I am feeling a little under the weather. I’m probably coming down with something. In any case, I’m not up to writing much of anything. So, here are a few things to discuss.
Obama has bypassed Congress by changing the process by which undocumented workers can apply for family hardship waivers. Immigrant advocacy groups are pleased. The Republicans are furious.
Israeli students rated the attractiveness of U.S. politicians and somehow ranked Saxby Chambliss near the top. He’s better-looking than Johnny Isakson, but I still don’t understand.
Is it just me or is it disappointing that three years with a black president seems to have only emboldened Republican presidential candidates to make more explicitly racist comments? I had hoped that the election of Obama proved that that kind of behavior no longer works. Also, that it would be so obvious that it doesn’t work that people wouldn’t bother trying.
I’m trying to feel bad for Kansas, but it is just very hard for me to do.
I’m trying not to panic about the weather.
As a Pennsylvanian, I laugh as I watch the rest of the country learn about what makes Little Ricky tick. He has an almost unique ability to make people hate him. He may even be better at it than Mitt Romney. The difference is that Mitt Romney mainly infuriates people who know him personally. Santorum just infuriates people who actually listen to what he has to say.
What’s on your mind? What are you doing this weekend?
Is it just me or is it disappointing that three years with a black president seems to have only emboldened Republican presidential candidates to make more explicitly racist comments?
What do you expect when our corporate media doesn’t care?
well, my link is the New York Times and CNN and MSNBC have been covering these remarks. So, what’s your point?
If they covered it with the time warranted, Santorum and Gingrich would be dropping out today. And both obviously aren’t. Hell, Mittens would be too with all his lies and deceit.
I don’t know what your definition of “the time warranted” is, but given the 1968 and 1972 campaigns of George Wallace, Nixon’s Southern Strategy, Pat Buchanan’s 1992 and 96 campaigns, the Bush campaign’s tactics in SC to defeat McCain in 2000, I don’t think there’s much evidence to support your thesis that “Santorum and Gingrich would be dropping out today”.
At a time of prolonged economic hardship and rapid demographic change, I’d be surprised if there weren’t candidates playing the race card to try to win elections.
What’s more surprising (and encouraging) to me is the degree to which it hasn’t worked.
I was saying if the corporate media did their job!! Just a passing mention in the nightly news isn’t going to make anyone more informed. And how did they mention it? Did they say the Newtster and Little Ricky were being racist?
Okay, thanks for clarifying. My own .02 is that there’s a significant (though, mercifully, shrinking) faction in American society for whom racism (explicit or implicit) is a feature, not a bug, in a candidate.
If they covered it with the time warranted, Santorum and Gingrich would be dropping out today.
Your thesis gives way too much credit to Republican primary voters.
Rick Perry’s numbers in the Republican primary went UP after the media went after him for owning a property with a racial slur in its name. Modern Republicans reflexively side with people accused of racism.
Why haven’t Ron Paul’s newsletters hurt him among Republicans? Because they helped him among Republicans, that’s why. Don’t blame the media.
How can you say with certainty that Ron Paul’s racist newsletters didn’t hurt him with Republicans? He was leading in Iowa before the media started making a deal out of them, and in about 5 days’ time he fell to 3rd. There were the expected right wing attacks on his fp, but from what I can tell here, the newsletters got a lot more play overall.
Not that the right wing has a problem with racism, of course. Maybe it’s a matter of presentation.
They got a lot of play in the MSM, but what about his opponents? What were they saying? How about the explicitly-right-wing media?
Let’s not forget that Herman Cain came under attack for “playing the race card” for merely agreeing that the name of Rick Perry’s estate was insensitive as part of his statement that he didn’t judge Perry for it and thought he did the right thing changing the name.
His opponents actually got cover from the (mostly right wing) MSM when they came under initial attack, albeit for all sorts of reasons not related to racism. It’s part of the “flavor of the month” derangement. All popular candidates were given at least one pass before being dismantled by the media.
Michele Bachmann had an early attack about her alleged migraines, and the MSM more or less covered her on that, but true to form, she kept talking about crap and it got too much to cover up.
Rick Perry…well, he came out swinging the Stupid Stick so hard that I guess the MSM couldn’t think fast enough to cover him. And then he kept on talking too.
Herman Cain survived–and actually thrived on–the first harassment claim against him, but then it kept coming, and he had to drop out.
Newt survived the Tiffany’s credit account, and the Greek Mistake. I’m not sure exactly what brought him down so quickly, but I suspect superPAC ads in IA did the bulk of the work.
The point is, racism was used to pull Paul down because it was perceived to be the low-hanging fruit. But it was effective–or at least it appears to have been what brought him down. Certainly any of the other candidates could have been exposed as outright bigots at any point along the way (with the possible, but not absolute exception of Cain), but in this weird media game it was judged that Paul’s newsletters were his Achilles heel.
Just to be clear, I don’t think racism as such is a dealbreaker for your typical GOP voter–especially not in IA, NH or SC–I just think that perceptions count. If the MSM is against you and calls you a racist, then you’re toast.
Incidentally, there’s a company out there that will make a custom toaster for you burning any impression into your daily bread that you like. I’m just saying.
Just to be clear, I don’t think racism as such is a dealbreaker for your typical GOP voter–especially not in IA, NH or SC–I just think that perceptions count. If the MSM is against you and calls you a racist, then you’re toast.
I don’t think the MSM calling you a racist actually makes you toast among the Republican primary voters. That’s why I don’t buy your assertion that it is what caused Paul to stall out in Iowa. I think all of the attacks on Paul came at the same time, so you can’t point to the timing of the stories about the newsletters as evidence of causation.
Regarding the book by Jodi Kanter about the war between Rahm “The Foul Mouth that Roared” Emanuel and the First Lady, supposedly for Obama’s soul.
If even some of this is true, it sure does explain a lot to me, especially to my inner question whenever something turned out bad for Obama. I mean, I would picture the Obamas in bed talking gently about what happened during the day, and having those mini-disagreements. And my question always has been: what does Michelle really think about this sh*t? Don’t tell me she goes for this, too?
The girl is no fool; she can detect BS from a foot away, and I know she tried to head Obama off from a possible disaster or two. No, she’s no Eleanor, but she’s definitely going to say what’s on her mind when she sees either her man or what he does going off kilter, but behind the scenes. That’s the wake-up for any guy, be he Prez or not.
What has stuck in my craw during these three, and soon-to-be-four years is about how Obama wanted so much for his presidency to be compared favorably with that of Clinton’s. Anybody with an ounce of brain could have told him that the Nineties were over a while ago and that the Oughts were the new kid in town.
That Emanuel couldn’t stand Michelle is testament to his contempt for women having any power in the first place in what he considers should be a boys’ club. That’s arrogance speaking as well as sexism. Obama’s vaunted arrogance, too.
Now the President is acting like the guy that should have kicked ass and taken names a long time ago, eschewing all that High Clintonism. And I’m still wondering, …and what does Michelle think about all this now?
That Emanuel couldn’t stand Michelle is testament to his contempt for women having any power in the first place in what he considers should be a boys’ club.
A lot of us knew that Emanuel was a supreme asshole long before he became CoS. This book will only give more fuel to the fire that Rahm is a disgusting dirtbag.
.
Even if it’s only somewhat truthful … Tense relationship between East and West Wing according to book.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Well, I’m betting on DogsAgainstRomney
Looking for a place to hide.
For real.
The shit just keeps getting deeper and deeper. Ah can’t shovel fast enough. Bush II was bad enough, but a non-white Bush!!! Who’s better/slicker at the game than was the original?
Sure hard to handle now, yes’ram!! (Thank you, Otis.)
Bet on it.
AG
Your diatribes against President Obama are tiresome and offensive. That you support the RACIST Ayn Randian Ron Paul says very unsavory things about you. Cut out your ODS!
Your support of the militarist, economic imperialist Barack Obama are tiresome, offensive and blindly self defeating. Ron Paul is not a racist, and saying that he is in the face of copious evidence to the contrary is just plain stupid. The “Ayn Randian” Ron Paul? How about the “Keynesian” Barack Obama? Swallowing whole the corporate media’s memes about what is acceptable and what is not says very unsavory things about you. Turn the media off and wake the fuck up.
AG
I can’t (and won’t) speak for zizi, but speaking as someone who’s lived without a television for some decades now (FWIW), I’d just observe that calling President Obama a “militarist” when:
*he’s just announced a major shift/reduction in the military’s overall war-fighting strategy/capacity;
*he’s called for a $450(?) billion cut in Pentagon spending over the next decade;
*he negotiated into last summer’s debt-ceiling agreement a $600(?) billion cut in defense spending (in the absence of budget-cutting deal before 2013);
*he ended the Iraq War as promised;
*he’s begun withdrawing troops from Afghanistan as promised; and,
*he resisted putting US ground troops in Libya;
is not the best of timing.
Phil Rockstroh in Counterpunch:
That list of “accomplishments” that you reference?
Watch.
They are all ad hoc reactions to economic imperialist-fueled military necessities…Iran and China presently chief among them…parsed with political expediency and economic fear.
Political expediency? Gotta get elected if Job One…the continuation of the American Empire…is to be continued but economic fear dictates that he also has to keep the military industrial complex rolling as well. It’s the biggest of big businesses.
You disagree?
Look harder.
AG
No TV?
NPR though. Right?
NY Times too? Probably. Or the Washitclean Post. One of the lib papers. Or some “progressive” mags/websites.
Daily Kos maybe?
Betcha.
AG
I’d take that bet because you’re mostly (not completely) wrong.
Just out of curiosity, what do you use for sources of news, information and analysis?
Ron Paul is not a racist, and saying that he is in the face of copious evidence to the contrary….
I appreciate the way Arthur makes sure to discredit himself on every thread like this.
AG
OK.
“I have black friends!” Whoo-de-doo.
It’s very nice of Dr. Paul to be decent to the individual black people he encounters in his day-to-day life.
If only he didn’t have such a history of holding them in contempt as a group.
It is the “group” part that he rejects.
It is your racism that is showing, Joe.
Not Ron Paul’s.
His only mistake? (Mistakes, maybe.) Not taking care of business in a proactive way with his newsletters decades ago and perhaps also allowing some true racists to ally with him in the pursuit of votes.
I have said this before and I will continue to say it any way that I can do so until…for whatever reasons…it simply doesn’t matter much anymore. Here is the whole “racism” scam being run on Ron Paul illustrated using a larger context.
If forces that are hostile to the continued survival or prosperity of the United States were to either overtly or covertly lend support to a U.S. politician or advocacy group of some sort…a politician or advocacy group that is in fact sincere in its efforts to help this country…are the politicians or groups then to be painted as allies of that hostile force? No, of course not. If so, then every AIPAC or Wall St.-allied politician (Just to name two quite obviously self-interested rather than U.S.-interested forces of many in the world.) in the U.S. would be liable to be opposed on that fact and that fact alone.
UH oh. Whoops!!! There goes almost the entire Senate, House of Representatives and every presidential candidate of the past 60 years, just for starters. And unlike Ron Paul, those people have not only refused to repudiate thier backers, they continue to openly take their money and do their bidding.
So where the fuck do you and the other kneejerk, anti-Paul “He’s a racist!!!” people get off harping on what he has done?
He spilled something on the kitchen floor while he was trying to cook and eventually cleaned it up whereas these other politicians have turned the entire country into a steaming garbage heap and reaped huge rewards as a result of their actions.
Nice, Joe.
Keep up the good work.
AG
New Kellogg School Research Suggests a Colorblind Approach to Diversity May Frustrate Efforts to Identify and Confront Discrimination
TL;DR: Taking a colorblind approach with young children — such as instructing them to “focus on what makes us similar” rather than dealing constructively with difference and challenging bias directly — actually reduces the likelihood that those young people will recognize discriminatory behavior when it occurs, or seek to do something about it.
Oh.
You mean that people are so stupid that they need to be taught the plain fact of American and world life that the darker one’s skin the fewer economic advantages one has in about 95% of the world?
Oh.
Yeah.
Ramp up those “differences.” We wouldn’t want that to happen.
Old African-American wisdom:
Didn’t need no education to figure out that shit. It was right there, plain to see and it still is despite the protestations of so many relatively privileged people of many colors.
They had “house negroes” back then too, y’know.
Challenging bias directly, eh?
Ever taught or performed in a not-so-good inner city school, seabe? Say one that is populated mostly by kids of color from the projects? I have. Lots of times. Here’s what happens if they “challenge bias directly” unless they are extraordinarily gifted…and even then it’s a chancy operation.
They get booted. Down and possibly out. As early as kindergarten or 1st grade. I have seen it and seen it. The kids w/real spirit but not much more than “normal” intelligence capabilities? The spirit is either kicked the fuck out of them by the system or the system kicks them the fuck out.
Same kids only white in a mostly white school system? They go to Penn State or SUNY and become CPAs.
Nice.
The “Kellogg School”, eh? Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University in Chicago, right? Named after John L. Kellogg, a scion of the Kellogg cereal family.
Hmmmmm…Kellogg. Kellogg. OH yes. Iknow. Kellogg.
Those nice people who have contributed so much to the obesity and diabetes-related ill health of the poor all over the world with their sugar-laden, nutrition-lacking cereals.
Thanks, John.
We needed that.
Oh no we won’t!!!
You still believe the utter bullshit that pours out of this corporate-owned so-called higher education system?
Wake the fuck up.
If John L. Kellogg had really wanted to do some good, he would have taken the money that he laid on Northwestern University and changed his company’s nutrition policies. But there’s no status in that. Better to get an MBA mill named after you and send hustler after hustler out into the world to “manage” the U.S. into its current state of crisis.
Thanks, John.
And thanks, seabe.
We all need your outlook. It never fails to clarify what is really going on.
AG
Is this post even serious? It’s so over the top and out of place that it’s hard to know where or how to respond.
Yes, seabe. It’s serious. And it is only “over the top and out of place ” if you are so buried in the memes of this empire that you don’t really know which way is up or in what place you are currently residing.
Which is most definitely the case.
Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up To Me-Richard Fariña.
He knew way back in 1966.
Ever read it?
Bet not.
Sigh.
AG
Every ideological adherent can generate some patter about why it’s impossible for someone of their ideology to be racist.
Liberals can point to their egalitarianism, anti-colonialism, and support for civil and human rights.
Christians can point to the “created in the image of God” teaching.
Conservatives can talk about meritocracy.
Of course, they also all say that the antidote to racism is more scrupulous adherence to their own ideology. Whoop-de-doo.
And yet, we know that there actually are racists out there who adhere to these ideologies.
Racism predates ideology. Ideology can be very good at explaining why one’s own racist reactions aren’t actually racist.
Telling yourself that nobody politically similar to you can be a racist is just self-delusion and -congratulations.
Want to see how a brave and honest person handles this subject?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QIGJTHdH50
Racism doesn’t “predate”ideology. Duh. Racism is an ideology. One that Ron Paul actively opposes.
AG
Very much enjoying Sticky Icky Ricky Santorum‘s implosion. NPR openly kneecapped him yesterday with a long piece on Dan Savage and the alternate definition of Santorum (they didn’t mention that his first name now means “to remove santorum orally”).
As for the weekend, I am playing in Chapel Hill NC with Delco Nightingale at ElvisFest on Saturday (tonight!) and three full sets in Alexandria Virginia at the Carlyle Club
Is it just me or is it disappointing that three years with a black president seems to have only emboldened Republican presidential candidates to make more explicitly racist comments? I had hoped that the election of Obama proved that that kind of behavior no longer works.
It takes two elections. They can easily write of his election, and the failure of their race-baiting, as some kind of fluke, but if it fails again, they’ll be forced to face up to reality.
The behavior of the Republicans over the past four years makes it extremely important to punish them at the polls. There have to be consequences for race-baiting, economic sabotage, and nihilistic obstructionism, or they’ll just keeping using those tools.
I hope the Justice Dept hurries up with those voter-restricting state laws coming into effect. I’m glad to see them being addressed, but jeez, it’s gonna be neck-and-neck.
It may not work with the population at large, but it clearly speaks to many people who are still racist. And those people will be a not insignificant percentage of participants in the GOP primaries & caucuses. Not so covert racism may very well be smart tactically to get the Rethug nomination, or a pundit gig on Faux.
I think you’re correct in assessing that when the general election arrives, that behavior will no longer work. The racists were always going to vote for the GOP candidate (or Paul, if he runs as an independent).
Hey Booman, hope your down in the weather feeling is short-lived. My nieces and nephews are in their child raising years and are “coming down with something” quite often. Take care.
Wait until the little fella goes to school. If he is in daycare some days per week, the frequency of little respiratory ailments goes way way up.
They aren’t embopldened to make racist remarks. Obama caught them flat footed and it took them a couple years to work out how to code the remarks.