November 14, 2011
How much evidence do you need? Analyzing the Herman Cain accusations.
Next, Glenn introduces the subject of race: What's with conservatives loving a black man? And what's with liberals' eagerness to destroy him? (The splice in the middle of this segment isn't censorship. Our phone connection failed, and we had to restart.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
80 comments:
Our phone connection failed
Riiight.
What was that conspiracy theory you were working on a couple weeks ago?
Okay. Americans have learned, since Nixon's "dirty tricks" got exposed, that in politics, it's common practice to "go behind the scenes" to make mischief in an opponent's campaign.
And, of course, we all know how Newsweek spiked it's Isakoff story telling Monica's tale. And, it made Drudge a rich man. And, the Internet has grown solid and big time.
I never saw Herman Cain as viable. But the interest some conservatives have had in him has certainly been based on Obama being half-black.
Add to this that Cain also has a church. And, has recorded himself doing "gospel." And, that Cain's experience has also involved conservative talk radio.
Even if that was a marriage made in heaven. All 8 contendahs, vying for the republican nomination, look to be playing politics. AND, GETTING NOWHERE.
Unless Perry's "hesitation" to remember the 3rd agency he'd cut ... has made him the most viable candidate among the 8 contendahs.
While Sarah Palin has not, as yet, really entered the fray.
By the way, I believed Anita Hill. And, Clarence Thomas' great tirade against Joe Biden, who headed that circus in the senate ... moved 52 senators to vote for Thomas' Supreme Court nomination.
Big deal.
Clarence Thomas has never connected with American Blacks. In other words? He's no Martin Luther King, Jr. Or Al Sharpton. Or Jesse Jackson. Or even Maxine Waters, who needs the votes to win her seat in da' House.
It's pretty rude that a very white segment of American politics ... who also run around with litmus paper ... can't quite achieve traction.
But the women stories? Two women came forward back in 1997.
Even if you want to say it's like "Tiger Woods." Even there, the women weren't lying.
And, there's ethics involved when you're claiming to be a monogamous man.
Bill Clinton had the advantage that nobody liked Hillary all that much.
That's not Cain's wife's problem.
Nor can the conservatives do a dance here, anymore than they can convince Americans to give up on women's rights. And, have "pre-birth" rights, instead.
You want somebody to blame? Blame the need to cater to a bunch of religious nutters. Reality's gonna toss your messages overboard.
Loury shows his own racism in his surprise at "conservatives loving a black man", but Loury may be getting on to the Dirty Little Secret - the Lefties only like blacks when they know their place and stay in it.
We can only hope he's really that bright.
Carol_Herman said...
Okay. Americans have learned, since Nixon's "dirty tricks" got exposed, that in politics, it's common practice to "go behind the scenes" to make mischief in an opponent's campaign.
For those of us who have been paying attention it goes back to Dick Tuck at the '64 Republican Convention who cut the Rockefeller campaign's phone lines and spread the story it was the Goldwater people that did it.
Since he was a Demo, he was called a "prankster". "Dirty tricks" were only pulled by Republicans.
Working Title: Clintionism comes to the GOP.
The mantra then was, "Character Counts." Some consistency on "the character issue" would surely make the GOP look better.
Of interest is your image of a blonde white woman engaged in an intercourse of ideas with a friendly and very smart black man.
And this woman did not wear her burqa of "sexual Harassment Violation" threats.
But a black man was still intelligent, reasonable and very friendly to her.
I guess the GOP needs to nominate a ticket of Cain and Loury. That should do the trick.
Seriously, the friendliness of Cain that is being accused of being quasi-criminal is only done today because black men CANNOT be allowed to befriend white women.
The mantra then was, "Character Counts." Some consistency on "the character issue" would surely make the GOP look better.
There is no credible accusation against Cain.
Repetitive vague accusations are meaningless.
What was that conspiracy theory you were working on a couple weeks ago?
Is there a due date for that conspiracy? When can we expect an update on the results of the theory?
Peter said...
Working Title: Clintionism comes to the GOP.
The mantra then was, "Character Counts." Some consistency on "the character issue" would surely make the GOP look better.
There's plenty of consistency. How about some PROOF?
Althouse, you almost made sense in you comments about the workplace.
But, in general, the image you paint of an "appropriate" workplace is a fucking nightmare.
I'm glad I'm out of it.
Althouse, I know I misinterpret what you say frequently; but unless I'm mistaken, in the first video, you say that it might be harassment, or at least inappropriate, for a man to say to a female co-worker: "You're about the same height as my wife."
Really?
If that sort of innocent observation is off-limits, then it's time to segregate the sexes at work.
How am I going to discuss any topic in mechanical engineering with my female co-worker? I won't be able to say anything about shafts, tapped holes, or lubrication; I wouldn't dream of broaching the subject of reciprocating axial motion of a shaft within a bore.
Loury's offhand characterization of Sean Hannity as a racist is bullshit. I'm not a fan of Hannity. I find him too strident to listen to on a regular basis, but I have listened to him in the past.
There is nothing to this racism allegation against Hannity.
Appears Loury is the racist, in that he insists that political beliefs are an indication of personal racism.
What's with conservatives loving a black man?
Donovan McNabb (as rightly observed by Rush Limbaugh).
They want a black man to succeed. They are happy to see a black man succeed. So much so, that they are willing to cheer on a guy that is overrated. Previously, many were willing to overlook the philosophical deficiencies of Colin Powell to get him to run.
"The level of experience???" "THE LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE!!!" THE LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE???!!! THIS is a disqualifier for Cain? Ann, are you ABSOLUTELY bat-shit crazy? Talk about insane craziness.! WHAT "experience" of ANY kind did Obama EVER have? Herman Cain was not only CEO of a maj American corporation; he was Chairman of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City. Obama had never headed/run so much as a lemon-aide stand prior to his election. And NOW you worry about "qualifications?"
Puuulease......
@Pastafarian
Or Wankel rotary engine.
How much evidence do I need?
I need a conviction by a jury of his peers in a criminal court of law.
Short of that standard, I don't give two flea farts what any accuser has to say -- it's just cheap, sleazy politics, nothing more.
Peter (11/14/11 10:22 AM),
Where is your proof that Cain has any character defect?
You have NO PROOF!
You only have cheap, sleazy, utterly unproven allegations -- the sort any campaign can manufacture out of thin air.
"... And what's with liberals' eagerness to destroy him?..."
An African American whose a Republican is apostasy for liberals.
The Cain allegations just look bad!
That picture of Glenn Lowry kicking back on the phone is cracking me up!
A friend of mine was once accused of sexual harassment for innocently commenting to a new employee that she worked "under" the same boss that he did.
The word "under" was claimed to imply the missionary position. The very large majority of sexual harassment allegations are pure bullshit.
But, lawyers love bullshit.
The Cain allegations just look bad!
For who?
He's only lost 1 point in the polls.
The hit job isn't working, garbage.
And, in case you didn't read my other post...
There is a yoga pose, called "Singing Lion." The practitioner sticks his tongue out as far as possible and screams at the top of his lungs for as long as possible.
Althouse is right, Cain has no experience: In taking pay-offs from campaign donors and then steering legislation in that donor's chosen direction. He has no experience spending trillions of dollars more than what he's taken in.
And I'm not surprised that Althouse considers this disqualifying: The notion of a US constitution was a remarkable idea, at the time that it was written, because, prior to it, laws weren't something approachable to the common man. The revolutionary idea what that men should write down those laws, in a document defining that which constitutes the government, in plain language of the time, so that common men could read it and understand it.
But Althouse's very existence is predicated on the idea that we can't just read the constitution; it has to be interpreted for us by experts. People have to go to school for a decade in order to know what those words actually mean, when you read between the lines and find all the penumbras.
And so I think that Althouse expects a president to be one of these experts in governing, who do nothing but govern, and who have never wanted anything but power. Ideally, they should have an Ivy League law degree, and they should sound smart. She rejects the idea of a citizen president just as she would the idea of a citizen reading the constitution and knowing the meaning from the words themselves.
I'm baffled by Loury's bafflement at Cain's popularity among conservatives. This is, after all, the same Glenn Loury who was offered a position as undersecretary of education in the Reagan administration, under William Bennett, of all people.
Loury's an interesting guy. He rose from Southeast Junior College on the South Side of Chicago to a tenured professorship at Harvard, but in the end decided that whites' unfair advantages required affirmative action to overcome. Only then did he lose his buddies on the right--of all colors.
wv comenta: a member of the Boston branch of Althousia.
"How much evidence do you need?"
Since it took a dress splattered with the Syphilitic Hillbilly's dishonorable discharge to change Monica from nutslut to credible accuser, then that's what these harpies need.
Show me a dress with Cain's DNA. Or FOAD.
"... But Althouse's very existence is predicated on the idea that we can't just read the constitution;..."
Of course not. It was written over 100 years ago and its confusing.
"And NOW you worry about "qualifications?"
Some people think experience is talking about stuff they never actually tried doing. Then being good at talking about it, is proof of knowing it - even better than the guy who has done it. This is their entire experience and circle - people who talk (or write) for a living. Then you think those are the entire pool to choose from, so who you call experienced or qualified becomes a different set, which includes nobody with actual experience.
I've seen this destroy departments, and sometimes the entire company where it becomes the standard.
Lately, we have seen it destroy entire economies.
Yet people want to make the same mistakes again and again, because it's hard to talk smart and do something valuable at the same time, and talking and learning at the same time is even harder.
"Althouse, I know I misinterpret what you say frequently; but unless I'm mistaken, in the first video, you say that it might be harassment, or at least inappropriate, for a man to say to a female co-worker: "You're about the same height as my wife.""
I observe that it's a bit of evidence that might -- I'd need more bits -- be part of a pattern of treating women differently from men, subjecting them to different working conditions, if there were comments made about their physical appearance, in a way that conveyed the message that they were thought of as physical bodies, where men did not hear such things.
Let's say I'm working in a law school where there are 30 male professors and 5 female professors. And every time I or another one of the females walks into a meeting, the senior males make remarks about how I look, what I'm wearing, how tall or short I am, what my hairstyle is, and they never do that to the other men, and they always do that to the other women. Can you see that at some point there, it's sex discrimination? The workplace should not be like that, telling women they are different, their role is different.
It's not the isolated remark, which is an item of evidence, subject to interpretation.
I observe that it's a bit of evidence that might -- I'd need more bits -- be part of a pattern of treating women differently from men, subjecting them to different working conditions, if there were comments made about their physical appearance, in a way that conveyed the message that they were thought of as physical bodies, where men did not hear such things.
Jesus, this is awful, oppressive shit, Althouse. It's amazing that you want to live in a world where anybody concerns themselves with this crap.
You're at the top of the S&M heap, so you don't feel or experience how this S&M torture cascades down through the social structure.
If this shit is going on in the next life, then I'd prefer to go to hell. They can't be enforcing appropriateness in hell.
I hate the work environment that this stupidity has enforced on us, Althouse. It's dreadful. The workplace wasn't so great when I entered it. Sexual harassment law has turn it into a prison of silence.
Congratulations. Was that your intent?
"The workplace should not be like that, telling women they are different, their role is different. "
They are different. We all are, but recognizing that and treating each other less than exactly the same does not mean we have different roles or are not capable of performing any one of them.
Your idea of an appropriate workplace is a sterile, joyless inhuman place where nobody wants to work.
""The level of experience???" "THE LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE!!!" THE LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE???!!! THIS is a disqualifier for Cain? Ann, are you ABSOLUTELY bat-shit crazy? Talk about insane craziness.! WHAT "experience" of ANY kind did Obama EVER have? Herman Cain was not only CEO of a maj American corporation; he was Chairman of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City. Obama had never headed/run so much as a lemon-aide stand prior to his election. And NOW you worry about "qualifications?""
So... once a mistake is made, it's best to keep making more mistakes like that? That's your argument?
Obama was under-experienced. Noted. What do you do with that? If the answer is, when he comes up for reelection, challenge him with someone who is under-experienced... hello? Obama is now experienced being President for 3+ years. You'd better outmatch him, not depend on the argument now, it's my turn to win with an inadequate candidate.
Althouse says (emphasis mine):
"Let's say I'm working in a law school where there are 30 male professors and 5 female professors. And every time I or another one of the females walks into a meeting, the senior males make remarks about how I look, what I'm wearing, how tall or short I am, what my hairstyle is, and they never do that to the other men, and they always do that to the other women."
In that circumstance (from the twisted viewpoint of the average lawyer) you have a strong case demonstrating that you don't have enough gay men in your workplace -- nothing more.
Good GRIEF!
"... And every time I or another one of the females walks into a meeting, the senior males make remarks about how I look, what I'm wearing, how tall or short I am, what my hairstyle is, and they never do that to the other men,.."
Do these senior males have tenure? That academic only perk of guaranteed for life job security that insulates them from the consequences of boorish
behavior?
Thomas has a point. The workplace is full of oversensitivity, distrust and paranoia now, and by law that's ubiquitous. Maybe we had some unfair workplaces before that were not pleasant to work in, but I think it has gotten worse, and at best, just changed the victims. Hardly a great success.
We need a different idea. This one is a sad disaster. Unless like before, you are in the group with the power.
"... Obama is now experienced being President for 3+ years..."
Not a ringing endorsement considering he hadn't learned a damn thing.
I'd hardly call Cain under experienced. If governing has to be a criteria then the office should be only open to Governors or Mayors.
I treat all my coworkers the same. To the guys I say, when appropriate, "Nice tats." To the ladies, when appropriate, I say, "Nice tits."
Tit for tat.
But no clouds in your coffee.
"Obama is now experienced being President for 3+ years."
Yet still has zero experience in successfully leading. Experience is only qualifying if it involves success. An experienced failure is not what we need.
"... and they never do that to the other men,.."
Typically straight men don't proffer fashion tips or critiques to other men. Saying, that's a smashing tie you have Tom or 'who does your hair Frank?' is not common among the man club.
I really do think you live in a bubble up there.
I'll offer another, precisely opposite reason why Cain's accusers might have thought that his behavior was "inappropriate."
They might have been powerfully sexually attracted to him! And felt very guilty about it!
Women quite often are unaware of their own sexual feelings, and they often blame their sexual attraction on the man who attracts them.
Cain is an exceptionally attractive man. He's black, successful, rich and very personable and engaging.
These women may have been powerfully attracted to him, made very uncomfortable by their attraction to him, and laid the blame on Cain.
If the positions were reveresed, does that mean I can't compliment a guy on his tie? Or nice suit?
"Obama is now experienced being President for 3+ years."
Yet still has zero experience in successfully leading. Experience is only qualifying if it involves success. An experienced failure is not what we need.
I don't think calling the American people "lazy" qualifies as "experience."
It's going to work this time, damn it! We're the ones we've been waiting for!!!!!!
All I know is that my mortgage is held by "the King" and I'm sure Holder and his goon squad could become very creative and apply KELO.
That could be a new class topic.
Ann, if you were about to board an airliner and asked about the experience of the pilot and were told: "Oh he has 3+ years of experience in the most advanced aircraft in the fleet. But he's crashed every-time he takes off killing all the passengers but surviving himself." Would YOU board that aircraft, or instead look for ANYONE else--even the most junior neophyte pilot to trust your life with?
Jungle Fever Defense..right up there w/ the Twinkie Defense.
The right would embrace many more african americans if there were more consevative african americans to embrace. The numbers fall short on the right because there are so few to chose from. I'm thinking (hoping) that will gradually change in the future
I thought women liked compliments.
Jeez, make up your mind!
"Obama was under-experienced. Noted. What do you do with that? If the answer is, when he comes up for reelection, challenge him with someone who is under-experienced... hello? "
Sorry, Obama is very qualified for the job of being elected President but he has been possibly the worst at doing the actual job of being President. He's worse than Carter for god's sake.
Cain on the other hand is possibly the most qualified of actually doing the job of President especially in these bad economic times. He has exactly the sort of real world business experience I desperately want Presidents to have.
Obama has three years of experience being a distaster. Cain has a lifetime of experience successfully turning around companies. How you can possibly say he is underexperienced is just mind boggling to me. What you mean is, he is not of the proper aristocratic class to run for President. He did not have a lifetime of being groomed for office by his upper class parents. That's what you really mean isn't it? Because he is eminently qualified to do the actual job. Not that anyone seems to give a damn about that anymore.
According to Drudge, the Cougar's real fiance, not the one the media thought, is going to come forward and say he was there.
He sounds like a real New Age kind of dude and sought out Allred.
I have a feeling we're still going to be asking for proof.
Yeah, whatever, to President Golfpants and his three years of "experience" wasting and redistributing other people's money.
Meanwhile, what's with liberals hating that (some) conservatives support a black man for President? Conservatives don't like Cain because he's black; if they did he would have surged out front much sooner and faded by now as the novelty wore off. Conservatives of all sorts can appreciate Cain because he makes liberals feel like they've wandered into Upside-Down Land. All worried about being outflanked on the moral high ground, concerned about steeply decreasing viability of cheap shots about "racist" conservatives, anxious about a candidate who has not been sanctimonitized for their protection? He makes media libs say the most awful and astounding things, too. (Hold the enemy to his own rules.)
Women love compliments.."For a fat girl you don't sweat much" or "nice rack" are two you might try on a coworker. They'll love it.
The president is right about Americans becoming lazy, or at least some Americans--namely, his supporters. For example, rent-seeking is easier than providing goods and services that people might pay you for without being coerced.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/14/maher-romney-is-all-that-stands-between-us-and-the-rise-of-the-apes/
Eeeeiuw. (point and laugh.)
Americans becoming lazy?
Ah, the plangent and haunting call of the disappointed socialist. Americans aren't working hard enough and giving enough money to realize my socialist utopian dreaaaaaammmms.
The workplace should not be like that, telling women they are different
How on earth could you tell that was going on, since you have convinced yourself that women and men are indistinguishable? (And if you haven't convinced yourself of that, you should be ashamed, because the workplace should not give any hint to women that they differ from men.)
Ann
As an attorney, don't you find the story of Sharon Bialek not believable because it's not physically possible.
"But instead of going into the offices, he suddenly reached over and he put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals. He also grabbed my head and brought it towards his crotch."
Proposition A: These were simultaneous - not sequential actions.
We know this is true because she rebuffed him right away and asked him to stop, and he did
Proposition B: This is impossible to do while sitting in the car with the left hand going for the crotch and the right hand pushing the head.
Map out the logistics. The left arm always blocks the head from going towards his crotch.
Proposition C: This is impossible to do while sitting in the car with the right hand going for the crotch and the left hand pushing the head.
Map out the logistics. Can't get the left arm up to push on the head with any reasonable way the right hand goes for the crotch.
Proposition D: Cain only has a normal set of two hands. One left, one right.
Proposition E: Since the maneuver can not be done using any combination of normal left and right hands, the story as told is impossible.
Conclusion: Sharon Bialek is not telling the truth.
"So... once a mistake is made, it's best to keep making more mistakes like that? That's your argument?
"
If Cain and Obama had similar experience levels then this would be a resonable comeback-but they don't. It is quite easy to make the argument that Cain has much more executive experience (i.e. directing the activities of a large bureaucracy) than Obama (and with demonstrable success). Unsubstantiated claims that he is insufficiently experienced are unconvincing.
What's with conservatives loving a black man? And what's with liberals' eagerness to destroy him?
For the umpty millionth time, liberals don't want an end to racism. They want to perpetuate racism, so they can exploit the black man for their own purposes.
Let's say I'm working in a law school where there are 30 male professors and 5 female professors. And every time I or another one of the females walks into a meeting, the senior males make remarks about how I look, what I'm wearing, how tall or short I am, what my hairstyle is, and they never do that to the other men, and they always do that to the other women."
You do realize that you have just ruled being gentlemanly as sexual harassment, don't you? You are a Yankee, though, and you people are barely civilized.
"pattern of treating women differently from men"
IANAL, but I find it almost embarassing to read this comment from a lawyer who seems to be oblivious to the distinction between sexism and sexual harrassment. While the former may not be appropriate workplace behaviour, the latter does require a sexual component (e.g. pervasive unwanted sexual advances, threats or coersion used in an attempt to extract sexual favors, creation of a sexually oppressive workplace, etc.). As I said, IANAL, but I am a Navy officer who has endured and lead annual training on prevention of sexual harrassment for too many years to remember, and this simple distinction is always emphasized.
Professor: we have clearly worked in different work places, mine being public health where 75 percent of the work place are females. The only people in that environment who talk about how other women look are the women.
You do need to get out more.
Althouse: "...it's a bit of evidence that might -- I'd need more bits -- be part of a pattern..."
That's like saying that if we see a man replace a butcher knife in a drawer, that might possibly be evidence that he just dismembered a woman whose bits now lie in his crawlspace.
"And every time I or another one of the females walks into a meeting, the senior males make remarks about how I look..."
But we didn't hear that accusation, that Cain has done this "every time." We just heard about this one time.
Look, I've defended Cain here, and I'm done with him: Not because there's any evidence that he's every sexually harassed anyone, but because it does appear that he's had trouble keeping his love-gun properly holstered through much of his married life.
And he's not a strong-enough candidate to merit the energy and political capital that it will cost to defend him.
So, paradoxically, I'm on Team Newt. He's worth some defense; and we've only recently learned that much of the mud they've been slinging his way all these many years was just pure fiction.
But let's not pretend that there has been any evidence of actual sexual harassment on Cain's part; and let's not allow this to further advance the counterproductive stupidity of political correctness that's resulted from predatory attorneys.
Heaven forfend that we treat women any differently than men. Urinals in all women's restrooms, immediately. And no more of this maximum-load-in-boxes bullshit: We'll load all those boxes til they weigh 150 pounds. If you can't lift it, then grow some hair on your sack.
I was thinking the same thing, urinals & making all mirrors the same height. So what if women on average are shorter?
Or just turn them all into unisex bathrooms and be done with it.
Of course those women who might pump may not be happy about it.
Seeing Red: "If the positions were reversed, does that mean I can't compliment a guy on his tie?"
You're on dangerous ground, Red. Very Freudian stuff.
Let's say I'm working in a law school where there are 30 male professors and 5 female professors.
And every time I or another one of the females walks into a meeting, the senior males make remarks about how I look, what I'm wearing, how tall or short I am, what my hairstyle is, and they never do that to the other men,
and they always do that to the other women.
Can you see that at some point there, it's sex discrimination?
The workplace should not be like that, telling women they are different, their role is different.
Then buy yourself a good Brooks Brothers suit (two pair of pants), get a crewcut, a sensible pair of wingtips and for god sakes wash that clown paint from your face.
If that doesn't level the playing field, Get thee to a nunnery.
Let's say I'm working in a law school where there are 30 male professors and 5 female professors. And every time I or another one of the females walks into a meeting, the senior males make remarks about how I look, what I'm wearing, how tall or short I am, what my hairstyle is, and they never do that to the other men, and they always do that to the other women. Can you see that at some point there, it's sex discrimination? The workplace should not be like that, telling women they are different, their role is different.
But if the guys continued telling the raunchy jokes when the women walked in, instead of stopping, THEN it would be non-discriminatory and just peachy?
My experience is that women frequently talk about men behind their backs, whereas men rarely talk about women behind their backs. As a man, I'd prefer to see non-discrimination instanced as women speaking about us men to our faces as they do with each other in private. And as for us guys, we'll continue not talking about the women in their company -- same as we do (don't do) behind their backs. ;-)
Obama was under-experienced.
Well, that's an understatement for the ages.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of "experience", I'd like to know what you consider experience for the job of chief executive of this country. Wouldn't actual, umm, executive experience count for something? Or do you consider someone to have to be a political lifer to be qualified? What are you proposing as a test? Oh, I know: calm demeanor, right? You must have forgotten about the crease in his pants. Crikey, and I'm not even a Cain supporter.
This is just another transparent attempt to provide cover for your vote for Obama in 2008. Plus I expect you to tender similar arguments why you felt compelled to vote for Obama again.
Three little words that, while a challenge to utter, will prove quite helpful: I was wrong. Apparently some ::cough:: are incapable of uttering those words.
Mr. Loury is at least 10-15 years behind the facts in his understanding of the general acceptance of black people among southerners, Christians, Conservatives, et cetera.
That's why he says...
"...whereas Herman Cain being the darling of a certain faction within the Republican party is really a startling thing. Barack Obama being an African-American rising to win the nomination in the Democratic Party, while it is historic to be sure, is not nearly so surprising relative to what our ex-ante expectations might have been about what might be possible within that party."
Not an unreasonable comment 50 years ago...directed at the opposite political party. It would have been plausible even twenty years ago.
But Mr. Loury, being already 63 years old himself, has not caught on to the fact that people who are his contemporaries and older are dying off now. For folk born in the year Loury was born, the mean life expectancy was 62 years. He is older than that, and folk older than he is have lived even more beyond the mean for their age.
That group (the 63-and-older crowd) is the last age-group among Americans where the really nasty racial bigotry of the type Lowry remembers from his childhood was still expressed by large numbers of persons without embarrassment.
It's not that Loury has one foot in the grave. (I hope he lives long years yet.) But when it comes to attitudes which had prominent expression in their generation but not in later ones, attrition by death is now the main factor.
Anyhow the bigots among Americans in that age group and older were already a minority. Many of them "converted" to racially unbigoted attitudes over the last fifty years. Those who didn't dwindled in political power until they are now voiceless. And voiceless and powerless factions do not draw new "converts," so there was no replacement to keep numbers up as they died off.
And that's just among the general population. Loury probably also doesn't see how the baby-boomers, who in every other way are probably America's worst and most useless generation, did at least one thing right: Baby boomers (raised anywhere, but especially in the South) were scandalized and mortified by their own parents' prejudices. In reaction against these prejudices, the baby-boomers self-consciously raised their own children (Gen X'ers) to be color-blind...especially in the South.
This meant that Gen X'ers, while growing up, tended to view black people as just people. They grew up naive about the existence of racism. And while they eventually heard about the history of racism in the U.S., they didn't identify with it or feel associated with it because of how they were raised.
And now Gen-X'ers have been having children for a decade or so, and they have been raising their children to be color-blind...but in a non-self-conscious and relatively effortless way. Their children will not see any hint of embarrassment in their parents about the topic. It will be even more of a non-issue than it was for their parents.
This is the kind of attitude which prevails at Tea Party rallies, which is why the accusations of racism from Tea Party crowds always get such a chuckle: The notion is unserious, because it is detached from reality. It isn't even plausible. It hasn't been for decades.
But people can go for decades without their basic assumptions being challenged. That is what has happened to Mr. Loury. The world changed for the better while he wasn't paying attention, and now the hero-worship of Herman Cain by the white, conservative, Christian, Southern electorate leaves him flummoxed.
Cain is hardly the first, nor will be the last American of African descent that has faced utter character assasination for leaving the plantation. Any number of the women at http://www.thelastcivilright.org can relate similar stories.
Mr. Loury is at least 10-15 years behind the facts in his understanding of the general acceptance of black people among southerners, Christians, Conservatives, et cetera.
I didn't get that sense from Loury at all. I think he was critiquing the Left-wing and mainstream media view of the Right in this regard, which is more like 25 years behind the facts, by rhetorically asking his (mostly liberal) bloggingheads.tv audience, 'how did Herman Cain rise to such prominence in this alleged climate of racial hostility?' The answer being, of course, that this view of the Right is seriously outdated.
"This meant that Gen X'ers, while growing up, tended to view black people as just people. They grew up naive about the existence of racism. And while they eventually heard about the history of racism in the U.S., they didn't identify with it or feel associated with it because of how they were raised."
As a tail-end Gen Xer, I can largely confirm this. And I grew up in a largely white, evangelical, conservative culture. Race was never an issue. More a curiosity. We had positive, curious feelings toward minorities because they were different. We certainly didn't have negative feelings toward them because of race. Nearly everything thought about race flipped on its head in two generations. It should be celebrated, but no, it's more convenient for liberals if they ignore it.
LBJ:
Tell that he is sleeps with chickens.
Correspondant:
Bur sir, he dos not sleep with chickens.
LBJ: Just imagine his face on TV expalining that he does not sleep with chickens
There is nothing to this racism allegation against Hannity.
Which is why it's hard to take anything Loury says seriously. He's either grossly misinformed and too lazy to get informed, or a liar.
Professor,I think you might be more in love with the law, than people. The law isn't as messy as people. Its written out in black and white, immutable to erosion, or age, or time.
It is only messy in that other people can interpret it differently.
I don't like to be a critic, but much like your photo's. They are hard, and cold , and sharp. Strong images. But they lack humanity, and as such will never reach the level of "Art".
People on the other hand ARE messy on their own. There is even more mis-interpretation in interpersonal communications. We are glorious in our fluids and emanations. So more complicated than any machine ever conceived.
In my interpersonal communications class, we were given the assignment of complimenting someone of the other sex. Was that harassment?
If I hold a door open for a woman more readily than for a man, am I being superior, or polite? Is it sexist to help a woman with her groceries if she's struggling with them? What about a man? What about a handicapped man? A handicapped woman? Should I allow the handicapped person to struggle so in the end they can feel a sense of "normalcy"?
The law is a cold lonely place to hide Ann. It will always be a poor substitute for real interaction between real people. Why not come in and join us poor humans. Its hot and sweaty, but alive like no ivory tower can ever be.
Or was that inappropriate?
Carol Herman?
Incomprehensible would be too kind.
"Let's say I'm working in a law school where there are 30 male professors and 5 female professors. And every time I or another one of the females walks into a meeting, the senior males make remarks about how I look, what I'm wearing, how tall or short I am, what my hairstyle is, and they never do that to the other men, and they always do that to the other women. Can you see that at some point there, it's sex discrimination? The workplace should not be like that, telling women they are different, their role is different."
HUH? "The workplace should not be like that, telling women they are different, their role is different."
IF SO, then Ann wants a world of wither eunichs or the Saudi Arabian solution - completely separate entrances for females and males to classrooms, and ghost-wear instead of self-expressive fashion.
I DON:T WANT THE pc WORLD Ann defends here because both sexes are normally sexual beings, and people WILL notice this in the workplace, whether straight, gay or lesbian or celebate.
Ann is defending the ideal world of feinazis like the late Andrea Dworkin. But I'm a rebel and a realist. So sue me.
"Let's say I'm working in a law school where there are 30 male professors and 5 female professors. And every time I or another one of the females walks into a meeting, the senior males make remarks about how I look, what I'm wearing, how tall or short I am, what my hairstyle is, and they never do that to the other men, and they always do that to the other women. Can you see that at some point there, it's sex discrimination? The workplace should not be like that, telling women they are different, their role is different."
You realize of course that your statement could be read as a complaint that every time you walk into a meeting you receive compliments. Odd most of the women I know like receiving compliments, and would be disappointed if they never received any. Think we should copy the Mao era unisex clothing?
It goes the other way, too; I've heard Tea Partiers bemoaning some Southern conservatives/Republicans upset that they would be forced to choose Cain or Obama. It does still happen.
IANAL, but I find it almost embarassing to read this comment from a lawyer who seems to be oblivious to the distinction between sexism and sexual harrassment. While the former may not be appropriate workplace behaviour, the latter does require a sexual component (e.g. pervasive unwanted sexual advances, threats or coersion used in an attempt to extract sexual favors, creation of a sexually oppressive workplace, etc.).
Excuse me, doesn't sexual harassment simply require a GENDER component. A hostile work environment due to the fact that she's a woman for example. That environment may have nothing to do with "sex".
The article in your blog reminds me some old memory .That is good .It gives me happy .I think we will have a harmonious talk.Do you agree? legal administration services
class action
Post a Comment