I had a very good Maths teacher at school. Fascinating guy, very intelligent, inspiring, etc, in so many ways.

But he thought the moon landings were fake.

In tenth grade History we had a ten minute Open Forum at the beginning of each class, where anyone who wanted to could make a presentation about any current or historical topic. And since most of us weren't all that possessed (and it wasn't an election year), by default the son of a right wing (National Review editor and Nixon biographer) journalist spent what seemed like every day for a solid month trying to prove that the satellite photos that the Russians had taken of the far side of the moon were fabricated. He may have been the smartest guy in the class (and he wound up running for Congress as a Democrat in Orange County), but nothing and nobody could shake him from his belief. Which more or less came down to "you can't believe anything that the Commies tell us." He brought along new photographs every day in order to "prove" his case.

He wasn't a religious nut (in fact he wasn't religious at all), or a black nationalist in white skin, and in nearly all other respects he was rational, quickminded and funny, but as soon as he got on the subject of anything to do with Communism or the Russians, he might as well have been the offspring of a couple of inbred pinheads. He almost made the rantings of Rev. Wright seem eminently sane by comparison.

"It's not like religion per se prevents someone from being rational; hell, some of the greatest scientific thinkers in human history would have described themselves as Christians."

I think you can say that for a lot of religious people -- those who derive a great deal of satisfaction and comfort from their faith -- that challenging those beliefs with science would be irrational for them. That is, the costs of discovering a scientific truth that negated their faith formula would be greater than the benefits of knowing the science.

"It's not like religion per se prevents someone from being rational; hell, some of the greatest scientific thinkers in human history would have described themselves as Christians."

I think you can say that for a lot of religious people -- those who derive a great deal of satisfaction and comfort from their faith -- that challenging those beliefs with science would be irrational for them. That is, the costs of discovering a scientific truth that negated their faith formula would be greater than the benefits of knowing the science.

And can't you say that whether such a course is "dumb" or not depends on how clinging to that belief either helps or hurts that person deal with his life, and how the consequences of his belief also affect those around him? To me that's an entirely open question, and one that's far more important than simply "refuting" the belief itself, which in most cases isn't any more difficult than plucking the wings off a dead fly. It's only when you get into how a collectively held belief affects the outside world that it sometimes becomes a social necessity to attack the belief head on.

I think you can say that for a lot of religious people -- those who derive a great deal of satisfaction and comfort from their faith -- that challenging those beliefs with science would be irrational for them.

I think that, perhaps ironically, we've gotten less good at allowing religion and science to coexist comfortably in our minds than we once were. I don't know whether that's because the increasing reach of science has made that coexistence more difficult, or because our cultural intolerance of hypocrisy has made it less appealing, or both, or something else entirely, but I think it's a shame. And that's coming from someone who isn't particularly religious.

"It's only when you get into how a collectively held belief affects the outside world that it sometimes becomes a social necessity to attack the belief head on."

Agreed.

I occassionally will get annoyed by someone who expresses a religious belief to me and I feel compelled to argue the point. His (or her) belief (generally speaking) does not affect the outside world. Other than my annoyance, it doesn't affect me. But by telling me what he (or she) believes, I take the bait and argue the point.

A mild example of this is when someone exclaims, "Everything happens for a reason." This has become a common dictum among many Christians lately. It makes no sense, unless someone also believes that there is a magic wizard hidden in the distant beyond who is controlling all events and who has some great plan. A baby is born with severe retardation and physical deformaties which cause him great pain and that happenend for a reason? One child is shot and killed by a stray bullet in a drive by shooting and that happened for a reason? A priest rapes his alter boys and that serves some larger purpose? Thousands of Sudanese are brutalized in Darfur?

I probably should just smile and move on, but I concede that I am easily baited and tend to contest, too often, these harmless religious platitudes.

A mild example of this is when someone exclaims, "Everything happens for a reason."

Yes, I think what is going on there is a desire some people have to feel secure and protected in the notion that somebody smarter and more powerful than us is watching over things and has some sort of a plan in mind that will ultimately bring good. They're uncomfortable with the idea that we might be here on this planet for no particular reason at all, and that things that happen may be just random and often the result of dumb luck, good or bad.

You can see this in baseball (what's that?) when people invent things like clutch hitters and chokers. Something about randomness -- the idea that there wasn't a Reason that X happened -- makes people uncomfortable.

A girl I used to date believed that everything that happened was fate; I didn't accept that because I felt that the natural result of that was that we didn't have control over our own lives.

I'm perfectly happy just accepting that some things in life are random and that there are things that we can't figure out. Such as what happens to us once we die. I haven't the foggiest clue -- if I had to guess I'll feel nothing at all -- but there's nothing unsettling to me about not knowing.

And I'm certainly in no rush to find out :-)

Whoa, how did I miss this:

2726. Jim Furtado Posted: May 02, 2008 at 11:30 AM (#2766425)
My original comment

I usually shut down threads when Godwin's Law is verified.

For the most part this thread has been civil. Please try to keep it that way.



==============================

Andy,


For the most part this thread has been civil. Please try to keep it that way.

Jim, there have been 2523 posts and so far I can't remember either side making any complaints about personal attacks. I don't think you have too much to worry about.


If these conversations only impacted the people involved in the threads I really wouldn't care what's writen. Unfortunately, these debates do have impact outside the individual thread. First, when things get personal, the acrimony often spills over into unrelated discussions. Second, every time one of these threads evolves I get emails similar to this one:

"Thanks for the reading enjoyment over the last several years. It's a shame that I have decided to remove this website from my favorites, as the regulars have ceased discussion of baseball, for the most part."

Good god, Jim. What are we, trained seals? Is that why we're here, to provide free entertainment for lurkers who provide none of their own and who solicit you to rap us smartly on the knuckles if we don't provide it for them on demand?

Heaven knows I've had plenty of righteous occasions to email you about the uncivil vitriole leveled at me, for the most part for the most ridiculous of reasons. And I've never sent you one complaining email? Why? Because I believe people are free to say what they want.

Now, I'm not asking for any special favors for the content I provide (and let's face it, I provide a ton of content, both on my own and for the controversy I arouse that causes people to flock to the threads I am in like locusts). While I am loath to speak for others, I think some of the other spear carriers here, like Backlasher, Andy, Treder, JC, AROM, Nieporent, Ray DiPerna and a few others who do a lot of the heavy lifting, ask for nothing more than a little patience when we veer of the beaten trail once in a while. I don't think that's too unreasonable a request. I mean, you can't please everybody and for criminy's sake, that message you posted there just bleeds an absurd sense of self-entitlement.

Even so, that's getting away from the point, which is that whether someone has good reason to be angry or not does not justify delivering a provocative message with reckless disregard for the truth. It may explain it, but it doesn't justify it.

I don't think anyone is trying to justify it. The point I was trying to make is that it really doesn't matter. It's not going to oppress anyone in particular. It's just being wrong like folks other than me are around this site all the time. There's not really any situation where it's going to matter for any of the parishioners what the origin of AIDS is.

I also find it interesting that whenever it comes up, people insist that accusing the government of doing something is the exact same thing as accusing white people doing something. That seems like a strange racial leap.

I don't judge my pastors on how careful they are to not piss off white people. It's not really in my criteria at all. I don't really think of white people too much at all in choosing my churches. Maybe I'm color blind. Maybe I'm color stupid.

The point at hand is not whether what Wright said was appropriate or righteous or whatever. The point is why the society is so pissed off about it, and as I said before and was ignored, that it appears that the society is ONLY interested in what black churches are doing when they can be used to sink the black presidential candidate.

Is that wrong? If so, why did people only take an interest in Trinity after this event. Trinity has been there. For at least 30 years from what I've heard 20000 times from people who didn't seem to care for the last several decades until now.

Wow, black people are dumb if don't agree with you on some meaningless fact or show the proper reverence for white America. How is that not racial divisive?

I haven't the foggiest clue -- if I had to guess I'll feel nothing at all -- but there's nothing unsettling to me about not knowing.

I wouldn't say nothing, Ray. Maggots feast on your eyeballs.

That's something.

Anyone who doubts that Hillary's nomination would be an utter disaster for the Democrats in November should check out these numbers. Whether out of cynicism or a mindboggling cluelessness, she and her husband have made it personal with many black voters, and they don't like it. If the party wants to let the Karl Rove mindset choose its nominee, don't let it be said that it wasn't warned.

By the way, Bill Ayers gave me a soda the other day. I can't drink pop, but it was one of those sparkling juices.

Does this mean I can't run for President?

t's not going to oppress anyone in particular. It's just being wrong like folks other than me are around this site all the time. There's not really any situation where it's going to matter for any of the parishioners what the origin of AIDS is.

I don't know how you could think that. It matters because those people may reject good information about how to protect themselves from this disease because it comes from the government. It matters because these people will be angry at the government for something it didn't do. And it matters because it's terrifying to live in a country where the people in power are methodically plotting to kill you.

How can that not be a big deal?

I also find it interesting that whenever it comes up, people insist that accusing the government of doing something is the exact same thing as accusing white people doing something. That seems like a strange racial leap.

It isn't just something.

If I honestly believed the government was doing something to kill Jewish people, it would be a pretty clear assumption that I'm talking mainly about "the non-Jewish members of the government." I used white as shorthand for non-black, but I don't think it's a particularly strange idea to think that generally a calculated effort by a power structure to wipe out a race of people isn't contributed to by willing, conscious members of that race.

The point at hand is not whether what Wright said was appropriate or righteous or whatever. The point is why the society is so pissed off about it, and as I said before and was ignored, that it appears that the society is ONLY interested in what black churches are doing when they can be used to sink the black presidential candidate.

This isn't a black thing. It's a politics thing. Any politician associated with someone who said the types of things Wright said would be criticized about it. Obama has been particularly clean as a candidate, and so this is a very big story because it's his most glaring weakness.

It's also particularly relevant to THIS candidate, who is running on a message, at least in part, of bringing people together. His deep connection to a divisive figure like Wright has an air of hypocrisy, and that's a reasonable issue to talk about.

I don't care one bit about whether Obama is black, white, or green. I do care that he has a long-standing and strong connection to a person that recklessly spreads a dangerous, hurtful message.

But again, c-bird, nobody outside of the true wingnuts has said that Wright has had any influence on Obama's political views, which certainly is a far more relevant point than what Wright says in the pulpit, or whether Obama heard him say it and didn't walk out.

It's the complete lack of proportion and perspective in these belabored "association" comments that makes many of us believe that the agenda in dragging these questions out for two months and counting is more than a little disingenuous.

Here's a point on which I cannot settle: do you think Rev. Wright is particularly intelligent?

There are a few factors to consider: First, he obviously has a great deal of oratorical skill, whether you consider it strictly inflammatory or insightful, he is able to provoke an emotive response. I think we can all agree on that fact, but I don't think it has much to do with his intellect.

The argument that he is intelligent comes from his passionate and multi-faceted defense of an institution which he represents. He has done a good job bringing about what is sure to be a short-lived debate about race and religion (if Katrina can't create a lasting discourse on race, then this definitely won't), and his timing has been impeccable, maximizing his time in the news cycle. He has pushed buttons and motivated a broad base of supporters to his defense.

On the other hand, he seems to have very little utilitarian perspective on the situation. I'm guessing that he would still like to see Obama win the election, but he has been the only factor holding Obama back in the last month or so, which has been his biggest period of slippage in terms of momentum. He has to understand that his diatribe won't revolutionize religion, or even the state of his own church in America. Is he strictly self-interested? Has he considered the long-term ramifications of his sound bites- where the negative potential far outweighs the positive potential? What, exactly, is he trying to accomplish at this point? Maybe that's the real question, because I don't know if he's effectively moving toward his goal since I can't wrap my head around his goal.

I don't think anyone is trying to justify it. The point I was trying to make is that it really doesn't matter. It's not going to oppress anyone in particular. It's just being wrong like folks other than me are around this site all the time. There's not really any situation where it's going to matter for any of the parishioners what the origin of AIDS is.

E-X:

this is a good starter to a conversation b/c I think it brings a few things to the surface worth discussing, perhaps some of which you and Andy share and others, like me, disagree with. I don't think the sole or even most important question is whether something "oppresses" someone. I think - and perhaps Ray and DMN are trying to make this point - that sometimes things can be evaluated as wrong simply by virtue of whether they're knowingly false.

One thing that I believe deeply is that everyone's entitled to the truth. If the US gov't created HIV, then we're all entitled to know that and we're done an injustice when we're not told that or when the information is denied us. OTOH, as it's fairly clear the US gov't did not invent HIV, it's false to tell people that, even black folk, and even black folk itching for a reason to be angry at the gov't. It's an offense against justice merely to disseminate that kind of false information and if Wright doesn't know it's false, it's his responsibility not to disseminate it until he's found out whether it's true. He does his congregation not merely a disservice, but a wrong when he perpetuate myths about the malign character of their gov't, of which they are and ought to be a part. Now, if they believe the gov't still nasty and oppressive, they need to find other genuine warrants for that. Presumably, that shouldn't be too difficult given the racial divisions of the past. If it is difficult, then perhaps it's time to reassess the nature of the complaint.

For that reason, and that reason alone, I think Obama had a responsibility to speak loudly about the disservice done to the Chicago black community by such false claims and about the right of even black folk to true information from their pastors.

First, he obviously has a great deal of oratorical skill, whether you consider it strictly inflammatory or insightful, he is able to provoke an emotive response. I think we can all agree on that fact, but I don't think it has much to do with his intellect.

Well, communication skills require intelligence.

The real question is: is Rev. Wright a moral man?

I think the answer is no, for the same reason someone like Jerry Falwell was not a moral man. They manipulate their oratory and communication skills, layered on a so-called religious foundation, to manipulate and scam credulous people.

They manipulate their oratory and communication skills, layered on a so-called religious foundation, to manipulate and scam credulous people.

I agree that each of these two performs manipulative actions, but do they do so in bad faith? They would probably even admit that they are manipulating their followers, but think that it is a justified cause because they are saving souls or lives.

But again, c-bird, nobody outside of the true wingnuts has said that Wright has had any influence on Obama's political views, which certainly is a far more relevant point than what Wright says in the pulpit, or whether Obama heard him say it and didn't walk out.

It's the complete lack of proportion and perspective in these belabored "association" comments that makes many of us believe that the agenda in dragging these questions out for two months and counting is more than a little disingenuous.

This is old ground but, fwiw... I wonder, too, if some of the stronger objectors to Wright have had different kinds of friendships than those of us who are less concerned by the Obama-Wright connection--and I mean this in neither a good nor bad way. In the absence of real indications that Obama espouses Wright's views, I consider it highly unlikely that Obama has secret political views inspired by Wright in part because of some of my own friendships. For instance, I have a very good friend, we've been close for years, and politically he's something of a wingnut. He's a born again type, thinks Hillary's a socialist, will vote Obama because McCain's a liberal, claims to be a libertarian but is a garden variety what's-in-it-for-me Republican, and says stuff about 16 year-old girls that would curl your hair, toes, and mustache. On the other hand, he's been a great, great friend for a long, long time. There's no one I'd rather shoot eight hours of pool with, and if I'm ever in serious trouble, he's the first guy I'll call (and vice-versa). I'm no more influenced by his political views than I am by DMN's, and we actually tend not to talk politics because we can both get emotional about it. I'm sure I've spent more time with my friend than Obama did with Wright, and despite the fact that he'll be the best man at my wedding if I get married, if someone assumed just because we were close friends, that because he thinks we should stay in Iraq, that I think we should stay in Iraq, I'd be genuinely puzzled. I also have a friend, an older guy, that I consider something of a spiritual mentor. If I discovered he was a 9/11 truther, I'd be surprised, but I can't imagine I'd do anything but shrug (and ask him about it, but if he was convinced, and didn't want to consider the alternatives, I'd let it go). If I ran for office, and was quizzed on the association, I'd reply, no, I don't think the gov was behind 9/11. That my friend/mentor does is his business.

So, I'm in the camp that argues that unless Obama is actually doing or saying something that tells us he was influenced by Wright's less pleasant views, there's nothing inherently troubling about these kinds of associations.

JIM: Don't know if you're reading, and I'm hardly one to tell you what to do with your site, but imo, even with the occasional nastiness here, the level of dialogue elsewhere on the 'net doesn't get any higher than it does here. I'll gladly take the occasional jab or shot in return for the content, intelligence, and heart I get here.

They would probably even admit that they are manipulating their followers, but think that it is a justified cause because they are saving souls or lives.

I guess I view things a bit more cynically than you do, andrew.

"do you think Rev. Wright is particularly intelligent?"

I don't have enough of a basis to form an opinion on his intelligence as an individual. However, I think an interesting question is, what is intelligence? Is it simply what is measured by an IQ test?

Is artistic innovation intelligence? Is musical innovation intelligence? Is the ability to learn multiple languages intelligence? Is rhetorical skill -- the facility to draw in and persuade an audience -- intelligence? Is the innate ability, when standing in right field, to immediately figure where a ball is apt to land the instant it cracks off the bat, intelligence? (I am not considering the ability to run to that place and catch the ball. That's athleticism.) Is the ability to read the flight path of a basketball toward the basket in order to judge where to go ahead of time for the rebound intelligence? Is the ability of a quarterback to read a defense intelligence? Or the ability of a tailback to read the collision on the line in order to find the developing hole intelligence?

I think all of those things are forms of human intelligence. Yet I'm not sure IQ captures them, or other creative aspects of intelligence. Often times, someone who is deemed smart is smart in an academic sense. Yet he may be well below average in some other areas of intelligence.

I don't think anyone is trying to justify it. The point I was trying to make is that it really doesn't matter. It's not going to oppress anyone in particular. It's just being wrong like folks other than me are around this site all the time. There's not really any situation where it's going to matter for any of the parishioners what the origin of AIDS is.

Well, false beliefs about AIDS have caused much suffering in the U.S. and around the world. But even assuming these false beliefs don't affect their sexual behavior, they presumably affect something. Else why make the statement at all?

I also find it interesting that whenever it comes up, people insist that accusing the government of doing something is the exact same thing as accusing white people doing something. That seems like a strange racial leap.

That takes sophistry towards a whole new level. It is exactly the same thing, in the context of a racial rant about the evils of the government, surrounded by complaints about racial discrimination and racially-based slavery.

The point at hand is not whether what Wright said was appropriate or righteous or whatever. The point is why the society is so pissed off about it, and as I said before and was ignored, that it appears that the society is ONLY interested in what black churches are doing when they can be used to sink the black presidential candidate.

"Society" is more interested in what some small subset of the population is doing when it is relevant to a presidential candidate? Wow; what a shock. You argue that it's a racist conspiracy to hurt a candidate because he's black? Also, what a shock.

But again, c-bird, nobody outside of the true wingnuts has said that Wright has had any influence on Obama's political views, which certainly is a far more relevant point than what Wright says in the pulpit, or whether Obama heard him say it and didn't walk out.

See what I meant about how one page later in the thread, Andy would be back to this exact same strawman?

Ugh. Apropos of an earlier part of this thread, the talking heads are yammering about the importance of Obama beating Hillary in NC by as much she beat him in PA, with no mention whatever of wtf difference this makes when what she needs to do is pick up the remaining superdelegates by a 2.5 to 1 margin.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24426301#24426301

the talking heads are yammering about the importance of Obama beating Hillary in NC by as much she beat him in PA,

Nah. If he takes the Guam caucuses, she's done. O-Guam-a baby.

ark,

I'll get to that email when I have time--it'll be a longish answer.

I'll get to that email...

Thanks, robin. As it suits you.

I think an interesting question is, what is intelligence? Is it simply what is measured by an IQ test?

Off the cuff, I'm thinking of something closer to intelligence in the traditional, academic sense. I'll try a definition:
Intelligence is the ability to contextualize abstract and practical concepts, engage them dialectically, synthesize them with logical consistency, and apply them appropriately.

Without intending to devalue these abilities in any way, this particular interpretation would not include artistic ability, but may include many of the cognitive connections that manifest as "creativity." It would preempt most tactile abilities. Perhaps most importantly, it would not include rhetorical or oratorical abilities. I realize that in many cases, there is some "pure" intelligence that goes unexpressed, but in this instance (where Wright is a tremendous orator with seemingly logically specious premises and/or conclusions) communication is subordinate to the logical value of the argument itself.

I'm willing to admit that other interpretations of intelligence are more appropriate for other contexts.

I'm willing to admit that other interpretations of intelligence are more appropriate for other contexts.

Howard Gardner's book remains a useful text on this general topic.

Intelligence is the ability to contextualize abstract and practical concepts, engage them dialectically, synthesize them with logical consistency, and apply them appropriately

.

Two of the six elements of Bloom's taxonomy here. Interesting answer.

And BTW andrew, I think Wright wants Obama to lose.

Intelligence is the ability to contextualize abstract and practical concepts, engage them dialectically, synthesize them with logical consistency, and apply them appropriately.

If (big if) we go strictly by this definition, and if Wright wrote his own speech to the National Press Club, then Wright is an extremely intelligent man. There were numerous examples in his speech of complex thinking told well and clearly. He obviously enjoys a rhetorical flourish, but I heard no obfuscation, nor resort to cliche. I would like to hear his evidence in support of the idea that the govt invented/spread AIDS, though. It's important to press people on stuff that's very likely false.

It's important to press people on stuff that's very likely false.

Very likely false, arky?

It's categorically false. Worse, it's maliciously false, IMO.

And BTW andrew, I think Wright wants Obama to lose.

Well, on the surface, Wright's statements represent his worldview. Obama distanced himself from that worldview, in his race speech. Wright then came out over the weekend defending his worldview. (Obama of course then outright attacked Wright's worldview.)

It may just be as simple as Wright feeling the need to respond to the stinging criticisms of him made by Obama in the race speech, and the ensuing media attacks, by trying to defend himself and his worldview.

Remember: in the race speech, Obama painted Wright as imperfect, wrong, divisive, angry, naive, static, and bitter. Obama said that Wright held a distorted view of the country. Now, if you're Wright, and you feel that you and your worldview have been criticized so deeply -- by a close friend and someone you mentored, no less -- do you respond by trying to defend yourself and your worldview? I think you do, and I'm not sure the answer to why Wright decided to go On Tour has to be any deeper than that.

So I don't know why The Real Truth has to be that Wright is trying to sabotage Obama, or wants him to lose, or anything like that. Sometimes all we need to do is look at the hand in front of our face. After the weekend's escapades, people said "Oh, look, now we know that this _really is_ who Wright is." But was there really any doubt? Why were people expecting him to say sane things over the weekend, when they had already heard him say crazy things in the sermon clips? Why was it so hard to see that Wright wasn't taken out of context, and that that was the context?

this is a good starter to a conversation b/c I think it brings a few things to the surface worth discussing, perhaps some of which you and Andy share and others, like me, disagree with. I don't think the sole or even most important question is whether something "oppresses" someone. I think - and perhaps Ray and DMN are trying to make this point - that sometimes things can be evaluated as wrong simply by virtue of whether they're knowingly false.

Sure. I agree. But what is also coming across is that it is a big deal when a black pastor lies and "creates" division, but it's not really a big deal what ACTUALLY created and perpetuates that division.

South Side African Americans are a diverse group. They don't have a singular perspective. But it is VERY clear that the government is trying to kill them, whether or not the government designed AIDS to do so.

Of the two things, I am much more concerned with the government ACTUALLY trying to kill my kids and that no one cares than I am about the inflammatory lie that the government invented AIDS to kill blacks because that makes mainstream Americans of various ethnicities upset.

"Society" is more interested in what some small subset of the population is doing when it is relevant to a presidential candidate? Wow; what a shock. You argue that it's a racist conspiracy to hurt a candidate because he's black? Also, what a shock.

No, I'm saying that it'd be nice if people cared when injustice was being perpetuated on a large scale rather than just wanting to demonize a single speak and those who associate with him who happen to not be the same ethnicity as every single person who ever held that office in the history of the country.

For that reason, and that reason alone, I think Obama had a responsibility to speak loudly about the disservice done to the Chicago black community by such false claims and about the right of even black folk to true information from their pastors.

Fair enough. Just like we all have a responsibility to understand and address all of the much larger disservices being done to that community.

We suck at fulfilling our responsibility.

If I honestly believed the government was doing something to kill Jewish people, it would be a pretty clear assumption that I'm talking mainly about "the non-Jewish members of the government." I used white as shorthand for non-black, but I don't think it's a particularly strange idea to think that generally a calculated effort by a power structure to wipe out a race of people isn't contributed to by willing, conscious members of that race.

If so, it'd be a problematic assumption. My kids sure don't assume that the police trying to kill them are only the white ones. I don't assume that Michelle Malkin is sympathetic to Asian Americans because she has some specific blood in her veins. I'd suggest you study the structure of more historical genocidal and/or apartheid movements. The very idea that racism can only be exacted by members of a different race is short-sighted.

I don't care one bit about whether Obama is black, white, or green. I do care that he has a long-standing and strong connection to a person that recklessly spreads a dangerous, hurtful message.

And that's great. Unfortunately, as much as I would like race to not matter a bit, pretending it's not there doesn't make it go away in this society any more than pretending a tire isn't flat will reinflate it.

Here's a point on which I cannot settle: do you think Rev. Wright is particularly intelligent?

He obviously has a great deal of intelligence, but intelligence isn't binary thing, and it's not linear; it's multi-dimensional, and comes in many different forms. A great musician or baseball player may not be able to pass a calculus course; but they have learned things about music or how to compete on the baseball field that show real intelligence on a particular level. If Wright really believes the things he says, then (for example with the AIDS statement) he was not intelligent enough, in one way, to prevent common sense from taking a back seat to some of the other emotions he was acting on. But Wright is still extremely intelligent in certain ways, just like the musician or baseball player.

nobody outside of the true wingnuts has said that Wright has had any influence on Obama's political views

This Rasmussen Reports poll reports:

"Fifty-six percent (56%) say it’s at least somewhat likely that Obama “shares some of Pastor Wright’s controversial views about the United States.” That figure includes 26% who say it’s Very Likely Obama holds such views. At the other end of the spectrum 24% say it’s Not Very Likely that Obama shares such views. Just 11% say it’s Not at All Likely."

I'm with the 11% here, but that sounds like an awful lot of "true wingnuts" in this country (which, sadly, I don't find all that surprising).

I don't have enough of a basis to form an opinion on his intelligence as an individual. However, I think an interesting question is, what is intelligence? Is it simply what is measured by an IQ test?

Is artistic innovation intelligence? Is musical innovation intelligence? Is the ability to learn multiple languages intelligence? Is rhetorical skill -- the facility to draw in and persuade an audience -- intelligence? Is the innate ability, when standing in right field, to immediately figure where a ball is apt to land the instant it cracks off the bat, intelligence? (I am not considering the ability to run to that place and catch the ball. That's athleticism.) Is the ability to read the flight path of a basketball toward the basket in order to judge where to go ahead of time for the rebound intelligence? Is the ability of a quarterback to read a defense intelligence? Or the ability of a tailback to read the collision on the line in order to find the developing hole intelligence?

No, no, yes, yes, no, no, no, no.

Why, David? Your central nervous system has to function well do do all the things you are saying no to?

Why are you carving up the brain and saying some parts of it contribute to intelligence and others don't?

For me, anything that your brain does to enhance your survivability I would regard as intelligence. And anything it does to diminish your survivability I would regard as stupidity.

David, what's your reasoning for why the ability to learn multiple languages is intelligence, but the ability to innovate musically is not? In order to innovate musically, one needs to learn the structure of notes and octaves, which notes go together and which don't, and needs to learn how (for example with the piano) to play such that the right hand complements the left, and so forth. How is this different from being able to learn multiple languages?

But it is VERY clear that the government is trying to kill [South Side African Americans], whether or not the government designed AIDS to do so.

Comments like this make me glad I normally skip over whatever E-X has to say.

Comments like this make me glad I normally skip over whatever E-X has to say.

From my experience, SW Philadelphia is not all that unlike S Chicago, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that many prominent and influential government and business people are indifferent to completely unnecessary deaths in this neighborhood. I also think there are at least a handful of historical examples where one could present a plausible motive for these individuals to value the lives of those in the neighborhood less than personal expediency and argue that they acted accordingly. I'm not sure I agree with E-X's phrasing per se, but I think the sentiment is more defensible than you allow.

For that reason, and that reason alone, I think Obama had a responsibility to speak loudly about the disservice done to the Chicago black community by such false claims and about the right of even black folk to true information from their pastors.

Fair enough. Just like we all have a responsibility to understand and address all of the much larger disservices being done to that community.

We suck at fulfilling our responsibility.

That may or may not be. But I don't want a president who sucks at fulfilling responsibility.

I'm not sure I agree with E-X's phrasing per se, but I think the sentiment is more defensible than you allow.

Well, E-X said that the government and police are "trying to kill" people. That's a bit different than being "indifferent," even assuming what you say above is accurate.

Well, E-X said that the government and police are "trying to kill" people. That's a bit different than being "indifferent," even assuming what you say above is accurate.

Well, currently, they are pushing an educational agenda that closes schools and sends disperses kids to schools across the city.

You can walk into any classroom in the city, and it would take the kids less than a minute to figure out how that kills kids.

That goes doubly for Daley's push to give police heavier weaponry at the same time as he pushes gun control.

These are active policies that kill children. You might think it is appropriate to split hairs over whether it is "trying to kill" or "indifference", but it sure is a luxury to do so.

It's funny. The point wasn't to push my own opinion, but to give you an incite into how many on the South Side feel.

If your reaction is to think, "Wow this guy is not worth listening to at all!" doesn't that just prove my point, that you are more concerned at saying, "Those people of color sure are crazy! How dare they be angry and search for responsibility for their kids' deaths when it's not intentional" Rather than, "Wow, it sure is sick that we allow our government to push segregationist policies and policy that lead to deadly violence. People sure have a right to be angry!"

If a parent who lost their child was in the room with you, would you really parse language like this? If a teacher who lost their students was in the room with you, would you parse language like this?

Now since I'm not interested in racial divisiveness, I'm not going to go to my classroom or community and say, "A number of the white people on an internet baseball site are uninterested in your well being."

But you can certainly see that it's true, right?

That may or may not be. But I don't want a president who sucks at fulfilling responsibility.

RDF.

Yeah, because the other major presidential candidates are likely to fulfill this responsibility when they aren't even willing to discuss these issues?

The point wasn't to push my own opinion, but to give you an incite into how many on the South Side feel.

That's a great typo, E-X.

Yeah. I was editing and changed the extreme language at the end of the post, but I couldn't bear to change that ;P

Well, currently, they are pushing an educational agenda that closes schools and sends disperses kids to schools across the city.

You can walk into any classroom in the city, and it would take the kids less than a minute to figure out how that kills kids.

Sorry, but "I disagree with them" is not synonymous with "they're trying to kill" kids. You have an odd habit of re-defining words and then complaining when others don't accept your definitions. Some may find that endearing. I do not.

These are active policies that kill children. You might think it is appropriate to split hairs over whether it is "trying to kill" or "indifference", but it sure is a luxury to do so.

Actually, I don't agree that it's "indifference" either. But the larger point is that this is not "splitting hairs."

If your reaction is to think, "Wow this guy is not worth listening to at all!"

That's my reaction, yes, when you say that people are trying to kill other people when they're not. If you don't want people to tune out your message, then try using the English language in the same manner that everyone else does.

Sorry, but "I disagree with them" is not synonymous with "they're trying to kill" kids. You have an odd habit of re-defining words and then complaining when others don't accept your definition. Some may find that endearing. I do not.

I think you are confused about the meaning of "it would take the kids less than a minute to figure out how that kills kids."

You must not find yourself endearing. It's too bad, I think you are pretty cute.

Actually, I don't agree that it's "indifference" either. But the larger point is that this is not "splitting hairs."

Not to you since you don't care about the end result. If my kid is killed, you call me "not worth listening to" and then go eat a sandwich.

E-X, setting aside your personal attack, I believe the issues you raise are important ones. What puzzles me is that you're obviously concerned about and invested in these issues, and, yet, you allow yourself to present them in such a way as to utterly sabotage your chances of getting your message across to people. Even the ones who listen to you are often too busy correcting you on proper word usage to engage the issues.

You're a smart guy (intelligence!), so it's odd that you haven't figured this out yet.

Why, David? Your central nervous system has to function well do do all the things you are saying no to?

Why are you carving up the brain and saying some parts of it contribute to intelligence and others don't?

Your central nervous system has to function well for you to successfully play baseball, too, but Rich explicitly decided to exclude that. Why? Because we already have a term for it -- athleticism -- and there's no need to be PC and relabel athleticism as "athletic intelligence." Similarly, we already have a label for artistic ability; I see no need to relabel that a form of "intelligence."

David, what's your reasoning for why the ability to learn multiple languages is intelligence, but the ability to innovate musically is not? In order to innovate musically, one needs to learn the structure of notes and octaves, which notes go together and which don't, and needs to learn how (for example with the piano) to play such that the right hand complements the left, and so forth. How is this different from being able to learn multiple languages?

It (that is, the multiple language thing) might not be; I was torn on that one.

From my experience, SW Philadelphia is not all that unlike S Chicago, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that many prominent and influential government and business people are indifferent to completely unnecessary deaths in this neighborhood. I also think there are at least a handful of historical examples where one could present a plausible motive for these individuals to value the lives of those in the neighborhood less than personal expediency and argue that they acted accordingly. I'm not sure I agree with E-X's phrasing per se, but I think the sentiment is more defensible than you allow.

I don't believe that it's true that people are "indifferent" to it, but it's not an absurd claim. It's a very very different claim -- not a mere matter of "phrasing" -- from claiming they're intentionally killing people.

If a parent who lost their child was in the room with you, would you really parse language like this? If a teacher who lost their students was in the room with you, would you parse language like this?

First, your premise is disingenuous. The difference between "intentional" and "indifferent" is not a mere matter of "parsing language." It is the difference between truth and a lie.

And second, your question is disingenuous, in that it implies that what we would say to someone in an emotional situation is the test for truth. If a child ran out into traffic and was hit by a car moving at legal speed by an unimpaired driver, it would be the child's fault, not the driver's fault. I might not say, "It's the stupid kid's fault" to the parent's face, but that's just a matter of politeness, not truth.

It's funny. The point wasn't to push my own opinion, but to give you an incite into how many on the South Side feel.

"Incite" is unintentionally accurate. Why do you think people feel that way? Partly because of asshats like Wright, inciting people with racist rants.

If your reaction is to think, "Wow this guy is not worth listening to at all!" doesn't that just prove my point,

No.

that you are more concerned at saying, "Those people of color sure are crazy! How dare they be angry and search for responsibility for their kids' deaths when it's not intentional" Rather than, "Wow, it sure is sick that we allow our government to push segregationist policies and policy that lead to deadly violence. People sure have a right to be angry!"

People do have a right to be angry at bad policies that have bad results. That isn't justification for making false accusations.

Long day away, but a few comments:

JC (# 2716),

Don't misunderstand me. Of course the truth is important, and I don't see a damn bit of good coming out of spreading inane speculations about the government and AIDS. I can see where some people might not automatically rule it out, given the general history of racial oppression in the United States, but that still doesn't excuse Rev. Wright in the slightest, because it goes without saying that he should know better. In a word, he's a pandering demagogue, even if he's also one who may have done great good in other areas of his ministry.

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

arkitektron (# 2819),

I've brought up your point about wacko friends many times, and I agree with it completely. I guess I can sort of understand people who restrict their friendships to those who never say anything offensive, but that sort of screening has never appealed to me. I just had dinner at the pool room with a guy who's just written a book pretty much claiming that everything the Supreme Court has done since 1935 has been "unconstitutional," and is having it vetted by a guy at the Cato Institute in the hopes of finding a publisher. I agree with him on about 1% of all this, and he says lots of things about FDR that on one level I find pretty offensive, but he's such a sweet natured and sincere person that I can't even imagine not wanting him as a friend merely because of this. This whole idea of political litmus tests for friendships or associations seems just absolutely nutty to me.

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

Here's a point on which I cannot settle: do you think Rev. Wright is particularly intelligent?

He obviously has a great deal of intelligence, but intelligence isn't binary thing, and it's not linear; it's multi-dimensional, and comes in many different forms. A great musician or baseball player may not be able to pass a calculus course; but they have learned things about music or how to compete on the baseball field that show real intelligence on a particular level. If Wright really believes the things he says, then (for example with the AIDS statement) he was not intelligent enough, in one way, to prevent common sense from taking a back seat to some of the other emotions he was acting on. But Wright is still extremely intelligent in certain ways, just like the musician or baseball player.

Ray gets a Gold Star for this one. Very well put.

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

nobody outside of the true wingnuts has said that Wright has had any influence on Obama's political views

This Rasmussen Reports poll reports:

"Fifty-six percent (56%) say it’s at least somewhat likely that Obama “shares some of Pastor Wright’s controversial views about the United States.” That figure includes 26% who say it’s Very Likely Obama holds such views. At the other end of the spectrum 24% say it’s Not Very Likely that Obama shares such views. Just 11% say it’s Not at All Likely."

I'm with the 11% here, but that sounds like an awful lot of "true wingnuts" in this country (which, sadly, I don't find all that surprising).

Perhaps there are that many wingnuts, but I'd still be interested in talking to some of the 30% who say "some," and find out exactly what they mean by that, since it has zero basis in reality.

The 26% figure more or less represents the intellectual base of the Republican Party, without which the GOP would have disintegrated well over 100 years ago.

I've brought up your point about wacko friends many times, and I agree with it completely. I guess I can sort of understand people who restrict their friendships to those who never say anything offensive, but that sort of screening has never appealed to me. I just had dinner at the pool room with a guy who's just written a book pretty much claiming that everything the Supreme Court has done since 1935 has been "unconstitutional," and is having it vetted by a guy at the Cato Institute in the hopes of finding a publisher. I agree with him on about 1% of all this, and he says lots of things about FDR that on one level I find pretty offensive, but he's such a sweet natured and sincere person that I can't even imagine not wanting him as a friend merely because of this. This whole idea of political litmus tests for friendships or associations seems just absolutely nutty to me.

Andy, setting aside the fact that this person is entirely right :), you're conflating political disagreement with racism. Nobody is criticizing Obama for being friends with a guy who supports the death tax or who thinks that the healthcare industry ought to be nationalized.

"it is VERY clear that the government is trying to kill [South Side African Americans]"

Apparently, it is not only Rev. Wright who has an agenda to poison the minds of his gullible audience.

"Well, currently, they are pushing an educational agenda that closes schools and sends disperses (sic) kids to schools across the city."

You might ask, what reason the school board has for closing certain schools? Is it the board's intention to kill black people? Or to kill people based on their race? Obviously, the answers are no and no. However, you poison the well by not only implying that it is their intention, but you race-bait by selecting one group as the intended victim.

You might respond, “but if the board knows that the closure of a neighborhood school will result in x-number of drop-outs, which is y-percentage higher (ceteris paribus), and that children who drop out are z-percentage more likely to die prematurely, then the known effect of their actions is to kill q-number of persons. As such, the school board is passing policies which it knows will result in more dead kids.”

But that is a misleading conclusion. Beyond the fact that it completely ignores the personal and familial responsibilities of those who choose to drop out of school, it ignores the fact that any governing body (school board, legislature, etc.) has to balance competing demands for its limited resources. Shutting down a certain school may be a bad choice, but it may have been the best choice (in the opinions of the board) given a number of other choices deemed worse.

Further, by pinning the responsibility entirely (or even partly) on the school board, you ignore the fact that your argument would hold true if it were put up against you and your fellow public school teachers. For example, in times when money is tight and the board must decide on what and where to cut back, the teachers' union, knowing that "a school closure will kill black kids" could decide to give back a pay raise or some side benefit in order to prevent that school from closing. (Likewise, any other beneficiaries of school funds could do the same.) Are the teachers' unions making such offers? No. And because they are not, (using your skewed analysis) the teachers' unions are "trying to kill South Side African Americans."

Of course, the teachers' unions are not trying to kill anyone. They are trying to get the best salary and benefits for their members, leaving themselves open to a bogus extrapolation that this will result in killing q-number of students.

"That goes doubly for Daley's push to give police heavier weaponry at the same time as he pushes gun control. These are active policies that kill children."

This is a bizarre allegation, particularly considering that you never even attempt to prove how one thing leads to the next. I won't say you are wrong. I will simply say that you have failed to make your case.

"You might think it is appropriate to split hairs over whether it is "trying to kill" or "indifference", but it sure is a luxury to do so."

No, it's just a matter of logic. I don't think it is your teachers' union's hope to kill children. I assume that your union is just indifferent.

"It's funny. The point wasn't to push my own opinion, but to give you an incite into how many on the South Side feel."

You mean insight, teacher? It's funny that you made this mistake, given that your bombast seems to be an effort to incite racial animus.

"If your reaction is to think, "Wow this guy is not worth listening to at all!" doesn't that just prove my point, that you are more concerned at saying, "Those people of color sure are crazy!"

“Those people of color” is a good example of your race-baiting. You make assumptions about large groups of people based on their color, which is, of course, racism. You also assume that everyone is as prejudiced as you are, which is untrue.

"How dare they be angry and search for responsibility for their kids' deaths when it's not intentional" Rather than, ‘Wow, it sure is sick that we allow our government to push segregationist policies and policy that lead to deadly violence.’”

You flippantly allege that “our government pushes segregationist policies,” which is unsupported, and then draw extreme conclusions based on that false (or at least unsubstantiated) premise. Never mind that your conclusions also don't logically or empirically follow from the premise. This is what an educated person would call a non sequitur.

"If a parent who lost their child (sic) was (sic) in the room with you, would you really parse language like this? If a teacher who lost their (sic) students was (sic) in the room with you, would you parse language like this?

I'm disappointed that we have classroom teachers who don't know the basics of English grammar.

“Now since I'm not interested in racial divisiveness, I'm not going to go to my classroom or community and say, ‘A number of the white people on an internet baseball site are uninterested in your well being.’”

Your claim to not being into racial divisiveness is as credible as Arkitekton's claim to being a conservative. Also, your claim is insulting to all non-whites who are critical of your bombast.

Andy, setting aside the fact that this person is entirely right :), you're conflating political disagreement with racism. Nobody is criticizing Obama for being friends with a guy who supports the death tax or who thinks that the healthcare industry ought to be nationalized.

I realize this, but I also realize that in my lifetime I've also convinced more than a few of these people (racists) to see the error of their ways, including the son of one of Birmingham's "big mules" who used to scream very nasty words at us during civil rights demonstrations. I've even converted a few of the more intelligent libertarians once in a while. So while I can't speak for Obama, I still defend the idea of not necessarily disassociating oneself from racists on the personal level.

And yeah, you would like this guy who's writing the book I'm talking about, although I won't see his draft until Wednesday and I have no idea how well he writes. And since he's a great guy and a great pool player (known as Jersey John), I couldn't care less about his curious political views. Maybe I'll be able to convert him, too.

Personally, I would put Steward Machine in 1937 as where the Court really went off the rails.

EDIT - Linkage.

From the Wikipedia article that Guts linked:

the Court noted that: “The fact developed quickly that the states were unable to give the requisite relief. The problem had become national in area and dimensions. There was need of help from the nation if the people were not to starve. It is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that, in a crisis so extreme, the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare. Cf. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1.”

What I underlined strikes me as a legislative opinion, not a judicial one. The court may (or may not) be entirely correct. However, it ought not be the role of the court to make a ruling because the ruling supports the court's policy preferences.... Alas, this ship set sail too long ago to find it, let alone bring it back to port.

Guts, obviously 1937 was when the Supreme Court totally went off the rails -- West Coast Hotel was a few months before Steward Machine, btw -- but Blaisdell was in 1934, and it represented one of the first instances of the Supreme Court simply tossing out the Constitution because it was convenient.

You're a smart guy (intelligence!), so it's odd that you haven't figured this out yet.

I have figured it out, as I've already posted on this thread. I'm not really interested in "converting" you. I spend very little energy on people from your perspective, but I do enjoy interacting with you.

Your claim to not being into racial divisiveness is as credible as Arkitekton's claim to being a conservative. Also, your claim is insulting to all non-whites who are critical of your bombast.

Well, I'd be happy to be evaluated on my record as far as this goes. I can't imagine many have done more to work against racial divisiveness. I have nothing to gain through racial divisiveness.

Of course, the Chicago Teacher's Union is happy to be complicit in the deaths of children. The difference is that I am willing to risk my life to change that. Rich Rifkin is happy to make my losses a grammatical issue. I am sure that he has a family and community and I hope that he never loses someone close to him in a tragic way, and if he does others treat him far better than he would treat them. That's all I have to say on that matter.

Well, I'd be happy to be evaluated on my record as far as this goes. I can't imagine many have done more to work against racial divisiveness.

Well, it would be odd if you worked against racial divisiveness in your personal life while working so hard to be racially divisive here on BTF, but I guess stranger things have happened.

That may or may not be. But I don't want a president who sucks at fulfilling responsibility.

Oy. Good luck with that.

Your claim to not being into racial divisiveness is as credible as Arkitekton's claim to being a conservative. Also, your claim is insulting to all non-whites who are critical of your bombast.


Well, I'd be happy to be evaluated on my record as far as this goes. I can't imagine many have done more to work against racial divisiveness. I have nothing to gain through racial divisiveness.

I'm pretty sure by this he meant that you were, in fact, highly credible. I mean, is any other interpretation even possible?

I have figured it out, as I've already posted on this thread. I'm not really interested in "converting" you. I spend very little energy on people from your perspective, but I do enjoy interacting with you.

But my point is that your style inhibits a productive discussion with people who are _trying_ to have one with you. Me included, until you start misusing terms.

"I can't imagine many have done more to work against racial divisiveness."

I can't think of anyone I've ever come across who is more willfully racially divisive than you. I don't know you well enough to judge your whole person. However, the character you play on BTF comes across as a racist.

I should give at least one example to justify that last sentence. You wrote, "But what is also coming across is that it is a big deal when a black pastor lies and 'creates' division, but it's not really a big deal what ACTUALLY created and perpetuates that division."

The race of Rev. Wright is completely irrelevant to the criticism of him. Your bringing his race into this is inherenetly racist, as not one of his critics berated him for being black or anything remotely related to that. He was berated for being a liar and a bad influence on his flock, most notably by his erstwhile congregant, Barack Obama.

For you to then walk away from this racism, wash your hands of it and claim your are 'not racially divisive' is absurd. Your intent (in various posts) seems to be to segreagate those who are against Rev. Wright as being white, while those for him (or at least not worried by him) are 'people of color.'

"I also find it interesting that whenever it comes up, people insist that accusing the government of doing something is the exact same thing as accusing white people doing something."

No one insisted this, other than you.

"I don't judge my pastors on how careful they are to not piss off white people."

What straw man are you arguing against, here?

"I don't really think of white people too much at all in choosing my churches."

Did someone accuse you of that?

"Wow, black people are dumb if don't agree with you on some meaningless fact or show the proper reverence for white America."

Did anyone ever ask for 'proper reverence for white America'? Or even think in terms of 'white America'?

"A number of the white people on an internet baseball site are uninterested in your well being."

I wonder what you would say if you were trying to be racially divisive, assuming you really don't understand how you actually come across.

Among the many other important issues overshadowed by the good reverend is a legitimate dispute between the presidential candidates over a proposed gasoline tax holiday, to run through the summer. Hillary Clinton and John McCain favor this dopey, irresponsible proposal, which would save individual motorists a grand total of $28, but which would result in $9 billion in lost tax revenues, much of it targeted for infrastructure needs.

--Bob Herbert, yesterday's NYT

I've seen those two figures in a number of places. So there are over 320 million "individual motorists in the U.S"? Are infants driving now?

I had not read Blaisdell before, and DMN is right, that's a bad decision - Hughes was not the best CJ. His flip-flopping from Butler is notoriously bad, at least in law schools.

The race of Rev. Wright is completely irrelevant to the criticism of him. Your bringing his race into this is inherently racist, as not one of his critics berated him for being black or anything remotely related to that. He was berated for being a liar and a bad influence on his flock, most notably by his erstwhile congregant, Barack Obama.

For you to then walk away from this racism, wash your hands of it and claim your are 'not racially divisive' is absurd. Your intent (in various posts) seems to be to segreagate those who are against Rev. Wright as being white, while those for him (or at least not worried by him) are 'people of color.'


Attacking liberal-minded folks who recognize that race is an issue and valid problem that affects many facets of modern society as racists for not sweeping the fact under the rug is the oldest conservative trick in the damn book. But it's done because it seems to absolve not just conservatives but ANYONE from any need to recognize this fact where valid. It's far more prevalent in these discussions on BTF than Godwin's Law and honestly a much smaller-minded tactic.

Attacking liberal-minded folks who recognize that race is an issue and valid problem that affects many facets of modern society as racists for not sweeping the fact under the rug is the oldest conservative trick in the damn book. But it's done because it seems to absolve not just conservatives but ANYONE from any need to recognize this fact where valid. It's far more prevalent in these discussions on BTF than Godwin's Law and honestly a much smaller-minded tactic.

It depends on how it's done, Lassus, and not everyone who disagrees with us here on BTF is guilty of that tactic. Most of these guys are much closer in spirit to Goldwater than they are to Jesse Helms, which is quite a character gap. But what you describe certainly is a commonly used weapon from the old Nixon / Atwater / Rove playbook.

But in light of the fantasy often put forth here that the Republicans are somehow nothing but honest race-blind brokers in all these public debates, and that its southern strategy (now gone national) isn't aimed squarely at the fears of white voters, it should be noted that with the retirement of J.C. Watts, the GOP congressional delegation, both House and Senate, became once again 100% lily white, with no African Americans at all---that's 247 to 0, sports fans.

Purely coincidental, and it has nothing at all to do with the sort of scare campaigns and coded messages that the Republicans have been sending forth for 44 years. Which is why as a Democrat it's such an embarrassment to see this same sort of sleazy tactic engaged in by the Clinton campaign, and trumpted in the very media outlets of the "vast right wing conspiracy," no less.

the GOP congressional delegation, both House and Senate, became once again 100% lily white, with no African Americans at all---that's 247 to 0, sports fans.

Given that blacks that run as Republicans end up being vilified as Uncle Toms or race traitors, it's no wonder they don't want to put up with the crap. Maryland's a "good progressive" state and the #### Michael Steele took was ridiculous (and I didn't even vote for him). When was the last time a Black Democratic candidate had a a left-leaning cartoonist make a "Little Black Sambo" reference about him?

Hell, if I only knew about Clarence Thomas what BTF says about him, I would think he's a developmentally retarded man who works as night janitor at a McDonald's.

Dan, the problem you mention is caused far more by the fact that the sort of black candidates that the Republicans put up have far more in common with Alan Keyes and Clarence Thomas than they do with (for example) Colin Powell, Condolleezza Rice or Edward Brooke. In spite of the fact that on some levels (notably high level cabinet members) the African American face of the GOP is a moderate one, the cumulative effect of Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, and years of Atwaterism have left most African Americans feeling distinctly unwelcome within the Republican ranks. The truth is that there seems to be little or no home in the Party these days for the likes of any Edward Brookes.

Considering the ever-growing strength of the African American middle class, that seems to me to be a lost opportunity for the Republicans, one that their constant race-coded campaigns (like the ones that they've been using in NC, Louisiana and Mississippi in the past few weeks) seem to be wilfully throwing away. Right now the GOP's best hope is that Hillary will scare some of them into their arms as a protest against her own version of Atwaterism.

Maryland's a "good progressive" state and the #### Michael Steele took was ridiculous (and I didn't even vote for him).

Well, Szym, a lot of it he deserved. For one thing, he drank the religious right kool-aid on stem cell research, without being able to credibly defend that viewpoint. This in a state where the importance of the biotech/medical industry is paramount.

It depends on how it's done, Lassus, and not everyone who disagrees with us here on BTF is guilty of that tactic. Most of these guys are much closer in spirit to Goldwater than they are to Jesse Helms, which is quite a character gap. But what you describe certainly is a commonly used weapon from the old Nixon / Atwater / Rove playbook.

I appreciate your even-handedness, Andy, but you seem to imply that somewhere I said "All you people who don't agree with us here on BTF bring out that argument." All I said was that all of those who use that argument use that argument, and it's a common one that comes up easily every time in this debate. And, I'm totally not grumpy as I sound here. I actually do appreciate your even-handedness and real-world experience in this debate, which should be given more credibility by us, er, youngsters in our late 30's.

Dan, could you reference which left-leaning cartoonist and cartoon? I freely admit to knowing nothing about this candidate, but isn't using the treatment of a specific Black Democrat to make a point about the general treatment of Black Republicans a little confusing?

Given that blacks that run as Republicans end up being vilified as Uncle Toms or race traitors, it's no wonder they don't want to put up with the crap.

Not specifically aimed at Dan here, but I have a question. Why is it that:

Overtly identifying black Republicans with the racist nutjobs that they willingly associate with (the Republican Party apparatii of the southern states, at least) is immoral and wrong, but....

Overtly identifying Barack Obama with the nutjobs of the church that he associates with is a-okay?

I have a question. Why is it that:

Overtly identifying black Republicans with the racist nutjobs that they willingly associate with (the Republican Party apparatii of the southern states, at least) is immoral and wrong, but....

Overtly identifying Barack Obama with the nutjobs of the church that he associates with is a-okay?

My somewhat whimsical theory is that "20 Years of Treason" was such a long standing Republican campaign theme that "20 Years of Association" brings back pleasant memories of GOP Good Times. Slogans like that are in the right wing's DNA and they couldn't rid themselves of it if they wanted to.

Regarding Matt Gonzalez, is he worthwhile to check out

If you're a hard-core lefty, sure.

He has about as much chance of ever becoming President as Ralph Nader does.

His message won't be new to many of you.

It still bears repeating for those who want real change.

Otherwise continue on with your discussion of who will be the last emperor of the good ship America.

But for those who have 20 minutes, visit: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978519

I see we've got the left-wing circle jerk going, where conservatives are so obviously racist that even when you can't find an actual racist thing to cite, you can just say "Rove" or "Atwater" or talk about "code words" and everyone nods and pretends that you've proven your case and aren't full of crap.

Well, Szym, a lot of it he deserved. For one thing, he drank the religious right kool-aid on stem cell research, without being able to credibly defend that viewpoint. This in a state where the importance of the biotech/medical industry is paramount.

Sorry, no. He didn't drink any Kool-Aid, he simply followed his moral upbringing which traces back beyond HS (at Carroll, in NE DC) and advocated a position you disagree with. No one deserves "####" for that, and that's beside the good point Zim made. He got lambasted from the left for being an Uncle Tom black.

E-X: I'm sorry your post went off the rails. If you cannot distinguish even malign neglect (which would have to be shown) from "killing", then you're going to be dismissed as unserious. And at some point I think you're going to have to reflect on Rich's points. Since you and I have been at this site, I've seen various and distinct people find you racially divisive (from me to UCCF to Rich). I don't know any of them outside this context, so it's true they may all be secret racists. It's also true, however, that something in your delivery or message doesn't jibe with your concern not to racially divide.

Sorry, no. He didn't drink any Kool-Aid, he simply followed his moral upbringing which traces back beyond HS (at Carroll, in NE DC) and advocated a position you disagree with. No one deserves "####" for that, and that's beside the good point Zim made.

Well, I saw both him and his opponent in a televised interview and he could not articulate why he was taking the position he took. He said it was immoral but couldn't say why it was immoral.

That's drinking the kool-aid.

Sorry, no. He didn't drink any Kool-Aid, he simply followed his moral upbringing which traces back beyond HS (at Carroll, in NE DC) and advocated a position you disagree with. No one deserves "####" for that, and that's beside the good point Zim made.

There's a reason he had to apologize for comparing stem cell research to Mengele and slavery.

He got lambasted from the left for being an Uncle Tom black.

He was asked about a fundraiser he held at an all white country club, and he responded: "I don't play golf. It's not an issue with me."

LASSUS: "Attacking liberal-minded folks who recognize that race is an issue and valid problem that affects many facets of modern society as racists for not sweeping the fact under the rug is the oldest conservative trick in the damn book."

This doesn't apply to anything I have ever done, said or written in my life. It's offensive that you would connect my forthright attack on someone else's race-baiting to that.

Dan, the problem you mention is caused far more by the fact that the sort of black candidates that the Republicans put up have far more in common with Alan Keyes and Clarence Thomas

Andy, what on earth do Alan Keyes and Clarence Thomas have in common, other than their skin color? Yes, they're both on the more conservative side of politics -- in very different ways -- but what exactly is that supposed to mean? Republicans tend to put up "the sort of black candidates" who are consonant with the Republican party. The "sort of black candidates" who have the same views as the "sort of white candidates" they put up.

There is no person in American society today that has endure as many attacks as a black conservative. What is especially notable, it is acceptable by liberals to make these racial attacks on the black conservative.

They are attacked by everyone. By blacks for not being "black enough" or called "uncle toms" or "Aunt Jemimas". By white liberals using the same attacks trying to conceal their utter disgust and hatred of the black conservative. All this, before ever discussing a single political issue either.

I see we've got the left-wing circle jerk going, where conservatives are so obviously racist that even when you can't find an actual racist thing to cite, you can just say "Rove" or "Atwater" or talk about "code words" and everyone nods and pretends that you've proven your case and aren't full of crap.

David, I'd like to continue to operate on the assumption that you're not this stupid.

A very fair article on Steele, that makes sense of the Elkridge affair (it wasn't Steele's fundraiser, btw, but facts don't matter when you're slinging ####), is the one by Mike Sokolove from the NYT. Steele's a great guy, no Uncle Tom, and a smart guy. He's committed to unpopular beliefs, but so what? It doesn't merit Uncle Tom comments. The guy lives in Prince George's county still.

Only because I assume uber-Celtic-fan Kevin is paying some attention to this thread, now, I have a quick thought on the Boston-Atlanta series, which I'm watching on TV as I type (and the Celtics lead handily, 44-26, as the first half ends):

Too much has been made of the idea that "Boston has played badly, allowing an 8-seed like the Hawks to take this to 7 games" and implying that Boston has been exposed. I think not enough has been made of just how well the Hawks played at home. Typical of a lot of talented, yet young teams, Atlanta plays much, much better in their own building. They didn't have a great regular season record, but that doesn't prove that they are not capable of playing great basketball. Atlanta has a truly great talent in Joe Johnson. I've seen him play at ARCO about 4 times (maybe 5), and he has impressed me every time. There are very few NBA players who can do what he can with the basketball. He's very, very athletic. Because he's played for a down-trodden franchise, most of the country has no appreciation for what a great talent Johnson is. Also, with Al Horford (21) and Josh Smith (22), Johnson finally has some good teammates. (At this point in his career, I would not inlcude Bibby as good.) I suspect that in the next few years, Atlanta will be one of the best teams in the Eastern Conference. If Marvin Williams (21) develops into a good player, the Hawks will have the core to compete for an NBA title....

This series going 7 games is not an indictment of the Celtics. Boston, right now, is good enough to win an NBA title (though I picked the Spurs). The series going 7 games is proof to me that Atlanta is an emerging power which has the parts to play great, but is too young to play great on the road or even consistantly great at home.

"Talented and young," Rich? Nice code words.

"Talented and young," Rich? Nice code words.

No ####. Why doesn't he just come right out and call them "Knicks"?

He was asked about a fundraiser he held at an all white country club, and he responded: "I don't play golf. It's not an issue with me."

Actually, Ehrlich, not Steele, held the fundraiser, and Steele said, "I don't know that much about the club, the membership, nor do I care, quite frankly, because I don't play golf." (Ehrlich's response was ""We rented the place for four hours. I don't know what their membership list is, and guess what – it's none of my business, nor is it any of your business. (*) This is all a bunch of nothing.") Politicians, Democrats and Republicans, had held fundraisers many times there. (**) Steele did not.



(*) Any time a politician says, "It's none of my business" to just about anything, he's about a million times more likely to get my vote.

(**) e.g.:

A campaign spokesman for [Democratic] Baltimore County Executive James T. Smith told The (Baltimore) Sun Tuesday that a supporter hosted a May 4 fund-raiser for Smith at Elkridge Club.

"Jim Smith has never belonged to a country club in his life. He was not aware of the country club's membership composition, and as the leader of a diverse county, he appreciates that it has been brought to his attention. Clearly, he will not have future campaign events hosted at this location," Rachael Rice, a fund-raising consultant for the Smith campaign, told the newspaper.

A very fair article on Steele, that makes sense of the Elkridge affair (it wasn't Steele's fundraiser, btw, but facts don't matter when you're slinging ####), is the one by Mike Sokolove from the NYT. Steele's a great guy, no Uncle Tom, and a smart guy. He's committed to unpopular beliefs, but so what? It doesn't merit Uncle Tom comments. The guy lives in Prince George's county still.

Sorry, it was Ehrlich's fundraiser. Not the only time they've had a racial controversy together..

Why would most blacks of any politics, or most liberals of any color, have any particular respect for Clarence Thomas? If you look at a decision like Crawford vs. Marion County Election Board, you see Thomas joining with Scalia and Alito in basically seeing no reason whatsoever not to reimpose a poll-tax-like burden on poor voters. "The burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is not a significant increase over the usual voting burdens," the three of them say, as if no poor person, person of color, disabled person, senior citizen, or other citizen at a disadvantage would have the slightest problem getting such an ID. It isn't that their language can be faulted in the slightest: none of the three would be caught dead using actually racist terminology. It's that they so cavalierly assume that neutral-sounding language yields neutral results in the real world. (By contrast, Souter, dissenting, figures it all out, largely along class lines, putting together the expense of establishing identity, the travel to get a "free" card, and other obstacles.) Let's say you admire Colin Powell, who made up some lies about WMDs to send a lot of working-class and minority soldiers over to die in the cause of establishing democracy in Iraq: it's a stretch, but say you admire Powell. How are you supposed to admire Thomas for making it harder to establish democracy in Gary and in East Chicago? Why would you bother?

This series going 7 games is not an indictment of the Celtics.

It helps Boston's call that they can maul the Hawks bodily and not worry about being called for fouls in the Garden.

This series going 7 games is not an indictment of the Celtics.

It helps Boston's call that they can maul the Hawks bodily and not worry about being called for fouls in the Garden.

That's a venerated Celtic tradition.

Why would most blacks of any politics, or most liberals of any color, have any particular respect for Clarence Thomas? If you look at a decision like Crawford vs. Marion County Election Board, you see Thomas joining with Scalia and Alito in basically seeing no reason whatsoever not to reimpose a poll-tax-like burden on poor voters.

Calling it a "poll tax like burden" is ludicrous, but it isn't the job of a judge to decide whether there's a "reason" to do it; it's the job of a judge to decide whether the Constitution forbids it. The Constitution does not require that all government actions have an exactly equal impact "along class lines" on everyone.

Souter's dissent is disingenuous; he points out that not everyone drives, and then points out that 10% of the population lives in counties without public transportation; he fails to note that the people who don't drive aren't likely to be the people in the counties without public transportation.

But it's one thing to criticize Thomas's opinion in the case; you don't have to agree with it, although it helps to cite an actual constitutional argument rather than a policy argument. It's another to single out Thomas for special criticism as an "Uncle Tom" for the opinion.

That's a venerated Celtic tradition.

That's true of every playoff game. You are going to get the calls at home. It's a fact of life. The hawks got all kinds of calls Friday.

Rich, Nice post and good analysis. I agree with everything you said except the part about the Celtics not playing poorly. They did it twice down the stretch in the two latest losses. Fo