This week we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington which is best known perhaps for the speech delivered by Martin Luther King, Jr., a speech ironically that his advisers did not want him to give. Sadly, 50 years later only one of the speakers from the original march remains alive – John Lewis, now a Congressman, who was just 23 years old at the time of the speech.
It likely goes without saying that 50 years ago, the speakers who addressed the huge throngs could not envision a world in which the African-American Attorney General would be speaking to a crowd 50 years later, and that the African-American President would have a special address from the Lincoln Memorial on the exact date of the anniversary.
“I must say, I feel more than lucky but very blessed to be able to stand here 50 years later and to see the progress we have made,” Congressman Lewis said in a TV interview. “And just to see the changes that have occurred. If someone had told me 50 years ago that an African-American would be in the White House as the President, I probably would have said ‘you’re crazy. You are out of your mind. You don’t know what you’re talking about.’ The country is a different country, and we’re better people.”
Attorney General Eric Holder talked of struggle and progress.
“Dr. King’s indelible words helped to alter the course of history, and his work provided the foundation for much of the progress that has followed,” the Attorney General said. “But this morning, as we recommit ourselves to his quest for progress, we must note that in addition to Dr. King, we also stand on the shoulders of untold millions whose names may be lost to history, but whose stories – and contributions – must be remembered and treasured: surely those who stood on this Mall in the summer of 1963 – but we must also remember those who rode buses, sat at lunch counters, stood up to racist governments and governors, and, tragically, those who gave their lives. “
One of the interesting subtexts of the “I have a Dream Speech” of course is that Martin Luther King’s advisers did not want him to give that speech.
In a column today, the Washington Post gives a mea culpa for not covering the speech 50 years ago.
Robert Gaiser, now an associate editor of the Washington Post, was, in 1963, a summer intern.
He writes today, “The Post, however, got embarrassed. The main event that day was what we now call the ‘I Have a Dream’ speech of Martin Luther King Jr., one of the most important speeches in U.S. history. But on the day it was given, The Post didn’t think so. We nearly failed to mention it at all.”
“We were poised and ready for a riot, for trouble, for unexpected events – but not for history to be made,” he recounts. “Baker’s 1,300-word lead story, which began under a banner headline on the front page and summarized the events of the day, did not mention King’s name or his speech. It did note that the crowd easily exceeded 200,000, the biggest assemblage in Washington ‘within memory’ – and they all remained ‘orderly.’ “
“In that paper of Aug. 29, 1963, The Post published two dozen stories about the march. Every one missed the importance of King’s address,” he writes. “The words ‘I have a dream’ appeared in only one, a wrap-up of the day’s rhetoric on Page A15 – in the fifth paragraph. We also printed brief excerpts from the speeches, but the three paragraphs chosen from King’s speech did not include ‘I have a dream.’ “
“I’ve never seen anyone call us on this bit of journalistic malpractice. Perhaps this anniversary provides a good moment to cop a plea. We blew it.”
On Saturday, there was irony too. The original march on Washington was to fight for the Voting Rights Act, which has now been gutted by a recent Supreme Court decision.
“I gave a little blood on that bridge in Selma, Alabama for the right to vote,” the Congressman told the crowd. “I am not going to stand by and let the Supreme Court take the right to vote away from us.”
Congressman Lewis continued, “You cannot stand by. You cannot sit down. You got to stand up. Speak up. Speak out, and get in the way. Make some noise!”
“The vote is precious, it is almost sacred,” he said. “It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have in a Democratic society. And we got to use it!”
“The America envisioned at this site 50 years ago – the ‘beloved community’ – has not yet been realized. But half a century after the March, and 150 years after Emancipation, it is finally within our grasp,” Mr. Holder added.
And yet progress is mixed, at best.
A study released this week by the Pew Research Center offers a mixed view of the progress five decades later. There was a heightened sense of racial progress immediately following Barack Obama’s election, but according to the Pew study, that optimism has waned in the last five years.
Despite the general belief that interracial relations between the races has improved, blacks continue to lag behind whites in critical demographic variables such as household income and net worth. 8 in 10 African-Americans believe substantial work remains to be done in order to reach racial equality.
As we have argued, discussions of race, going forward, need to focus on the cycle of poverty, crime and incarceration.
“Today, a vicious cycle of poverty, criminality, and incarceration traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities. And many aspects of our criminal justice system may actually exacerbate these problems, rather than alleviate them,” Attorney General Eric Holder said two weeks ago. “It’s clear… too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no truly good law enforcement reason. It’s clear, at a basic level, that 20th-century criminal justice solutions are not adequate to overcome our 21st-century challenges. And it is well past time to implement common sense changes that will foster safer communities from coast to coast.”
The work of Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, has focused many on the critical link between drug policies, unequal enforcement and the poverty-crime cycle.
The argument of Michelle Alexander is this: “In the era of colorblindness, it is no longer socially permissible to use race, explicitly, as a justification for discrimination, exclusion, and social contempt. So we don’t. Rather than rely on race, we use our criminal justice system to label people of color ‘criminals’ and then engage in all the practices we supposedly left behind.”
Once an individual enters the criminal justice, she argues, “the old forms of discrimination – employment discrimination, housing discrimination, denial of the right to vote, denial of educational opportunity, denial of food stamps and other public benefits, and exclusion from jury service – are suddenly legal. As a criminal, you have scarcely more rights, and arguably less respect, than a black man living in Alabama at the height of Jim Crow.”
The toughest task perhaps falls to President Obama. The first African-American President will speak to the nation on Wednesday from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, in a moment that will mark the 50th anniversary of the King speech.
As Washington Post Columnist Tavis Smiley notes, “Is it appropriate for the president to occupy that sacred space? Does Obama have the moral authority to speak where King spoke? Does anyone?”
He answers his own question with an “I don’t know,” but states, “The future of our democracy is inextricably linked to how seriously we take King’s legacy. A legacy of unarmed truth and unconditional love. A legacy of brilliant prose and prophetic witness.”
Indeed, it is a risky move, inviting calls of arrogance and conceit, and yet at the same time, he has a historic opportunity to become the voice of a nation that is clearly still in need of seeing out its better nature.
As Mr. Smiley notes, “I hope Obama rises to the challenge to be truly King-like, not just King-lite. His speech cannot be full of great sound bites but devoid of sound public policy.”
And he captures the essence, “Obama’s election in 2008 was a good down payment on King’s dream of racial equality, but it did not fulfill the dream. Instead of lecturing black audiences about personal responsibility, as he so often has, now is the time for the president to bear witness to the unrelenting pain and suffering of his most loyal constituency – a constituency still denied true economic freedom by institutional and structural barriers that have yet to be addressed, much less alleviated.”
In perhaps his best speech on the subject following the verdict in the Trayvon Martin killing, “the president did finally give voice to the struggle for human dignity that black men in particular endure almost daily.”
The President said, “There are very few African American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.”
But can the President follow up his own speech, and that of Eric Holder’s from two weeks ago, with a speech that sounds less like Martin Luther King, Jr., re-hashed and more like the President of the United States fifty years later? That is the key question and his many critics will be waiting to pounce on any missteps.
The President is clearly late to this party, beaten and battered by practices of surveillance that seemed at odds with those of his soaring rhetoric from five years ago. But in an age where John Lewis is the last of the great civil rights leaders and an age where the next generation is struggling to maintain the legacy, Barack Obama stands as the best chance to embody the spirit of Martin Luther King, bringing people together once again to dare to dream for a better future.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Barack Obama stands as the best chance to embody the spirit of Martin Luther King, bringing people together once again to dare to dream for a better future.[/quote]
In my opinion Obama has done more harm to race relations in this country than any president ever. What makes you think he’s going to come around now and pull everyone together? He’s been a failure at it up to now even though he promised to during his first election. But as we’ve found out his election promises were nothing more than political rhetoric to get himself elected for which Democrats give him a pass on because they say all presidents lie in order to get elected.
“In my opinion Obama has done more harm to race relations in this country than any president ever.”
There are two ways I could go with this response. But I’ll start with this: in what way and be very specific, do you believe he has harmed race relations in this country?
Excellent summary, David, of how conflicting views have developed in the past five decades. While we’ve advanced to the point where we can bring ourselves to elect an African-American President, we find it easy to blame him for things that for which we wouldn’t impose blame on a white President.
Obama’s blackness seems to be just one more way to find fault with a leader in a country polarized by things that have nothing to do with race. George Bush made lots of mistakes and had detractors equal to Obama’s, but race didn’t get overwhelmingly incorporated into the fight.
It troubles me that political divisions are so great that we already know how Fox News and MSNBC will cover President Obama’s upcoming speech, the same ways that they cover every word he utters.
It bothers me more that Tavis Smiley suggests that a President isn’t good enough stand in MLK’s spot, questioning specifically the appropriateness of this President to speak from a space that’s too “sacred” for our elected leader.
Interesting points JS. I am hoping GI will elaborate on what specifically Obama has done to polarize, but I suspect it is more about politics than race. And that ends up being itself a subtle form of racism in that Obama can never be a man, he most always be a black man.
There was a line out of A Time To Kill where the accused made the same point to his white attorney: “When you look at me, you don’t see a man, you see a black man.”
[quote]Only 52 percent of whites and 38 percent of blacks have a favorable opinion of race relations in the country, according to the poll, which has tracked race relations since 1994 and was conducted in mid-July by Hart Research Associations and Public Opinion Strategies. That’s a sharp drop from the beginning of Obama’s first term, when 79 percent of whites and 63 percent of blacks held a favorable view of American race relations.
Read more at http://lastresistance.com/2860/race-relations-have-worsened-under-obama/#yTyjJ08tOB38WEZE.99%5B/quote%5D
Here’s a link to the PEW research poll referenced in the article : link ([url]http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/08/22/kings-dream-remains-an-elusive-goal-many-americans-see-racial-disparities/[/url])
Growth issue: Please answer my question: ” in what way and be very specific, do you believe he has harmed race relations in this country? “
I just showed you a poll that shows that since Obama took office how drastically people’s race relations favorable opinions have fallen. The facts are in the numbers. Good job Obama.
[quote]since Obama took office how drastically people’s race relations favorable opinions have fallen.[/quote]
Interestingly selective use of the data. Views of race relations rose briefly when Obama was elected, then :
–among whites,dropped back to their 2007 levels.
–among blacks, still show a statistically significant improvement.
Just look at the chart on the Pew survey.
Why do you blame Obama, Growth Izzue? Is he the arbiter of race relations in this country?
That doesn’t answer my question GI.
[i] in what way and be very specific, do you believe he has harmed race relations in this country?[/i]
Thanks for asking GI this question. I will answer too.
But first, let’s look at some outside evidence of Obama’s crappy performance in this area:
[quote]we can bring ourselves to elect an African-American President, we find it easy to blame him for things that for which we wouldn’t impose blame on a white President.[/quote]
and then…
[quote]Obama’s blackness seems to be just one more way to find fault with a leader in a country polarized by things that have nothing to do with race. George Bush made lots of mistakes and had detractors equal to Obama’s, but race didn’t get overwhelmingly incorporated into the fight.[/quote]
There it is in a nut shell.
What Obama has done is to allow cake and eating it to with respect to race. And he has encouraged his supports to do the same. The cake in this case is the celebration of his blackness. The eating of the cake is the race-focused demonization of those that would dare challenge.
And in this presentation and approach, he, and his supporters (including the main media) has sent black-white race relations back 25-30 years.
Frankly, this country was not ready for a black president because of the state of the political left and the left media. Obama’s mistake was that it did not fight with his own supporters to make them stop the race-baiting, the racial tinting of every issue where race could be amped up, the sensationalism of race, the exploitation of race, etc., etc., etc. However, Obama’s association with the white-hating Reverend Wright was/is a clear indication that he was never capable of that level of leadership, because he had not transcended to that worldview were we should judge a man by the color of his character and not the color of his skin.
Obama grew up with the benefits of affirmative action and other race-based accommodations. He demands the same extra special help and protection as an adult. The problem is that he is the President. We have a President that is held to a much lower performance accountability by half the voters and the main media specifically because he is black. The reason he has hurt race relations in this country is that he has welcomed it.
So your basic answer Frankly, if I understand your post correct. the problem with Obama is that he’s black and that fact in and of itself has created the rift. It is not policy based at all. Am I understanding you correctly?
GI
It would seem to me that you have just proven David’s point that your post is more about politics rather than about race.
Do you consider the President to be directly and personally responsible for everything that happens during his tenure in office ? If so, then you must surely be applauding the drop in unemployment rate from a max of around 10 % in 2009 to the current 7.4% with a hearty “Good job, Obama !”
No ? I didn’t think so. This is nothing but political cherry picking devoid of any of what Frankly likes to sarcastically label “nuance”.
Frankly
[quote]Obama grew up with the benefits of affirmative action and other race-based accommodations. He demands the same extra special help and protection as an adult.[/quote]
The exact same statement could be made of Clarence Thomas, who in my opinion, played the “race card” much more blatantly than Obama ever has with his famous declaration, “And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.[63]
I would be interested to hear your evidence that Obama has ever demanded any “race-based accommodation” as blatantly as did Thomas.
“Frankly, this country was not ready for a black president….”
Granted, a picked cherry pit, but I think this is more enlightening than it might seem on first glance. However, to limit the reasons to lefties is short-sighted.
I’ll read the poll information to see if there’s any answers to the “why” of it. I’m also curious whether there’s a difference between the white Republican responses and the white Democratic responses.
[i]So your basic answer Frankly, if I understand your post correct. the problem with Obama is that he’s black and that fact in and of itself has created the rift. It is not policy based at all. Am I understanding you correctly?[/i]
Absolutely not. It is telling to me that you would conclude this. You need to think a little more deeply instead of falling into this same myopic where everything can be distilled down to a “black vs. white” argument.
The problem is that he has used his race as a form of a human shield if you will.
We were ready for a black president. Did you note Herman Cain on the podium?
What we were NOT ready for was a President that would exploit his race to take and retain power.
The political left in this country do not have enough easy rational arguments to back their worldview (because much of their demands are based on emotional drivers and not rational thought). So, the left playbook is to make sure that their leaders are members of some disadvantaged group so that they can block debate claiming that those with a different opinion are racist, or sexist, or homophobic or xenophobic or ???.
Obama is culpable here because he welcomed it.
And what is “it”? Let me give you an example. Prior to Obama becoming President someone claiming someone else was racist without absolute proof was considered guilty of acts as despicable as those demonstrating true racism. However, since he has become President, the accusations of racism – primarily directed and anyone with conservative leanings. For example, look up all the Youtube videos of interviews with people claiming Herman Cain is an “oreo”. That type of comment would have caused the media to cringe and at least distance themselves from it. However, today they celebrate it.
Obama and the left have amped up racial difference and claims of racism and race-based conflict because it provides a smokescreen for the socialists, communists and Marxists following the Saul David Alinsky playbook. Prior to this the county had been healing and moving toward an existence where race really did not matter. The left made it matter. The left brought it back to exploit. Many of us now have a different view of race because it has been used as a political wedge.
The left has exploited race in this country at great harm to this country only to help them achieve and retain power. Obama is their leader. He is the Great Divider. And he will be recognized throughout history as exactly that. The man that wounded a country on the brink of healing.
“The problem is that he has used his race as a form of a human shield if you will.”
That seems pretty subjective and I don’t see it the way you do here. I see a President that until very recently has largely shied away from race.
Give me some concrete examples. Also you don’t seem to be accounting for the split in the left. When you say that Obama “is their leader”? Whose leader are you talking about? Who do you consider the left that he’s the leader of?
JustSaying
[quote]I think this is more enlightening than it might seem on first glance. However, to limit the reasons to lefties is short-sighted. [/quote]
I would agree that this is indeed enlightening. However, what I believe that it “enlightens” is the monolithic mind set of those who assert that virtually any ill you can name, be it religious intolerance, disparities in racial opportunity, economic disparity, the current state of eduction, the current state of American medicine, you pick…..is a direct result of “lefties”. It actually makes me feel that I and my “ilk” are quite powerful indeed to have single handedly wreaked all this havoc on the Rockwellian American dream of some folks fantasies.
Alas, I think that reality is much more complicated. Or should I say nuanced.
Obama barely discusses race, hardly ever gets into racial issues, and does so in a very muted manner. He is much more centrist than the ‘left’ that Frankly is always arguing with in his own head. And since Frankly told us, the morning after the election, that
[quote]I didn’t hate Obama before the election, but having seen what he is truly made of, I do hate him now.[/quote]
(yeah, I saved it, because it was so startling), then it is nearly impossible for Frankly to have any view of race relations and the president that doesn’t arise from that visceral hatred.
[i]The exact same statement could be made of Clarence Thomas[/i]
I agree, but then the media did not protect him. They swarmed him and attacked him and tried to exploit a piece of crap story that he was sexually harassing poor little Anita Hill.
From my perspective that bit set back gender relations. Clarence Thomas’s appointment was more about gender conflict than it was race. That is how the left and left media rolls. Can’t attack Clarence Thomas on race… Can’t attack Herman Cain on race. So the next best thing is to find some willing “victim” belonging to some other “victim group” to trot out and destroy a reputation.
It is a scorched-earth approach. The political left and their pals in the main media are only two happy to work together. The left gets power, and the media sells sensationalism.
But, they both do so at great harm to group relations in this country.
too happy. Sorry
[i] It actually makes me feel that I and my “ilk” are quite powerful indeed[/i]
You are weak in terms of rational arguments to support your worldview. You are made strong by the main media, political correctness, and a growing population of needy that you exploit with codependency.
Frankly
[quote]So the next best thing is to find some willing “victim” belonging to some other “victim group” to trot out and destroy a reputation. [/quote]
I wasn’t in the rooms occupied by Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. I don’t suppose that you were either. So I do not claim to know the truth about their specific relationship. Do you ?
What I do know is that when I made my ( completely true) claim of sexual harassment, I was taken seriously by the only two people who mattered, the chair of the department and the head of HR. This led to a very appropriate and preventative action on their part. It was not quite over for me though, since I was criticized by the friends of the harasser for not “simply talking to him about it”. Some people who are in power, do, truly choose to harass those under them, whether you choose to admit it or not.
I think it is telling that Thomas chose to defend himself as a “black” man, and not simply as an innocent man.
I also believe that your ( expressly stated) hatred of Obama colors the way you see virtually all of his actions.
This strikes me as strongly emotionally rather than rationally driven on your part. This is a tendency that you seem to loath in others, but are unable to perceive in yourself.
[i]Frankly to have any view of race relations and the president that doesn’t arise from that visceral hatred.[/i]
There you go Don. What is your point? Are you trying to make this a racial thing again? That is my point. So, I cannot “hate” this President because he is black without you and your ilk being perfectly and smugly sure of yourself that this proved I am racist. Right? Well fuck you. I’m serious here. Stop throwing around that claim that others are racist without 100% proof to back that claim. It is a disgusting and despicable tendency and you should be ashamed.
Do you even remember all the hatred and vitriol directed at Bush? Or at any president for that matter?
What, are we suppose to bow down and kiss Obama’s feet while he breaks every campaign promise he made, and makes a mess out of the just about everything he touches… just because he is black?
I hate Obama the President. I assume that I could be good friends with Obama the man. We are about the same age. Play basketball. Have similar childhood stories. Etc.
But I would tell him that I think he has been a lousy President. And I hate Obama the President for what he has done to the country… especially what he has done to our race relations.
For example, there have been several high profile cases where black kids have murdered white people since the Travon Martin George Zimmerman case. Where is Obama on those cases? There is his opportunity to demonstrate some leadership to help bridge and heal. Yet nothing. Crickets. Nothing there for him to use in his divide and conquer strategy.
“especially what he has done to our race relations.”
But you haven’t been able to articulate it other than in very vague and subjective terms. You’re perfectly within your rights to hate the President and disagree wit him, I have every confidence you would have the same views of a white person who is a Democrat. That said, I still do not see where you have elaborated on the President are harming race relations other than the fact that he’s more liberal than his conservative critics and they can’t separate his policies from his race.
meds, sorry to hear about your harassment problems at work.
But, I have to say that I have very little patience for people that make these claims without first simply confronting the person and telling them to stop and why. Certainly there are cases where you would need to be a whistleblower, but otherwise I think it is a mistake to not act human and have a human conversation.
I’m actually pleased that mentioned this because I think it hits on a key point.
Do you know that about 90% of harassment claims that end up being dealt with externally are false and thrown out? How would that feel… to make a claim that someone harassed you and then have some expert tell you that you were wrong? It happens all the time.
Here is what I see. Self-confidence for dealing with interpersonal relationships is a skill. Some people lack it. Some people struggle with feeling powerless… and the feel harassed easily… too easily. They mistake simple and average interactions as more problematic than they are. They assign phantom motivations to the behaviors of others that do not exist. I’m not saying this was your case, but it is all too common.
Is it the responsibility of those with power and those feeling confident in their power to reach out and help those in a weaker position? Absolutely.
However, those in a weaker position also have a responsibility too. They have a responsibility to first, understand the roles and responsibilities of those in power, and second… to strive to develop skills for perfecting their ability to maintain strong interpersonal relationships with people at all levels of power… perceived or real.
This all gets back to this point of racism and the President. Because, I think there are two paths… one is to brow beat those in a perceived position of power to constantly reach out and soften their interactions so as to not cause any negative hit to the sensitivities to those feeling less powerful. The other path is to develop the self-confidence and skills of those feeling weaker to successful interact with others feeling stronger.
My preference is the latter. Because we are all made better when more of us interact from a position of self-confidence and strength. Conversely, we will just create a greater divide because you cannot change a self-confident person to grow hyper-sensitive… you can force them to sterilize their behavior… but this then causes them to migrate away by increasing the probability that interactions will cause them damage.
I think the left in this country is a collection of people that feel or have felt weaker, or that feel like they have not fit in. Some are angry about it. Most are hyper-sensitive to anything that makes them feel this way. They crave protection from these feelings and impact to their sensitivities. But that protection can come at a great cost.
I will tell you a secret. There is a growing divide. Those that have self-confidence and strength are only acting one way with the hyper sensitive while they congregate among themselves where they can be themselves and be safe. In making harassment claims, you might stop the harassment, but you also cause greater isolation. As the claimer you would be considered a greater risk for future claims, and hence your interpersonal relationships with people considering you a risk would diminish.
I worked for a large Sacramento company that was known for being one the 100 best companies to work for in the US. As a senior manager, we were all absolutely committed to making it a great company for our employees. We responded to any and every complaint from employees as we would the same from a customer. We behaved like robots to our employees… making sure nobody got their feeling hurt unnecessarily.
Then we would congregate as managers and act human again.
I left partially because of the incongruity of that pattern, and because I hated acting like a robot.
But that is where we are heading and why this country is growing so polarized.
The strong only have one criterion for accepting others… that they too be strong.
The meek may inherit the world, but the strong will increasingly isolate themselves from it. And the world will fail… as it is.
[i]That said, I still do not see where you have elaborated on the President are harming race relations other than the fact that he’s more liberal than his conservative critics and they can’t separate his policies from his race.[/i]
Just read what Don wrote and how I responded.
I have never been called a racist until Obama became President. Never. In fact, just the opposite.
You might have to put your thinking cap on to understand how that translates into Obama being bad for race relations, but it is as clear as sky to me and many others.
“Do you know that about 90% of harassment claims that end up being dealt with externally are false and thrown out? How would that feel… to make a claim that someone harassed you and then have some expert tell you that you were wrong? It happens all the time. “
I wonder where you got this data, I could not replicate it in a Google search and most sources indicate the opposite: ” few formal complaint investigations result in findings of false allegations” and “False charges are believed to account for less than 2 percent of the total. Most women refuse to report sexual harassment when it does occur due to lack of support, fear, self-blame, embarrassment, and other factors. It seems extremely unlikely that they would go through all the trouble and pain of reporting sexual harassment if it did not actually occur.”
In 1963, President Kennedy originally discouraged the march, for fear that it might make the legislature vote against civil rights laws in reaction to a perceived threat. Once it became clear that the march would go on, however, he supported it.
Malcolm X called it the “Farce on Washington.”
Members of the ‘Nation of Islam’ who attended the march faced a temporary suspension.
AFL-CIO did NOT support the march, but remained neutral.
[quote]What Obama has done is to allow cake and eating it to with respect to race. And he has encouraged his supports to do the same. The cake in this case is the celebration of his blackness. The eating of the cake is the race-focused demonization of those that would dare challenge. [/quote]
Obama does not demonize people with regard to race. He speaks out about it rarely, and in very measured terms. His few public speeches on the issue have met with broad approval.
[quote]And in this presentation and approach, he, and his supporters (including the main media) has sent black-white race relations back 25-30 years. [/quote]
I don’t know which of “his supporters” you are referring to. He doesn’t demonize people with respect to race. He also doesn’t go out of his way to address racial issues. But apparently, given this:
[quote]Frankly, this country was not ready for a black president because of the state of the political left and the left media. Obama’s mistake was that it did not fight with his own supporters to make them stop the race-baiting, the racial tinting of every issue where race could be amped up, the sensationalism of race, the exploitation of race, etc., etc., etc. [/quote]
….he would only satisfy you by constantly confronting the more fringe people on the left side of the political spectrum. Well, let me tell you, I would truly love to see you and more conservatives apply that criticism to those on the right end of the spectrum.
[quote]
However, Obama’s association with the white-hating Reverend Wright was/is a clear indication that he was never capable of that level of leadership, because he had not transcended to that worldview were we should judge a man by the color of his character and not the color of his skin.
Obama grew up with the benefits of affirmative action and other race-based accommodations. He demands the same extra special help and protection as an adult. The problem is that he is the President. [/quote]
The fact that you cannot describe President Obama regarding race relations without bringing up Rev. Wright and affirmative action illustrates my point.
In response to the harsh criticisms of Wright, Obama specifically challenged and denounced his minister on those issues. And, in what I assume was a personally difficult decision, he left the congregation to which he’d belonged for two decades. But now, years later, you and other conservatives still hold up Rev. Wright as emblematic of Obama’s race views.
There is nothing he could do or say to satisfy you.
[quote]We have a President that is held to a much lower performance accountability by half the voters and the main media specifically because he is black.[/quote]
You have no evidence of this. It is unprovable. So it is your supposition. And you, Frankly, are the one who says that race is the reason.
[i] few formal complaint investigations result in findings of false allegations”[/i]
That is not what I meant. I worded it poorly.
What I meant is that 90% of them do not constitute actionable disciplinary response other than completing an expensive investigation and report to limit company liability. So they are not really “thrown out”. Although most companies wish they could.
Other than limit liability to the organization, the other thing these responses do is to alert the rest of the organization that there is a hyper-sensitive person to be careful not to upset.
She or he felt harassed. That is all that matters. So off go the HR people and the lawyers to do their thing. But in the end 90% of them are written up and misunderstandings in communication. Only 10% of them are serious enough to result in disciplinary action.
However, there are few remedies for those falsely accused. And their reputation will be damaged regardless. So, there in exists the motivation for the strong to distance themselves from the weak.
That freedom of association thing is problematic for those that take the approach of attempting to control behavior through top-down control instead of bottom-up assimilation. You try to force me to be someone I am not and do not want to be, then I will make sure to limit my interactions with you.
Now I am sure you are also working on ways to try and force me to interact with you. Good luck with that.
I see no indication in my searching for your claim that it’s accurate as restated, so you’ll need to provide me with evidence on that.
[quote]On Saturday, there was irony too. The original march on Washington was to fight for the Voting Rights Act, which has now been gutted by a recent Supreme Court decision.[/quote]
Actually, the original titles was: The March on Washington for Jobs.
Also referred to as: Freedom or “The Great March on Washington”
The “Voting Rights Act” — Actually, “An act to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes.”
Was introduced in 3/65 & signed into law by LBJ on 8/6/65
pesky facts….
“What I meant is that 90% of them do not constitute actionable disciplinary response other than completing an expensive investigation and report to limit company liability.”
Frankly, you seem so off the deep end on this stuff. Did you really mean to say, “Some of them–I have no idea how many–don’t end up justified, I think..possibly” or something to that effect?
Just in the last few weeks we’ve had many black on white killings but has Obama stepped up and spoken about these crimes like has did on the Zimmerman/Martin case which turned out not to be a crime?
The Obama administration has no problem going after states for peceived voter rights violations over Voter ID laws but in turn have no problem letting Black Panthers off free for standing in front of a polling place and intimidating voters with billy clubs.
Obama says Cambridge police acted stupidly in the Gates incident before he admitted that he didn’t have full knowledge of all the facts in the incident. Obama chose to make it about race anyway.
[i]Did you really mean to say, “Some of them–I have no idea how many–don’t end up justified, I think..possibly” or something to that effect?[/i]
A lot of them. Is 90% too high? Maybe. My source is a paid HR service that I subscribe to. I don’t have my login at home. I will check in tomorrow at work and post what I remember reading.
The general point is that large organizations have a jump for claims of hostile work environment and harassment where the end result is counseling for hypersensitivity and sensitivity training for management to help reduce the likelihood of occurance. These do not count as actual harassment in the end but HR spends a lot of time on them.
Cultural differences create conflict that often just requires mediated conversation even though the initial claim is hostility or harassment.
I had one where one of my employees claim I was being hostile to her because she felt like I was ignoring her. That type of thing has exploded. HR professionals are very tired these days.
AdRemmer: [i]The “Voting Rights Act” — Actually, “An act to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes.”[/i]
Since you mention it:
[quote]Colin Powell: Voter ID Laws Will ‘Backfire’ For Republicans ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/25/colin-powell-voter-id-laws-backfire_n_3813092.html[/url])
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Republicans on Sunday that the strict voter identification laws they’re pursuing around the country will damage the party’s standing with growing blocs of voters.
“[H]ere’s what I say to my Republican friends: The country is becoming more diverse,” Powell told Bob Schieffer on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “You say you want to reach out, you say you want to have a new message. You say you want to see if you can bring some of these voters to the Republican side. This is not the way to do it.”
“The way to do it is to make it easier for them to vote and then give them something to vote for that they can believe in,” Powell added.
….
During the interview, Powell also reflected on the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, recalling times when he couldn’t eat in certain places due to the color of his skin, even though he’d just served his country.
“In my lifetime, over a long career in public life, you know, I’ve been refused access to restaurants where I couldn’t eat, even though I just came back from Vietnam: ‘We can’t give you a hamburger, come back some other time,'” Powell recalled. “And I did, right after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, I went right back to that same place and got my hamburger, and they were more than happy to serve me now. It removed a cross from their back, but we’re not there yet. We’re not there yet. And so we’ve got to keep working on it.”[/quote]
Frankly
[quote]you might stop the harassment, but you also cause greater isolation.[/quote]
Well, stopping the harassment is the goal. Honestly, if anyone insists on their right to make inappropriate racial, religious or gender based slurs or jokes in a work place, I think they would do best in isolation with their like minded peers, because frankly, I don’t want to be subjected to that type of behavior. So why exactly should I humor louts in order to make them more comfortable being around me ?
Re: In perhaps his best speech on the subject following the verdict in the Trayvon Martin killing, “the president did finally give voice to the struggle for human dignity that black men in particular endure almost daily.”
I disagree with the ‘best speech on the subject’ part; but strongly agree with the importance of ‘struggle for human dignity’; something that meant little to me when I was younger, but much more to me as I grow older. It seems to me that many blacks don’t see or feel that they have a chance at a dignified life; and this is a major factor in the self-debasement by many blacks with their embrace of the destructive gang and criminal culture; basically they have given up. I believe that part of what has contributed to this hopeless viewpoint is the culture of victimhood that has been encouraged by some black leaders and by other liberal politicians and activists’ many of whom are well-meaning. Rather than continuing down the hopeless road of the culture of victimhood, I would propose the following alternative:
(1) Raising the minimum wage to $10/hr; a more dignified pay rate–in inflation adjusted terms, this is about the same as minimum wage in the early 1970s; it was not the end of the world back then and wouldn’t be now. I understand the business/ecoonomic objections to this, but would argue that some of the negative impacts, while real, are exaggerated.
(2) Severely restrict immigration; particularly of unskilled and low-skilled immigrants, who are competing with blacks for low-skill jobs. The USA has a primary responsibility to it’s own citizens first; as does Mexico to it’s own citizens (remember Mexico has the worlds richest man; they have an entirely corrupt business system that funnels nearly all wealth to the top–the direction that the USA has been and is headed).
(3) Black leadership to discourage some of the negative influences permeating many black communities–culture of victimhood, glorification of gangsta culture, disparagement of learning and education (‘acting white’) and lack of family cohesion. Can such black leaders be found and given widespread support?
I do think if blacks in many poor communities see the real possibility of having a dignified life; many of the criminal/outlaw lifestyle choices in black communities will be rejected. I think it starts with a more dignified minimum wage, rather than the current wage which could be characterized as more of a ‘slave’ wage that doesn’t enable one to live with much dignity, even at 50 hours/week.
“Frankly, this country was not ready for a black president…”
You are wrong, Obama got almost 70 million votes the first time and more than 60 million votes the second time. America was ready only certain elements refuse to accept reality and will do anything to block his agenda.
“Obama grew up with the benefits of affirmative action and other race-based accommodations.”
Where do you get this stuff? It says more about you than Obama who went to the Kamahamaha School in Hawaii, a school endowed to serve native born Hawaiians. Yes Native born! He became President of the Harvard Law Review, a position that has never been granted on anything but merit. He won the Presidency after beating John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Nobody gave him that job because of affirmative action he won it with 70 million votes.
Growth issue, now I see why you want no growth in Davis. You don’t want people like Obama here.
Maybe if and when Obama releases his college records we will know for sure if his Columbia and then Harvard Law School admission was based on his grades and test scores, or the result of race-based preferences.
But regardless, he was the most inexperienced person to ever win the Presidency. A large percentage of that vote was to elect a black man just because he was a black man. And his reelection… double digit unemployment for his entire first term… who get’s elected with that type of record?
After being elected, he gets a pass for all his broken campaign promises, the worst economic performance since FDR, mistake after mistake, ramped up spying, Benghazi and an IRS illegally targeting his political foes, the list goes on. He gets a pass… the Teflon Messiah.
It is this last bit that bothers me. It is the reason that I say we were not ready for a black President. We were not ready because we were not ready to apply the same level of accountability to a black president as we would a white president. I assume the Democrats are very eager to elect a woman, a Hispanic, a gay, a ??? This formula works well form them. It allows them to pursue their leftist agenda while not having to take responsibility for the chaos that results. It is all Bush’s fault.
Frankly: [i]It allows them to pursue their leftist agenda while not having to take responsibility for the chaos that results. [b]It is all Bush’s fault.[/b][/i]
And, Frankly, it seems to work the same way for many Republicans in a related framework. An aversion to take responsibility for their election shortcomings. It’s not the Republicans’ fault that they lost the election, or that their message didn’t connect with enough voters. It’s all because Obama (and Dems) was somehow evil, hateful, and deceptive (and black) that the Republicans aren’t in power.
[quote] Maybe if and when Obama releases his college records we will know for sure if his Columbia and then Harvard Law School admission was based on his grades and test scores, or the result of race-based preferences.[/quote]
You know that George W. Bush never released his records? They were leaked.
From a profile in The New Yorker:
“A mediocre student, Bush majored in history, with grades that were apparently not good enough for admission to the University of Texas law school, which turned him down as an in-state applicant two years after he graduated. Bush has not given permission to either Andover or Yale to release his grades.
Bush seems to have made little impression on his teachers. One of his former Yale professors, James Hutson, now chief of the Library of Congress’s manuscript division, said he was “dumbfounded” that a transcript found in Bush’s National Guard records, with grades deleted, showed that Bush had taken his seminar on 18th century American history, which had no more than 15 students.”
How did George W. Bush get into Yale? As a legacy admission. Did that bother you?
[quote] And his reelection… double digit unemployment for his entire first term… who get’s elected with that type of record? [/quote]
One whose opponent was the feckless Mitt Romney, running on behalf of the current Republican Party. By the way: had Romney been elected, he would have done so with even fewer qualifications than Obama had.
[img] http://www.flickr.com/photos/therachelmaddowshow/7106167443/sizes/l/in/photostream/%5B/img%5D
[url] http://www.flickr.com/photos/therachelmaddowshow/7106167443/sizes/l/in/photostream/%5B/url%5D
[quote] fter being elected, he gets a pass for all his broken campaign promises, the worst economic performance since FDR, mistake after mistake, ramped up spying, Benghazi and an IRS illegally targeting his political foes, the list goes on. He gets a pass… the Teflon Messiah.[/quote]
He doesn’t ‘get a pass’ for anything. The NSA issue continues to grow as a matter of public discussion. Benghazi and the IRS issues are nonsense ‘scandals’ that exist in the realm of far-right fantasy, with little to discuss beyond what we have learned from Congressional hearings. We can debate the economy; the voters didn’t see the alternative candidate as being better able to deliver.
[quote] We were not ready because we were not ready to apply the same level of accountability to a black president as we would a white president.[/quote]
You’re the one who keeps fixating on his race. You’re the one who thinks that his support comes from his being black. You aren’t ready for a black president. The rest of us are.
[quote] I assume the Democrats are very eager to elect a woman, a Hispanic, a gay, a ??? This formula works well form them.[/quote]
Republicans are just thrilled when a Herman Cain, or a Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, comes along. When you looked at the Democratic convention, the faces of color were in the audience and on the stage. When you looked at the Republican convention, the only faces of color were the handful of speakers. Other than that, it was a sea of white. Republicans are the party of tokenism. Democrats are the party that looks like America.
President Obama has been subjected to a long barrage of racially-tinged nonsense from Republicans and hard-right conservatives, ranging from the nonsense about his place of birth, to strange theories about his ‘real father’, to people calling him an ‘affirmative action’ president, to his supposed adherence to Islam, to the bizarre theory promulgated by Gingrich and D’Souza that Obama’s views are shaped by an “anti-colonial worldview.”
In spite of that, his statements on racial issues have been careful and moderate, he has not used or promoted racial issues as a candidate, and he has taken several steps to promote racial tolerance and civil discussion.
wdf1: The main media hated Bush. He wasn’t their president. The main media loves Obama. He was their president, and he is their project.
You hold the belief that Obama won reelection because Romney was… what, too white?
Obama won and then broke every campaign promise, rammed his unpopular heath care bill down our throats, failed to help people get people back to work. Made mistake after mistake. And NONE of this got any traction with the main media.
The media love-fest for this President is unprecedented.
He is the affirmative action prez. I wish that it was not the case. I wish that Obama was dissected by the media just like all other modern presidents. I think Obama being black gave the media license to come out unabashed in their left bias. Before they would at least put some effort into being balanced in their criticism and support. Not now. Read This Town and learn that the Clintons believe this too. The media took the primary away from Hillary because they were giddy about a black president. White guilt is a strong motivator for these folks.
Experience:
George W. Bush had 6 years of experience in elected office when he was elected president in 2000. He had 2 years of military experience.
Ronald Reagan had 8 years of experience in elected office when elected president in 1980. Reagan also had 4 years of military experience.
Barack Obama had 12 years of experience in elected office.
MItt Romney was a one-term governor; 4 years of experience in elected office.
Sarah Palin was a two and 1/2 year half-term governor. She was on the city council for 8 years.
[quote]You hold the belief that Obama won reelection because Romney was… what, too white? [/quote]]
No, because Romney was one of the worst presidential candidates in modern history, running on behalf of a party that has marginalized itself by taking positions that are not supported by the public on any number of social and public policy issues.
You’re the one who is fixated on Obama’s race.
[quote]Obama won and then broke every campaign promise, rammed his unpopular heath care bill down our throats[/quote]’
You realize that the second part of your sentence contradicts the first part of your sentence?
He ran on the health care issue. He upheld that promise. It is his signature accomplishment. It’s a promise he kept.
Frankly: [i]You hold the belief that Obama won reelection because Romney was… what, too white?[/i]
Nope. Romney didn’t connect with enough voters in his message.
“Maybe if and when Obama releases his college records we will know for sure if his Columbia and then Harvard Law School admission was based on his grades and test scores, or the result of race-based preferences.”
What a bunch of nonsense. If I were Obama I wouldn’t release my transcripts either. Its beneath the dignity of his office and like the birth certificate Kenya nonsense its racist in its attempt to delegitimize him as president. Sp here is how it works at Harvard Law. Offers to be on Law Review are based on first year Law School exam scores. Only the best students are invited to participate.
As for unemployment upon Obama’s re-election FDR had a lousy economy overhanging his re-election in 1936. People understood in both cases that the president was handed such a lousy deal they couldn’t be blamed for the fact that things were still not recovered.
As for being teflon, that comes from Reagan, who was called the teflon president because people loved him enough to forgive him for his mistakes. With Obama people love him and also forgive him for his mistakes. Its what happens with charismatic presidents and there isn’t anything you can do about it but whine and fixate on his race. Of course fixating on his race says more about you than him.
“Maybe if and when Obama releases his college records we will know for sure if his Columbia and then Harvard Law School admission was based on his grades and test scores, or the result of race-based preferences.”
I just wanted to make the point that if his admission was on race-based preference, you lose the argument because the entire reason for affirmative action was the not that people who were perfectly qualified for college were denied entrance based on lingering prejudice and conditions. Obama would if admitted on that basis, would have demonstrated that there are indeed very talented people that might not have had the opportunity without such programs. Is that really the argument that the right is hoping to make? The people you want to emphasize are those unworthy who went on to drop out, not those who had low scores but became President of the United States.
Toad
[quote]Growth issue, now I see why you want no growth in Davis. You don’t want people like Obama here. [/quote]
Frog, sometimes you’re so stupid.
[i]He ran on the health care issue. He upheld that promise. It is his signature accomplishment. It’s a promise he kept. And the voters, given the opportunity to select from several Republican candidates who unanimously promised to overturn it, chose otherwise.[/i]
From the left-leaning PolitaFact…
[quote]While campaigning for the presidency in 2008, Barack Obama said he would “turn the page on the ugly partisanship in Washington” and pass a bipartisan agenda in Congress.
Instead, Congress set records last year for just how polarized it has become.[/quote]
And more…
[quote]”Health Care Negotiations Will Be Televised”[/quote]
[quote]”My Administration Is Committed To Creating An Unprecedented Level Of Openness In Government.”[/quote]
[quote]“We agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of health care. Families will save on their premiums…” [/quote]
[quote] If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.’”[/quote]
[quote]“President Obama promised during his campaign that lobbyists ‘won’t find a job in my White House.’[/quote]
[quote]The Stimulus Will Keep Unemployment Below 8 Percent[/quote]
[quote] “We’ve got to spend some money now to pull us out of this recession. But as soon as we’re out of this recession, we’ve got to get serious about starting to live within our means, instead of leaving debt for our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren.” [/quote]
[quote]A new Gallup poll of small-business owners indicates that Obamacare is having a dramatic and deleterious effect on Americans’ employment prospects. More than 40 percent of small-business owners say that Obamacare has caused them to freeze hiring, while nearly a fifth say that it has caused them to cut existing workers. According to the poll, 41 percent of small-business owners have frozen hiring, while 19 percent have “reduced the number of employees [they] have in [their] business as a specific result of the Affordable Care Act [Obamacare]” (italics added).
Just 9 percent of the 603 employers surveyed by Gallup said Obamacare will be good for their business, compared to 48 percent who said it will be bad. Just 5 percent said Obamacare will lower health costs, while 55 percent said it will raise them. Just 13 percent said Obamacare will improve the quality of health care, versus 52 percent who said it will diminish it.
Fully three-eighths (38 percent) of small-business owners said that, because of Obamacare, they “have pulled back on their plans to grow their business.”
In addition to these results, 18 percent of small-business owners say they have already cut their workers’ hours back to part-time levels in anticipation of Obamacare’s effects. Moreover, 24 percent “are weighing whether to drop insurance coverage.”
[/quote]
Any other President would have been drawn and quartered by the media for these things.
[i]George W. Bush had 6 years of experience in elected office when he was elected president in 2000. He had 2 years of military experience.
Ronald Reagan had 8 years of experience in elected office when elected president in 1980. Reagan also had 4 years of military experience.
Barack Obama had 12 years of experience in elected office.
MItt Romney was a one-term governor; 4 years of experience in elected office.[/i]
Executive experience Don. Executive leading a major business and/or state. You are using Obama’s experience as a Senator and community organizer? Nice to see how low you keep the bar. Let’s just hire a kid with 12 years experience delivering pizza to run Redwood barn. I guess any experience qualifies a person in your book.
There are 16 US Presidents that were US Senators. Only Richard Nixon come close to Obama’s lack of executive experience, and we know how that tuned out.
He promised health care. He delivered. You seem to have a great deal of trouble accepting that fact. In fact, all Republicans seem to have a great deal of trouble accepting that fact.
He delivered on the major promise of his campaign. It is his signature accomplishment, what he will be remembered for, and what historians will judge the Obama presidency for. You will consider it a failure. Millions of Americans will consider it an historic and hugely beneficial achievement.
Many of us don’t consider experience ‘running a major business’ to be a qualification for the presidency.
Obama had more electoral and legislative experience than someone John McCain wanted to put a heartbeat away from the presidency.
In a world based on merit, George W. Bush would never have attended Yale, would never have become governor of Texas, and certainly would never have become U.S. President.
Hilary Clinton ran against Barack Obama as a one-term senator from New York, in her first term. Her resumé was even thinner than his.
Nobody said, when Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton ran on their relatively thin levels of experience, that they were elected because they were white Southerners.
Nobody said that Hilary Clinton would be elected because she is a white woman.
But conservatives say that Barack Obama was elected because he is black.
I’m surprised to see you using PolitiFact, but their currently updated “Obameter” is:
[quote]The current tally:
Promise Kept 241 (45%)
Compromise 131 (25%)
Promise Broken 118 (22%)
Stalled 5 (1%)
In the Works 26 (5%)
Not yet rated 11 (2%)[/quote]
[quote]Growth issue, now I see why you want no growth in Davis. You don’t want people like Obama here.
[/quote]
To Don Shor, why is Toad’s post allowed to remain up?
You mean the one in which he implied that you wouldn’t want to live near Harvard-educated, liberal high-achievers like Obama?
[i]He promised health care. He delivered[/i]
What does that mean?
He hasn’t delivered squat. What he has done is effectively destroyed job opportunities for millions of Americans so that he gets some legacy.
Don, you defend him like one of those gun-lovin’ bible belt Christians defends Jesus. He can do no wrong in your eyes. He has done no wrong in your eyes. He is perfect… the Teflon Messiah. Maybe he is the second coming of Jesus… or Muhammad.
[quote]You mean the one in which he implied that you wouldn’t want to live near Harvard-educated, liberal high-achievers like Obama?
[/quote]
You see, that’s why I sometimes question the fairness of the moderation on this site. You know exactly what Toad is referring to and secondly the topic here has nothing to do with the Cannery. But like I’ve said before, if posts like that are allowed to remain then the door is opened.
Your racially obsessed remarks where you blame the messenger go hand in glove with your remarks about insidious housing. When called on it you claimed you found the “process insidious” but I, rightly or wrongly, inferred that you are opposed because you find the newcomers that would occupy the housing insidious. Put it all together and without having any idea who you are I have an image of what you are.
[quote]What does that mean?
He hasn’t delivered squat. What he has done is effectively destroyed job opportunities for millions of Americans so that he gets some legacy. [/quote]
October 1 the exchanges open. January 1 the individual mandate takes effect. Republicans know that at that point, the Affordable Care Act is here to stay.
[quote]Don, you defend him like one of those gun-lovin’ bible belt Christians defends Jesus. He can do no wrong in your eyes. He has done no wrong in your eyes. He is perfect… the Teflon Messiah. Maybe he is the second coming of Jesus… or Muhammad.[/quote]
No, he has met my expectations with regard to the things I considered important when I voted for him; specifically, health care and the two wars that we were in at the time.
Why the gratuitous religious crap?
[quote]But like I’ve said before, if posts like that are allowed to remain then the door is opened.[/quote]
Don’t count on it.
[i]Why the gratuitous religious crap?[/i]
I don’t know if you are devout, agnostic or atheist. I assume you are secular given past comments and your apparent political leanings, but I may be completely wrong about that.
I think spirituality is a human need like air and water. I find non-believing secular people more emotionally committed to their politics and their politicians… I think as a replacement for the other spirituality they lack.
Hence the “Messiah” and religious references.
Liberals are hyper critical of almost everything except their political power. Their posturing and reactions relative to their politics reminds me of the same for how a strong Christian defends his church and Jesus.
Obama makes a mess out of things, so you just keep narrowing the list of other things you can still point to as his successes.
Seems pretty desperate to me… kinda’ like you are holding on to a belief even as it clearly requires you to drink larger portions of Kool-Aid.
Don Shor
[quote]Don’t count on it. [/quote]
About what I would expect. Liberals seem to have much more latitude on here than conservatives do. Is this what you want David?
If you have concerns or questions about moderation of the Vanguard, you can contact me at donshor@gmail.com. If you wish to discuss my moderation practices with someone else, the contact links for the Vanguard are at the top of the screen
[i]Honestly, if anyone insists on their right to make inappropriate racial, religious or gender based slurs or jokes in a work place, I think they would do best in isolation with their like minded peers, because frankly, I don’t want to be subjected to that type of behavior. So why exactly should I humor louts in order to make them more comfortable being around me ?[/i]
Meds, I have been thinking about this post from you since last night when I read it. I have been trying to put in words what bothers me about it.
Here goes.
First, there is discrimination and true harassment, sexual or otherwise, and true hostile work environment. Then there is hypersensitivity. Basically this latter thing is just another form of intolerance.
You hit the nail on the head with your point about not wanting to associate with certain people. It should be your choice. If you want to be excluded from that group and are happy doing so, then I applaud you for doing so.
But, like for many liberal pursuits of social nirvana, you disingenuously dismiss the fact that the same people prone to intolerance of certain thoughts, words and behaviors, are also absolutely intolerant of being excluded. Let’s take a group of coworkers that get along well, but that are comfortable and tolerant of a level of banter. Now there is another coworker that is much more sensitive and intolerant of the banter, so the group excludes her from their group events. How do you think she will feel about that? Might she also bring a discrimination claim to follow up claim of hostile work environment or harassment? Absolutely. We see it all the time.
We really make a mess out of things when we attempt to legislate rules to protect feelings. We have gone way too far to the point that the most hypersensitive person in the group calls the shots. And that hypersensitive person uses a basis of what is usually immaterial harm to cause real material harm to another she is intolerant of.
Thinking back to my high school an college days, I had a group of friends that looked like the UN. Sexual, religious, racial, gender, height, weight, etc… just about anything one could think of… was an accepted target for friendly banter. None of it every represented any real bias. We were all friends and all cared about each other. When someone would go over the line, the rest of the group would call them on it.
Now fast forward to our more “enlightened” present time… here comes that hypertensive person that wants to be part of the group. She soon files a claim with the school administrators that there is harassing and hostile environment behavior going on. Students are warned, maybe some are expelled. The hypersensitive person gets her way… she trades her irritation and immaterial harm resulting from her personal intolerance, to cause real material harm to others she is intolerant of.
And we wonder why we are a growing divided nation. Thankfully, those hypersensitive people have not yet figured out a way to force their inclusion into most private circumstances. But they will not give up trying.
I have a better idea. How about seeing diversity and tolerance as less superficial bullshit, and instead take it to the fundamental point of humanness. Bottom line, we are all different and worthy of tolerance… up until the point we cause material harm to another. At that point we are worthy of scorn and possibly punishment.
[quote] I assume you are secular[/quote]
That’s correct.
[quote]I think spirituality is a human need like air and water. [/quote]
Obviously I disagree, or I wouldn’t be secular.
[quote]I find non-believing secular people more emotionally committed to their politics and their politicians… [/quote]
Neither provable nor falsifiable, so it is merely your belief, possibly even a projection on your part. I don’t agree, but I couldn’t prove it one way or another.
[quote]I think as a replacement for the other spirituality they lack….[/quote]
Obviously, people who are secular don’t feel they ‘lack’ anything by not being spiritual.
[quote] Hence the “Messiah” and religious references. [/quote]
No, you intended it as an insult. That is obvious.
[quote]Liberals are hyper critical of almost everything except their political power.[/quote]
Neither provable nor falsifiable, so it is merely your belief, possibly even a projection on your part.
[quote]Their posturing and reactions relative to their politics reminds me of the same for how a strong Christian defends his church and Jesus.[/quote]
I wouldn’t know.
[quote]Obama makes a mess out of things, so you just keep narrowing the list of other things you can still point to as his successes.[/quote]
Obviously, I don’t believe he has made a mess out of things. I could give a long list of accomplishments, a list of things he hasn’t done, describe the areas in which I agree, those in which I disagree with his statements or policies. But I see little point in that. I mentioned the two things that were most important to me as I decided whom to vote for.
[quote] Seems pretty desperate to me… kinda’ like you are holding on to a belief even as it clearly requires you to drink larger portions of Kool-Aid.[/quote]
There you go again. What is it with the weird Kool-Aid reference? Why can’t you possibly believe or accept that I voted for him because he and I share values more closely than I did with his opponent, because I supported his goals? I don’t expect my candidates or presidents to completely share my views. I don’t expect them to be perfect. Overall, I’m pleased with his performance. I tend to agree with the principles of the Democratic Party more than the Republican Party, so that isn’t too surprising. If I were an extreme conservative, I wouldn’t support him. If I were an extreme liberal, I might be disappointed. I line up more with the DLC wing of the Democratic Party, and that’s pretty much where I find him. And with regard to the things I mentioned – the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and health care policy – I concluded that the Republican Party was far, far from my position.
Frankly
[quote]There you go Don. What is your point? Are you trying to make this a racial thing again? That is my point. So, I cannot “hate” this President because he is black without you and your ilk being perfectly and smugly sure of yourself that this proved I am racist. Right? Well f**k you. I’m serious here. Stop throwing around that claim that others are racist without 100% proof to back that claim. It is a disgusting and despicable tendency and you should be ashamed.
[/quote]
Well said Frankly, you know how liberals play the game, if you don’t like the president’s policies you must be a racist. If you are for slow growth in Davis you must be a racist.
“I think Obamacare will ruin America, and is terrible policy.” Not racial.
“This president was elected because of the color of his skin.” What is that, if not racial?
“The Affirmative Action president.” What is that, if not racial?
So if the characterizations of the [i]man[/i] are racial, and derogatory, what term would you use to describe them? And if a similar critique is not applied to a previous president, whose accession to the presidency was clearly not based on merit, how would you describe the behavior of the person who is being so selective in his or her critique?
“Well said Frankly, you know how liberals play the game, if you don’t like the president’s policies you must be a racist. If you are for slow growth in Davis you must be a racist. “
The bigger problem is not that people disagree with the President’s policy, but how.