When I defended Obama last year, and argued that he was by far the better candidate, I annoyed a lot of people. But nothing provoked such ire as my suggestion that many of those who opposed Obama were motivated more by race than by abortion. And now, a year later, I think we need to come back to this point. For when I see the sheer lunacy of the right, especially when they protest, it seems that – deep down- they simply cannot abide a back president. Oh sure, there was the anti-Clinton nonsense, but it never reached this level of derangement.
Although you see the occasional pro-life message in the mix, this reaction has nothing to do with abortion. It has everything to do with Obama as the alien, as the man who should not be president, who is destroying the country with his anti-American policies. He’s a nazi, a communist, a terrorist, a socialist. He is trying to destroy the traditional American way of life. He is attacking freedom and freedom must be defended, with violence if necessary. If this sounds all too familiar, it is. These are the same attacks leveled against the civil rights movement a few decades ago.
Is it really a surprise that the most controversial political reactions to Obama in Congress last week come from white southerners in their sixties? It was Wilson who pointed his finger and called him a liar. And Clambliss told him to come to Congress showing some “humility”. Wasn’t that the attitude expected of blacks when Chambliss was growing up? And as for Wilson, it turns out that he belongs to an outfit called the Sons of Confederate Veterans, campaigned to keep the confederate flag flying above South Carolina’s state Capitol, and denounced Strom Thurmond’s black daughter for “smearing” him by going public.
The election of Obama has shown how the south is increasingly out of step. This is now the Republican heartland. These are the people who think Obama’s birth certificate was a fake, the people who think his health care reform entails killing old people, the people most likely to demonize him with ridiculous stereotypes, the slogans of a bygone era. Oh, and these are the folks our right-wing Catholic friends think are our allies in fostering the culture of life. Not only did the deep south not shift toward the Democrats in the last election, but Obama actually did worse than Kerry four years earlier. That I found very telling.
As Michael Sean Winters put it:
“But, watching and listening, it is difficult not to conclude that the strong sense of grievance, the idea that “Nobody’s standing up for us!” as one man from Tennessee put it, was not only to restore certain constitutional principles, but the social hierarchy that prevailed in earlier times, a hierarchy that kept blacks on the lowest rungs of society. No matter their degree of education, the most talented, educated black was still lower than the least educated white yahoo….Many of the virtually all-white crowd on Saturday yearned for an earlier time with less government involvement in society. But, that earlier time recalls, for many of us, the memory of states’ rights being enforced through dogs and water cannons.”
Or in the words of Maureen Dowd:
“For two centuries, the South has feared a takeover by blacks or the feds. In Obama, they have both.”
“Don’t bankrupt the country” = racism // “Bush lied, kids died” = anti-americanism.
The ability of some people to raise to the level of Truth mere assertions, without any but the slightest anecdotal evidence, never ceases to amaze.
There is no getting around the obvious. When the Right can let Bush mow down the Constitution they profess to love and defend, and then tear down every single thing President Obama does–one has to look at what lies beneath. And when you have a cracker like Wilson being so disrespectful to a sitting President–there is no damn question as to what lies beneath.
http://splashinthepacific.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/time-for-the-left-to-remind-themselves-that-this-is-their-country-too/
Oh, I didn’t realize that the apparent racism was obvious. I stand corrected. Fine argument.
I think the proof that race is an issue. . . even THE issue. . . for Obama critics is the fact that they took such pains to immunize themselves from the accusation.
It is simply taken as a given that Obama and his wife are the REAL racists, and that smirking crybaby, Glenn Beck, can simply state that he knows Obama has a “deep seated hatred for white people.”
During the election there was the alleged videotape of Michelle saying “F*** Whitey”. . . a tape that never surfaced.
By (successfully) tagging Obama as the racist, they themselves are free to indulge their worst instincts.
Very clever, in a sickening sort of way.
A day or two after the election last fall I was looking over the comboxes at a fairly prominent Catholic blog whose theme seemed to be something highly unusual like *We Hate Democrats, Liberals and Leftists Because We Are Hateful . . .oops I mean Prolife* Well what to my wondering eyes should appear but the word *mulatto* being used to describe the new president elect. The term may be technically correct (?) but has it been used in polite society since Reconstruction? Should you ask what does the average Catholic Blog have to do with Polite Society, that would also be a valid question. Anyway, many of the posters claimed to believe that Obama (the Mulatto) would only be president for “those people” the ones who loaf around ghettos waiting for welfare checks. Oddly enough, I saw almost no concerns being expressed about abortion, FOCA, fetal stem cells and all the reasons they supposedly hated democrats, liberals, leftists etc etc etc. But the racism was hanging out all over the place. After a few pages of this, the mod finally appeared saying the comments might be “misunderstood” so best to change the subject to something more mainstream like his real nationality or whatever. Misunderstood??? Really???
I think not.
SCP – I’ve heard it said that “racist” is the new “witch”. It’s an accusation that allows no presumption of innocence.
Sign at Saturday’s rally: “The National Zoo has an African Lion and the White House has a lyin’ African”
By (successfully) tagging Obama as the racist, they themselves are free to indulge their worst instincts.
Yes.
I find it really weird that MM and others are accused of seeing racism as the problem “underlying” all of these right-wing protests, seeing it, they say, where it doesn’t exist. Not only does racism “underlie” all of this protest nonsense, it is quite open and explicit as Kurt shows above. Any casual observation of these rallies will result in COUNTLESS expressions of racism. COUNTLESS. As for all of the “he’s an outsider,” “he’s not one of us,” “he is a Muslim,” etc. comments, in these contexts, these are racist comments. There is nothing to “interpret” falsely.
I’m not saying that there is no racist animus against Obama. I’m saying that it’s odd that a bunch of people who hate this country and who hate people who disagree with them to apparently find fault with others’ hatred. It’s so clear that hatred underlies all of your silly “arguments” about Obama critics’ supposed racism. Why is one hatred wrong and the other not?
You say you don’t hate those who disagree with you? Of course you’d say that. That’s exactly what a hater says. After all, it’s so OBVIOUS! OBVIOUS, you hear?!?
Please don’t point out the speck in the right winger’s eye until you remove the plank from your own.
Sorry for the sarcasm here, but It’s hard to have a serious conversation with people who think that they are entitled to believe the worst about others with scant, if any, evidence. Demonize them so you don’t have to engage their actual arguments, and all that.
And yes, Michael, it actually does require interpretation, false or true, and perhaps a good deal of projection (since we’re all psychologists here) to get from criticism of Obama to the supposition that it is all racist.
btw why is Obama always called black ? He has a white mother. That’s reminiscent of the old blood rules. Pigmentation variations setting people off is rather odd. Must be the reptilian brain or some such. A good part of the Republican party is apparently a paranoid lynch mob these day. One shudders to leave the coasts, although that Mormon mob made it to coastal NorCal, too to incite the people against gays. They must have a mobile commando unit. Graciously, Obama could be an elder there now, not so much 30+ years ago :P
“One of us” reminds me of the end of the classic b/w movie Freaks.
Let’s be honest: the person carrying Kurt’s sign probably was a birther. It’s conspiratorial, and nuts, but not necessarily racist.
Maybe a lot of the protests are motivated by race. Charity would demand less than the mere assertions in this post.
But maybe saying a president ought to show more “humility” is racist. It’s not like the Democrats ever accused Bush of being arrogant in office…
And of course, none of this changes the fact that Obama and his party are apparently more interested in killing children (particularly black people) via abortion than saving them, but maybe if you throw out as many insults as possible (I’ll have to add “racist” to “Calvinist” and that list) you’ll end up distracting us from the the sham health care bill, his Planned Parenthood connections, and his opposition to pro-life positions.
Pinky,
Exactly. If the only evidence you require to believe the unprovable are anecdotes, highly debatable interpretations of likely innocuous phrases, and an “Amen” choir of likeminded demonizers of the opposition, then you don’t deserve to be taken seriously.
Talk about scare tactics.
“the sham health care bill”
Excuse me???
“The ability of some people to raise to the level of Truth mere assertions, without any but the slightest anecdotal evidence, never ceases to amaze.”
And likely an occassion of sin for those people.
I’m saying that it’s odd that a bunch of people who hate this country…
I’ll stack up my patriotism to yours anyday.
The thing about the racism charge is that it automatically torpedoes dialogue with your opponent, since it trains focus on the motives of the opponent instead of addressing the content of their argument. While no doubt there are racists who are against Obama due to his race, his supporters are often making use of the racial issue in the same way our forebears used terms like “crypt-Nazi” or “Communist” to smear the right and left wings respectively. Like those charges, the racism charge usually makes use of tactics like insinuation, guilt-by-association, etc.
This is such a cynical exploitation of our country’s shameful race history that it actually disturbs me more than the relatively small percentage of southern towns with a suspiciously successful pillow case business.
By the way PCL, “cracker” is a racist term that you should be ashamed of yourself for using. Goes to show you there’s no party with a monopoly on ethnic slurs.
The thing about the racism charge is that it automatically torpedoes dialogue with your opponent…
You mean like the term “baby-killer”?
And for Mr. Naus, there are very few consistencies between your current incarnation and your prior self-constructed identity (right-wing Catholic) but they include 1. The absence of complex reasoning 2. Low tolerance for the tension created by moral complexity and 3. Contempt to the point of revulsion for those who don’t mirror you (all fundamentalist personality issues.) “one shudders to leave the coasts,” indeed.
Yes Kurt, exactly like the term baby-killer.
Magdalena,
Let’s leave the psychologizing about fellow commenters in threads out of the mix.
I apologize. I shouldn’t have done it, it just gets my goat! I am sorry.
Mark,
If you agree that psychologizing is bad form, which it is, then what are your thoughts on the claims of your fellow VNers that all criticism of Obama is obviously motivated by racism?
SCP,
Your usage of “all” evidences that you need to read more closely.
Excuse me???
It’s an incoherent stringing together of the various pet desires of competing lobbyist interests. I wish it would actually help some people get covered (I do like the new regulations) but poor people will be worse off than before. True reform looks nothing like Obama’s proposal.
Actually, Mark, I’ll refer you back to Minion’s original post and those likeminded here. “All” is not something they would dispute in this context. I’ve tried to give them room to back out of this ridiculous position, but to no avail. I’m open to being shown where they have shown willingness to carefully consider substantive criticism of Obama in this thread.
So you agree that there is such a thing as non-racist criticism of Obama.
PS I like how that’s what you respond to in my comment, and not the part about your accusation of racism lacking in evidence and charity.
“poor people will be worse off than before.”
Again, what kin of bizarro world are you getting this from? I will agree that much better reform would be single payer, but I also see the point of moving conservatively.
“your accusation of racism lacking in evidence and charity”
I’m simply applying Occam’s razor.
MM: that’s the problem with applying principles you don’t understand. You simplistically assume that there are only two possible motivations for people who criticize this president, which is nonsense to begin with, and then choose the one which allows you to feel morally and intellectually superior. My, that’s convenient.
Please tell me there are people who can defend this president with actual arguments and fair play. Otherwise, we’re worse off than I thought.
It’s so clear that hatred underlies all of your silly “arguments” about Obama critics’ supposed racism. Why is one hatred wrong and the other not?
As I understand it, Christians are supposed to hate sin. I hate racism, as racism is sin. Hopefully you do not need me to elaborate.
“All” is not something they would dispute in this context.
Nonsense.
I’ve tried to give them room to back out of this ridiculous position, but to no avail.
None of us need to “back out” of a position that we never expressed.
I’m open to being shown where they have shown willingness to carefully consider substantive criticism of Obama in this thread.
I’ve made substantive criticism of Obama myself.
Sure, I could amend my posts with a perennial footnote of equivocation. But, there’s not much complex reasoning required in disliking those bizarre mobs. Nor is there any moral complexity. It’s pretty straightforward. They rally round the family with a pocketful of shells. Bulls on parade.
The Democratic Party is rotten, too. It’s part of the same system where two behemoths take turns feeding at the same troth. It’s a question of who’s worse. The former is less likely to get you, or others a world away, killed. That doesn’t mean it’s not horrid.
But, the cake goes to the GOP, which has seriously degenerated, to a Joe the Plumber level, where ignorance is worn like a badge of honor and Jesus is a mascot for things like the Air Force Academy. Who would Jesus bomb. The GOP increasingly is a mix of a small financial elite enabled by birthers, creationists, and so forth. The former laughs all the way to the bank.
I’ve driven about 9000 miles across Europe, 8 countries, this year, from Amsterdam to Barcelona to Prague etc., and yes, overall things are better there for the average person. Community institutions tend to be something people take pride in, not sneer at as something for poor people. Solidarity seems to be a rather foreign concept in the US. (yes, Calvinism :P)
It’s the great talent of the GOP to recruit those lunatics with “culture war” issues, but in reality they help maintain the status quo which actually hurts them.
What but the basest instincts is the GOP appealing to these days ? Racism, greed, religious ressentiment, homophobia, you name it. If gays didn’t exist, the GOP would have to invent them. It’s just unfortunate that Obama isn’t “black” and gay. What a twofer that’d be for them.
Let’s leave the psychologizing about fellow commenters in threads out of the mix.
Uh, Mark. This whole post is psychologizing about ‘the other’. MM is rarely able to express disagreement without proceeding on to demonize those with whom he disagrees.
Michael,
Again, you’re assuming a sin (racism) in millions of people you don’t know, and in doing so, you dismiss many thoughtful arguments against the president. You can’t do that and expect to be taken seriously by anyone except the Leftist Amen choir. Of course, that may be your goal.
And you, most likely willfully, miss the point of the post wherein I (with noted sarcasm) accused you and your “all townhallers and vociferous critics of Obama are racists” of hating the people you disagree with. This would be a similar error to yours if I believed it.
Again, you ignore the distinctions you owe others out of fairness, charity and sanity, and insist on being shown such basic respect yourselves. ~Others criticize the president because of their obvious racism, but my criticism is substantive because it’s, well, mine!~
Nonsense.
Gerald, you bumper sticker reasoning here doesn’t help your central anecdotal claim – that Europe is, based on your experience, better for the average person.
Europe’s churches and cribs are empty. If you think that’s a good thing or that it bodes well for the future of the unsustainable European social democracy, then you’re just delusional. In Amsterdam, Progressive Nirvana, “menstrual evacuations” are performed on almost every woman whose period is late, without a pregnancy test, and are not recorded as abortions. “Deep sedation” end of life care is now rampant – which is essentially “compassionate euthanasia” and is no longer strictly voluntary – it is sold as a cost-saving solution to families. Yet this is not counted in euthanasia statistics. So this country which long ago gave up on Truth lies to make itself look like the paragon of hope to progressives, euphemizing euthanasia and abortion so they can make nonsensical claims about how healthy their country is.
Europe’s remaining greatness is an echo of its deeply Christian (now only remembered in art and architecture) past, which it has largely abandoned, except for a few stalwarts. It is imploding. Only the most superficial and whimsical of glances allows one to look at Europe as something to be emulated.
So was I being a racist when I wrote Alan Keyes onto my ballot? And more importantly, is Ambassador Keyes somehow a racist for strenuously opposing Obama?
http://www.loyaltoliberty.com
I think it’s a bit simplistic to chalk it all up to racism.
I think it’s a bit simplistic to chalk it all up to racism.
No one here is doing this. SCP repeatedly saying we are does not make it true.
Michael,
I must have missed the careful, nuanced distinctions made here by MM, yourself, and co. between your acknowledging conservatives who make reasoned cases against the President and his policies, and nonsense like: “I think the proof that race is an issue. . . even THE issue. . . for Obama critics…” and “What but the basest instincts is the GOP appealing to these days? Racism, greed, religious ressentiment, homophobia, you name it.” et cetera.
But I’m open to being shown where you’ve done this in this thread. Perhaps I wasn’t reading carefully enough. And I volunteer to not mention all of the counter arguments ignored.
No one here is doing this.
That’s a lie, Michael, assuming you read the post. MM said that race was ‘THE issue’; a claim about as plausible as the idea that you oppose Republicans because you are pro-choice.
John Henry,
Where did MM say race was “the issue”? While it is clear MM thinks it is a major issue, and indeed, one that is underlying many other criticisms of Obama (which he thinks is shown by the kinds of criticism Obama gets when it is no longer an issue about abortion), he didn’t say it was “the” issue, or it is “all” about racism.
I’m sorry, but let’s stop beating around the bush here. Listen to the language of the Beckians and the Palinistas. Are they attempting to have a sober debate on aspects of public policy? No, they are not. They lie, demonize, and use inflammatory language. I still have no idea what these clowns are protesting. They are inarticulate, inconsistent, and angry. Apply Occam’s razor. Their motivation is pellucid.
HK,
In the post above. Read it. For example:
For when I see the sheer lunacy of the right, especially when they protest, it seems that – deep down- they simply cannot abide a back president.
In other words, ‘deep down’ race is what’s driving the criticism of the President (assuming MM meant ‘black’ when he wrote ‘back’)
Michael:
You said no one here is doing this? Then why did MM write “For when I see the sheer lunacy of the right, especially when they protest, it seems that – deep down- they simply cannot abide a back president” ? True, there are racists on the right, and lunatics on the right, just as there are on the left. But opposition to Obama is neither lunacy nor racist. To attribute it to that is dismissive and ignores the fact that perhaps the right has a lot to say on the matter, and perhaps people should listen a bit more carefully rather than trying to shut them up and shut them out.
John Henry
There are many ways one can read it, including that where there is sheer lunacy in the right it is with the racism (it does not mean all protests are sheer lunacy, for example).
See also the comment under your most recent one, HK. Their real motives are ‘pellucid’. I don’t know why you and MM and Michael I. like defaming millions of people, but that is exactly what you’re doing.
I think this type of defamation is disgusting. Now, racism is more disgusting than defamation. And there certainly are some racists in this country; and they should be denounced.
But describing racism as the ‘pellucid’ ‘deep down’ reason for the protests, as MM does above, is political tribalist demagoguery; MM might as well be channeling Glenn Beck from the left.
Millions of people in the United States are unfortunately still racist, and we have seen this amidst the Beck and Palin crowds.
John Henry
Did you actually read what I wrote? You are reading a rhetorical description wrongly, and indeed, making it say what it doesn’t say.
Mark – that’s a non sequitur. Sure, racists are more likely to show up at protests; that doesn’t mean that most protesters are racists, much less that racism is the ‘deep down’ reason for the protests.
Unless, that is, you believe Obama’s falling approval ratings are only explainable by an increase in racist sentiment in the U.S. population…which MM may be suggesting any day now. After all, there couldn’t be any legitimate reasons to criticize the President…as we’ve seen, pro-lifers don’t really vote on abortion – they’re really motivated by racism! And voters aren’t motivated by economic anxiety – they’re really motivated by racism! And voters aren’t really worried about a health care reform proposal that does nothing to address the underlying problems with health care (as even it’s supporters admit) – they’re really motivated by racism! That’s just Occam’s razor according to MM.
HK – I read what you wrote, and think you’re reading of the post, particularly considered in context with MM’s comments below, strains credulity well past the breaking point.
JH,
The fact that Beck and Palin can draw the crowds (campaign and TV) they do, considering the vile stuff that has repeatedely come out of their mouths, evidences that millions of Americans are deeply driven by race when it comes to Obama.
Mark – I disagree. I think political tribalism (of the sort on display in this post) just as easily accounts for the crowds that Palin and Beck draw, and I despise both Palin and Beck. These tea party protests seem exactly the same to me as the leftist protests to Bush, the 9/11 truthers, and the Vince Foster Clinton-era nonsense.
I’m not a Republican. I’m not a Democrat. I’m basically a European-style social democrat with free market leanings. But I think the type of demonization on display in this post is harmful to civic discourse.
JH,
Political tribalism is definitely in the mix. But both figures (Beck and Palin) played the race card heavily also. This was/is very disconcerting to me.
I live far enough out of Pittsburgh in PA to see what still exists in rural areas of the country. As J. Carville once said, between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia is Arkansas. My experiences lead me conclude that much of the anti-Obama hysteria is based, among other things, on race.
Mark, So, you’re saying you think these protests wouldn’t be happening if, say, Clinton was President? Really? I just find that hard to believe with unemployment the highest it’s been in 20-30 years, the normal pro-life protests to a strongly pro-choice President, and a fiscally irresponsible and ineffective proposal for health care reform on the table.
Palin is racist too? Are you sure you’re not just listing people you don’t like?
Mark:
“The fact that Beck and Palin can draw the crowds (campaign and TV) they do, considering the vile stuff that has repeatedely come out of their mouths, evidences that millions of Americans are deeply driven by race when it comes to Obama.”
Me: Do you see the multifarious logical problems with this statement? I have both enjoyed and disagreed with a lot of what I’ve seen you post on this site, but this is unfortunately just nonsense.
1: Beck and Palin draw large crowds
2: Beck and Palin say vile (read: things the Left doesn’t like) things
Conclusion: “millions of Americans are deeply driven by race when it comes to Obama”
This is simply stupefying. I know that among the philosophical disciplines employed on VN, logic isn’t exactly high on the list, but come on.
“Evidences”? Even if your premises were correct (which is, to put it mildly, highly debatable), they in no way lead the the conclusion you seem to think that they do.
Yet this is happening all over this thread. Assertion as fact and argument.
Remember, it was Obama who played the race card during the election (“He doesn’t look like us…”, “He’s got a funny name…” etc.) as if his opponent said these things, which he did not. Preemptively accusing his opponent of racism. This should have been more scandalous to his supporters.
Unfortunately, as this thread again demonstrates, the left has no problem at all with imputing racism where it may or may not exist, then walking away as if the content of the opponent’s argument doesn’t matter.
Where are the serious liberals? I would enjoy a debate with Leftists who can engage in more than smears and caricatures of the opposition.
Seriously, I get very concerned when even the supposedly more enlightened defenders of ideas I oppose refuse to honestly engage in debate and simply demonize those with whom they disagree. This does not betray a great confidence in one’s position. The Left rightfully complained when the Bush admin did the same thing.
Further, under MM’s bizarre understanding of Occam’s razor, every prejudice would be justified.
I don’t know what motivates a person, but it might be (racism, sexism, Marxism, Communism, hatred of America, smurfs, etc.), so that’s what it must be.
Racist motivation is only the simplest explanation for these protests to the simple-minded.
Mark,
I should have qualified the logic thing better and made it sound less personal – logic as a study in itself is not often seen on this site. Didn’t mean to say that posters here are, for that reason, illogical.
Bizarre conversation, but typical. Folks here are more interested in defending racists than they are fighting racism.
Look, if you don’t want to feel like you’re being included in racist america when these conversations arise, then stop defending these movements and distance yourselves from then clearly and loudly.
Michael, who here has defended which racist?
See Drudge’s headline. http://www.drudgereport.com/
You know what game they are playing. The same old game.
Pinky,
I doubted that this conversation could get any more absurd but you proved me wrong. Way to go.
Michael,
Noting your lack of a sense of irony, I think we’re in agreement that this conversation has become absurd.
Michael, I already pointed out that Kurt’s sign was probably birther, not racist. You cite Kurt’s sign and “countless” other examples at the recent rally. So I went to ThinkProgress, which featured an article about radical, racist signs. They had six pictures. Only one of the signs was racist, and that was in protest of Obama’s white half. I honestly don’t see the persuasive evidence that you see.
Michael, I already pointed out that Kurt’s sign was probably birther, not racist.
I don’t think you’re correct. Your claim also fails to recognize the racism of the birthers themselves.
Only one of the signs was racist…
Perhaps your judgment of what is racist and what is not racist is questionable.
I honestly don’t see the persuasive evidence that you see.
You’re obviously not looking very hard.
Michael, who here has defended which racist?
Ah, you seem to have answered your own question. YOU are defending racists when you say: “Michael, I already pointed out that Kurt’s sign was probably birther, not racist.”
Other than customer service, phone costs, item return policies and Apple, the US is worse than any other Western country. That doesn’t mean one can’t have a nice life here, I certainly don’t have it bad. I just spend 2-3 months a year in Europe these days for recovery :P
Injustice is part of the human condition, but in the USA it’s an art form.
Church attendance doesn’t exactly seem to make people peaceful, looking at Europe, the opposite is the case, since this is by far the most aggressive, militaristic and most “pious” country in the West. (“home of the brave”). With the highest per-capita prisoner rate in the world (as well as in absolute numbers – 2.3 million), the USA is clearly the land of the free (check box). This is not merely a Republican problem, but a systemic one. It’s an ever-revolving door, e.g., for the mentally ill who stumble from parole violation to parole violation. To many, that’s proof that the “system works”.
The USA has 686 prisoners per 100k people, Norway, Denmark and Finland 59. I needn’t tell you the ethnic makeup of the US prison population. Not that it absolves criminals, but a society creates its own environment, it’s not an “act of God”.
Abortion rates are far higher, particularly among teenagers.
Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022801704_pf.html
Minorities have been particularly affected: One in nine black men ages 20 to 34 is behind bars. For black women ages 35 to 39, the figure is one in 100, compared with one in 355 for white women in the same age group.
Of the world’s developed countries only the US and South Africa offer no universal medical coverage.
Need I say what high finance has done to this country ?
On the bright side (sarcasm):
New York Review of Books http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17726
The US is an excellent place to be rich. Back in 1980 the average American chief executive earned forty times the average manufacturing employee. For the top tier of American CEOs, the ratio is now 475:1 and would be vastly greater if assets, not income, were taken into account. By way of comparison, the ratio in Britain is 24:1, in France 15:1, in Sweden 13:1.
“I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man,” — Jimmy Carter.
MM – Carter might want to remember how unpopular he was, and why: a stagnant economy and a foreign policy of favoritism to human rights violators, the same as President Obama.
…a foreign policy of favoritism to human rights violators, the same as President Obama.
And the same as Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II… just about everyone before Carter… It’s the american story.
“Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It’s what separates us from the animals — except the weasel.”
Homer Simpson
Pinky, Actually, Carter was known more for his attempts to increase the focus on international human rights in U.S. diplomacy. He wasn’t particularly successful, but it’s simply not accurate to imply that somehow he was unique in favoring human rights violators when his administration was marked by an increased focus on international human rights.
That said, I’ve basically regarded Carter as the crazy uncle of the family of former Presidents for some time now. His recent comments are unlikely to cause me to reconsider that view.
I see MM still enjoys painting with a broad brush.
I have more and more respect for the guy as a result of recent comments…
Before we canonize Carter
“during a March 1980 meeting with his senior political advisers, Carter, discussing his fading reelection prospects and his sinking approval rating in the Jewish community, snapped, ‘If I get back in, I’m going to [expletive] the Jews.’” Maoz also references the 1976 presidential campaign during which Carter, fearing that his opponent Senator Henry (“Scoop”) Jackson had the Jewish vote in the Democratic primaries locked up, “instructed his staff not to issue any more statements on the Middle East. ‘Jackson has all the Jews anyway … we get the Christians.’”