism is unsustainable. And as one wag said, that which is unsustainable, will end. Look at California as a warning. That state is on the verge of collapse and the richest citizens are leaving in droves. Obama’s plan to get us out of recession is to take more money into the inefficient federal government and then let the government decide where best to spend it. So we get cash for clunkers, which the Dems pretend was a big success. But let’s run the numbers, shall we? Each pay out was at most $4,500 per car. If you do the math that means it cost an average of $24K per payout to distribute that amount. Does that sound like an efficient use of wealth. And then those cars purchased are supposed to be destroyed. That is literally destroying whatever wealth was contained in that car. You don’t create economic success by breaking windows. What we need, then, is not more spending, but a radical cut in spending. I suppose when the Chinese stop lending to us, or we start defaulting, such cuts will be inevitable but I am kind of hoping it happens before it comes to that.
I would be careful looking down your nose at supposedly the ignorant unwashed masses when you support a range of policies that are going to take this country straight off a cliff, starting with healthcare “reform.”
LOL. You did not address the fundamental premise of my post.
What is a "sane war" and how does making it sane somehow make it pay for its self without tax revenue? Does the Benevolent Angel of War Funding suddenly appear of you wage a "sane" war?
I support paying as you go. If we want a program or a war, we reach in our wallet and pay for it. If not, we don't get it. Healthcare, I am all about a tax to pay for it. If we want to "enforce the law" on immigration, we pay for whatever agency has provide the manpower and the resources to enforce the law. Period. Nothing is free. Nothing.
If you want to privatize everything, fine. That is not free either. Corporations don't provide services out of national pride or kindness. You can't ask for privatization and then cry when it costs you 20 bucks to go down to the Verizon owned local park and feed the ducks.
Just sayin'.
We CAN have a libertarian utopia. It might be pretty great. But it won't be cheap. Not by a long shot. You think you pay a lot of taxes for services? Wait until you have to pay the fees for your privately owned police force, military, fire department, transportation authority, fully unregulated utilities, and food inspectors, etc.
Weezie
> LOL. You did not address the fundamental premise of my post.
You were kind of all over the place. I wasn’t aware of any fundamental premise, except that the people are stupid or something.
> What is a "sane war" and how does making it sane somehow make it pay for its self without tax revenue?
Of course we need some taxes, but in the particular case of Afghanistan and Iraq, I propose cutting other programs until we pay for them.
And I said that we need to prosecute it sanely. That means things like rules of engagement that permit our soldiers to win, but that is another topic.
> I support paying as you go.
Well, your president doesn’t. And yeah, Bush apparently didn’t either, but on that topic the difference between Bush and Obama is like the difference between OJ Simpson and Jack the Ripper.
> Healthcare, I am all about a tax to pay for it.
Raising taxes in the middle of a recession. What could go wrong?
> If we want to "enforce the law" on immigration, we pay for whatever agency has provide the manpower and the resources to enforce the law. Period. Nothing is free. Nothing.
Again, cut other programs until it is paid for. Actually cut other programs beyond what is necessary to pay for this. Cut them down to radical levels. I am thinking something much closer to civil war era levels of service.
> Corporations don't provide services out of national pride or kindness. You can't ask for privatization and then cry when it costs you 20 bucks to go down to the Verizon owned local park and feed the ducks.
First, you leap from me opposing the massive welfare and regulatory state to me wanting to privatize the police. As if there is nothing in between. Try this sometime. Crack open the regulations for HIPAA. They go on for at least 1,000 pages talking about all the rules about when you can disclose health information, what you have to do to protect them, and on and on. the most maddening part was when i noticed the title of the regulations: “Administrative Simplification.” Wow, over 1,000 of simplicity!
Not to mention a tax code that the government’s own tax preparers can’t comprehend. Well, at least the republicans reversed the liberal principle that if you made a mistake on your taxes you were presumptively guilty of intentional tax evasion. Its funny that today’s liberals want all kinds of trial rights for terrorists that they opposed for ordinary citizens accused of wrongdoing by the IRS.
(cont)
As for the claim that libertarianism is expensive, don’t make me laugh. Are you really going to say the government is the efficient actor?
I mean I didn’t propose privatizing the police, but let’s suppose we do. So then you get two communities of like size, and community A hires police corporate A. And community B hires police corporation B. Let’s call those companies PCA and PCB. Imagine that in community A, crime is low and the police are cheap. And in B, crime is high and the police are expensive. What do you expect community B to do? To fire PCB and hire PCA, which will expand its operations. So that is a privatization model that would create incentives to deliver better service at lower prices.
You believe in the fundamental efficiency of government. I don’t. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in government, but please don’t try to pretend the argument for big government is efficiency. If you believe that, I have a $500 hammer to sell you.
Let’s not engage in selective realism here. Of course corporations are greedy, but they are constrained in their greed by competition—at least if liberals actually allow there to be competition. These days its all about using big brother government as your ally to strangle the little man. Its called crony capitalism. So for instance, do you know why Walmart publicly supports obamacare? Because they are already paying for that level of care, and they want their competitor, target, to have to pay the same. And seas of regulation ensure that only the companies big enough to afford teams of lawyers can avoid hefty fines. I mean maybe you missed it, but the FTC proposed to force every person who was paid on a deferred basis—that is paid after the work done to earn it was done—to check the payor for signs of identity theft. That means every doctor who bills on a monthly basis, and more to the point, even the simple janitor at a supermarket. And meanwhile the same out of control agency wrote a bunch of vague and expansive rules for bloggers. But don’t worry, they say, we will apply these rules selectively. For free speech advocates, that is precisely the concern.
Harold Ford once said that a government that gives you everything, can take everything away. Yeah, who would imagine Ford would say something so wise? This government is too massive. We can’t afford it and it is corrosive to our freedom.
That which is unsustainable will have to stop. One way or the other.
Ah, brain fart. that was "gerald ford," not "harold ford." Do'h.
hey, look, more of the genius of getting big government involved in our lives.
Like isn't it great that the government is trying to help single mothers get their child support? Like take this deadbeat dad. He fathered a child in 1995 and then refused to pay child support.
And what is this POS's defense?
Well, he was seven years old. i.e. not the father.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/18/state-tries-to-steal-child-sup
But of course only the rubes and wild-eyed libertarians think government is out of control.
You are right that I have been all over the place. I am rant-tastic!
Do you think crony capitalism will go away with smaller government? LMAO! Government meddling can definitely make things worse, but it does not cause people to be greedy and corrupt. They freely do that under any conditions.
There are places where up to 80 percent of Wal Mart employees are on public assistance of some kind. They are VERY comfortable with paying crappy wages and letting their employees make up the difference with food stamps and Medicare. Target pays a bit better than Wal Mart and their products are of a marginally better quality. I don't know if a public insurance option will change that. I am fairly certain that Wal Mart will still be a shitty place to work and they will still sell a bunch of fucking junk. Who knows though. You might be right.
And guess what. Obama is your president too. Unless you are planning to go to Canada in a huff and renounce your citizenship (I have a gorgeous remodeled loft in Vancouver if you want to buy it - no... never mind, I might need it if we get a president Palin).
I agree that we fundamentally disagree on whether it is the public or private sector that we should trust with our infrastructure. I don't trust the private sector with it. You don't trust the public sector with it. We will never convince each other that our way is the best way.
We can take comfort in the fact that we are not beheading/shooting each other over our differences (aside from the odd bomb/suicide pilot/gynecologist shooting).
And on your parting quote of Gerald Ford: Indeed. But as the last couple of years has shown us, the private sector can giveth, and also taketh away just as efficiently than any government entity.
You seem like a really nice person. It has been a pleasure ranting/talking with you about the issues. I like having these conversations because it reminds me that all sides want the best for our country but have fundamentally different ideas for getting there I just don't buy into the "the other side is eeeeeevil!!1!" meme.
Cheers!
Weezie
> Do you think crony capitalism will go away with smaller government?
I think it will decrease and it will become harder to hide. Its easier to hide a $500 hammer in a $1 Trillion dollar budget than a $10 Billion dollar one, for instance, just to throw around some numbers.
As for the walmart stuff, its been an open secret that walmart is doing this as part of its warfare against target.
> And guess what. Obama is your president too.
Fair enough, but you know what I was saying. You voted for the guy, or act like you did.
> I agree that we fundamentally disagree on whether it is the public or private sector that we should trust with our infrastructure.
It depends on what you define as infrastructure.
And I think you miss my more fundamental disagreement that the private industry is generally cheaper than government.
> And on your parting quote of Gerald Ford: Indeed. But as the last couple of years has shown us, the private sector can giveth, and also taketh away just as efficiently than any government entity.
Really? Give me an example.
I can give you an example of the government f---ing up your life. To repeat myself:
> it’s a long story, but when I was in high school I faced such severe discrimination based on disability that I ended up dropping out.
When the public schools won’t give you a fair shake, most people can’t afford to go anywhere else due to the structure of our k-12 system. My parents suffered the outrage of their son facing discrimination at the hands of the government and still having to pay for the education that their son was denied. Can you name any private company that can get away with charging you for something you didn’t receive?
They spend $8k per student in D.C.—do you think they are getting their money’s worth? Or do you think those kids could do a lot better getting the cash instead of the crappy schools, and being allowed to spend it on the private education of their choice? The answer to me is self-evident. Maybe private industry is profit-motivated, but so long as you match that motive to customer satisfaction, it will usually do better than any government bureaucrat for whom your individual needs and satisfaction is nothing more than a bother.
And no, obama isn't evil. but he seems to have an agenda that would make us an annex of europe.
Here I go with another meandering response (I am usually more succinct and articulate - I think - but I blame the cold medicine, lol):
I know people who worked hard and made a very good living for themselves who suddenly found that they had nothing due to the collapse of their bank and the stock market crash. I knew people back in the 80s who lost it all in the S and L collapses. I know that there is inherent risk in the financial sector. I don't feel that when you invest you are guaranteed profit. But we do know that the private sector can take your money, gamble it, lose their shirts, then threaten to bring the country to its knees if we don't pay up.
They can shake us down way better than the government ever could.
We can say "we shoulda let them fail!!". But then neither of us would be having this conversation. We would be too busy standing in a breadline. Now that we got fucked with no lube and our date has gone home, we should be thinking of ways to NEVER let that happen again. If a company is too big to fail because it would take down our entire economy, shouldn't it be too big to exist? Instead, we seem to be willing to forget what just happen and pin all of the blame the 'poors' for stupidly getting expensive houses (which was stupid, but not the entire reason for the debacle). If the financial industry finds another bullshit, built-on-sand way to grift the hell out of us, we will happily bend over for it again and again. Then blame ourselves...rinse...repeat.
The one place that DOES shakedown the people of this country like crazy is is primary education. You are darn right about that. That shit does not work on any level. It does not prepare poor and minority children for college (our college system is still outstanding, thank goodness). Middle and upper class kids get marginally better schools, but are able to supplement with tutors, extracurricular workshops, and activities that prepare them for exams and college level coursework. If we are spending nearly 10k a head in every city on our schools and people are STILL coming out of them ill prepared for even the most basic job or community college, something is truly jacked up. That money would definitely be better spent elsewhere. This system is literally holding us hostage and robbing us.
Growing up in the late 70s early 80s in California, I remember that brief, shining period of time when Jerry Brown was governor and they really were creative about public education. I suffered from dyslexia, a speech impediment, and a learning disability. Instead of putting me on the short bus for being an idiot and forgetting about me, the school brought in a speech therapist and a specialist for the dyslexia and learning disability. I stayed with my class level but spent a couple of hours after school working with the specialist on my assignments. I saw the speech therapist three or four times a week. It was awesome. I never had to get extra time on tests, I did not have to get medicine, nor did I have to be held back. When I got to high school and excelled in all college preparatory courses. When I tell people about that they assume I went to a private school. It was a public school. I am not sure that that schools will ever work like that again. They have completely devolved into a hellish stew of bureaucrats and teacher's unions (and ignorant, entitled parents).
Anyhoo, I am rambling. Again, it is lovely having this conversation with you. What was this thread originally about again, lol!
Oh and no, the public schools did not indoctrinate me either. We did hold hands and sing the odd Three Dog Night song though occasionally, lol.
Also:
I am so sorry for the nightmarish experience you suffered at the hands of the craptacular public school system. I hope that we can get the momentum to reform/scrap it for some kind of public/private hybrid where families have choices and don't have to suffer that kind of injustice.
Weezie
> We can say "we shoulda let them fail!!". But then neither of us would be having this conversation. We would be too busy standing in a breadline.
Speak for yourself. And if you don’t let them fail, then what is their incentive to stop taking stupid risks?
> we should be thinking of ways to NEVER let that happen again.
Ah, so we are expecting the government to come in and figure out all the stupid self-destructive things a business might do and make them avoid that. Given that the United States government is on the road to fiscal meltdown, I am not sure the government is in the position to figure what is a sustainable approach. I could see it now, “first, businesses should learn not to spend more money than they have coming in.” *snort*
> If a company is too big to fail because it would take down our entire economy, shouldn't it be too big to exist?
I don’t buy the premise. I never believed any of these companies were too big to fail. And the best stimulus would have been to radically cut the size of government, and pay down some debt, and give us all a tax break, at least those of us who pay taxes.
> pin all of the blame the 'poors' for stupidly getting expensive houses (which was stupid, but not the entire reason for the debacle).
Which is another good point. The Federal Government caused the housing bubble that so-disastrously collapsed. And mind you this is a bi-partisan f--- up going all the way back to Carter. So the same government that created a large part of the problem is going to be the solution?
> (our college system is still outstanding, thank goodness).
And have you ever wondered why? Because every school, including the “public” ones rely on tuition. Funny how the quality goes up when survival is closely tied to customer satisfaction.
> Jerry Brown was governor and they really were creative about public education.
I was in Cali in the early 80’s. they were sure creative about education. They creatively sucked.
That being said I am glad they treated you decently. My experience was directly the opposite. And either way, most of the time you are trapped in whatever you get from the government. Which is why I want the government to have real competition. Less government, not more. And I apply those lessons across the board.
> Oh and no, the public schools did not indoctrinate me either.
I think they try to indoctrinate kids more and more, but I don’t think it sticks. I mean if indoctrination worked so well, no kids would get pregnant as teenager, and no one would take any drugs, not even alcohol. In fact its very often to reach a level of uncoolness below “you teachers want you to do it.”
Post a Comment